Blog 4

Our reading from ARCS this week make me think about how important logic is in arguments, but how often false logic is used and how many times it can be more effective than facts.  I think enthymemes can be very effective, but oftentimes I feel like they lead to false logic, no matter how effective they are at the time.  The book pointed out the example of 9/11 and how it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, making the syllogism useless and incorrect.  This reading also brought me back to stasis where oftentimes arguments aren't arguing about the same point and I feel like a lot of that is due to enthymemes that either side relies on.  I feel like a lot of ancient rhetoricians would believe that logos is the most important aspect of rhetoric, but I think this chapter in ARCS once again points out how it's not.  This reading also made me think if believing enthymemes and syllogisms is something that's taught to us or if it's something we would naturally do without the help of society.  In 2001, it seemed like 90% of the United States believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite the fact that they knew the attackers most likely came from Afghanistan.  I feel like President Obama also capitalized on the unpopularity of President Bush by using an enthymeme in the form of basically everyone is sick of Bush, therefore it's time for a change.  While many people agreed with that, there are clearly many gaps in logic in his campaign...mostly based on the fact that Obama basically argued that Americans should vote for him just because he was not Bush, not necessarily for his beliefs or policies.  Overall, enthymemes are very effective, especially in politics, but I think we would be better off as a society if we realized that enthymemes often lead to logical fallacies.