I agree with your groups because simply because I got the impression of rhetoric being different kinds of communication like you stated in the first part. Because rhetoric can be any kind of communication. And the last part of your sentence is most definitely true in my opinion because the whole point for the speaker is to persuade his/her audience to agree with what the speaker is saying.
I also agree with this definition. It was to me the easiest to understand and most clearly put. The group briefly addresses all three components of rhetoric and combines these components into one concise sentence.
Not only is this definition so easily understood, but it is also short and to the point. I feel like the lengthier a definition is, the higher probability it has to become manipulated and misconstrued. This is a perfect and concise definition! The only thing I could possibly recommend is to change the wording of "enact a change in the audience" to be more specific to ensure that the "change" the audience has is one that is beneficial to the speaker--considering that "change" is a broad term and includes many different types.
It makes me really happy that you guys all liked our definition! I agree with the above comment about specifying that the change is one that the speaker desires. I also think that it could be useful to mention that the change can be physical, as in moving the audience to make a certain action, or mental as in swaying the audience to a certain point of view or ideaology.
I liked this definition because it was short and to the point, making it easier for the reader to comprehend the definition rather than having an overly detailed definition. I don't think anything needs to change within the definition.
I like this definition because it is simple, easy to understand, and states what I believe rhetoric is. I think the methods could have been expanded in further sentences if the definition was supposed to be a paragraph. I also like that your definition includes addressing a situation, because there has to be some primary reason that the speaker wants to bring about change in the audience.
I like the definition, it has the main gist of what 'rhetoric' is but you may want to expand it a bit and also, be a little bit more specific. For instance, a rhetor doesn't necessarily need to be a speaker in the sense that he/she is giving a speech. Expand on it and make clear that there are various forms and medias through which to produce rhetoric.
I agree with your groups because simply because I got the impression of rhetoric being different kinds of communication like you stated in the first part. Because rhetoric can be any kind of communication. And the last part of your sentence is most definitely true in my opinion because the whole point for the speaker is to persuade his/her audience to agree with what the speaker is saying.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this definition. It was to me the easiest to understand and most clearly put. The group briefly addresses all three components of rhetoric and combines these components into one concise sentence.
ReplyDeleteNot only is this definition so easily understood, but it is also short and to the point. I feel like the lengthier a definition is, the higher probability it has to become manipulated and misconstrued. This is a perfect and concise definition! The only thing I could possibly recommend is to change the wording of "enact a change in the audience" to be more specific to ensure that the "change" the audience has is one that is beneficial to the speaker--considering that "change" is a broad term and includes many different types.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me really happy that you guys all liked our definition! I agree with the above comment about specifying that the change is one that the speaker desires. I also think that it could be useful to mention that the change can be physical, as in moving the audience to make a certain action, or mental as in swaying the audience to a certain point of view or ideaology.
ReplyDeleteI liked this definition because it was short and to the point, making it easier for the reader to comprehend the definition rather than having an overly detailed definition. I don't think anything needs to change within the definition.
ReplyDeleteI like this definition because it is simple, easy to understand, and states what I believe rhetoric is. I think the methods could have been expanded in further sentences if the definition was supposed to be a paragraph. I also like that your definition includes addressing a situation, because there has to be some primary reason that the speaker wants to bring about change in the audience.
ReplyDelete--Katherine Kennedy
ReplyDeleteI like the definition, it has the main gist of what 'rhetoric' is but you may want to expand it a bit and also, be a little bit more specific. For instance, a rhetor doesn't necessarily need to be a speaker in the sense that he/she is giving a speech. Expand on it and make clear that there are various forms and medias through which to produce rhetoric.
ReplyDelete