Chapter 1 (3 - 44)

It is difficult for me to think about everything as being an argument however, it does make sense. I never thought there was a difference between types of arguments. Especially those that are time justified such as the past, present and future. The different steps in determining the focus of an argument are also interesting to me because they strongly correlate to those of law practices. By determining whether there is a fact in question, the nature of that fact, the quality of the information and the actions that should be taken is almost like the structure for a court case. The basis of a court case or hearing IS an argument, so this makes logical sense when you think about it. I am most interested in the different approaches one can take when trying to appeal to certain audiences such as the pathos, ethos and logos.

I struggled a bit with the distinction between purposes of an argument. I understand that arguments are made for different purposes and that that affects the way someone would present an argument, but isn't this common knowledge? Also, the difference between argument being a conviction and persuasion being an action is still hazy. I feel that although the text says "persuasion is to change a point of view or move others from conviction to action" doesn't an argument do that too? Or are they a time sequence of events? First the argument, then comes the conviction. Second the persuasion, then comes the action? Is the action always the objective of the beginning for an argument?