ABSTRACT
In this chapter, a popular modern method and a forgotten ancient one are compared to highlight differences in ancient and modern views on argumentation. The epicheireme, an ancient argument scheme, is rarely featured in rhetoric textbooks. In its place, the Toulmin model has been adopted, both as a teaching tool and as a method for argumentation analysis. Both schemes have drawbacks, and neither model offers criteria for evaluation. The epicheireme was devised for speech-making, whereas Toulmin’s model is descriptive. Despite the Toulmin model’s dominance in argumentation analysis, it is argued in this chapter that for some uses, especially those of rhetoricians, the epicheireme is better suited since its elements are easier to use, it is more flexible, and it naturally aligns with neo-classical rhetorical criticism.
