How can readers distinguish between prejudicial and non-prejudicial use of rhetorical devices?

Question

I've looked at all the answers on here but I have not found what I am looking for. I need a good, flat answer for this one. It kinda has me scratching my head.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The role of using rhetoric is a form of using persuasive devices such as wording to achieve a goal in persuading and influencing the reader into a fallacy or belief that the author has on a subject or topic. A different way if describing is a person’s own “Spin” or “Belief” is not neutral and is bias and downplays the opposing view then it is described as rhetoric. Some of the devices or tools as described by reading, Moore and Parker (Critical Thinking, 2004) chapters 4 thru 6 are:
■ Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
■ Rhetorical Comparisons, Definitions, and Explanations
■ Stereotypes
■ Innuendo
■ Loaded Questions
■ Weaselers
■ Downplayers
■ Horse Laugh/ Ridicule/Sarcasm
■ Hyperbole
■ Proof Surrogates

One of the ways of distinguishing between prejudicial and non-prejudicial use of rhetorical devices is education and acquiring the skills that can identify what is rhetorical. Non-prejudicial rhetorical device can be described as slanting using “euphemisms”. This only means putting a positive spin on a negative expression. Another, Non-prejudicial device is using “weaselers”, it is a device in comparing or betting something is better than the other, sway criticism and slant a claim to improve the outcome of a statement. Prejudicial rhetorical device is the act of not hiding a slanted view by definitions by example. This can be explained by grouping people into certain cultural, political, and religious backgrounds and using that as advantage to persuade a viewpoint. “NASCAR fans are all the same they are all pot-belly, chain smoking and beer-drinking and are ignorant in real world politics.” Using this type stereotyping is strong but could be totally inaccurate without creditable facts thru research comparing all NASCAR fans and what could be perceived as a fallacy then the truth.

Source(s):

Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Thats exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.