ABSTRACT
This chapter presents psycho-logical models of argument, arguing that reasoning is more than computing. It examines argument—the linking of ideas in support of identifiable propositions. The chapter shows how rhetors seek to move audiences from individual assertions to an overriding conclusion. It shows that persuasion relies on a human, informal logic: The critic must remember that everyday reasoning standards are looser than those of scientists or judges; people make decisions based on feeling as well as thinking. In light of the features, the critic has two choices: Honor trad-itional logic by ignoring persuasion completely or study how such appeals work and warn others. This second option seems most sensible. After all, the first is defeatist, not to mention elitist. But the second option encourages closer study of people, a fundamentally humane act indeed. Whereas the philosopher considered ideas in pure, abstract forms, the psychologist investigated what people felt.
