ABSTRACT
Antiquity provides no clear set of criteria for evaluating rhetorical argumentation. A workaround has been to use the partes rhetorices, originally for speech preparation, as a template for criticism. This often leaves inventio evaluations lacking, especially concerning argumentation. Furthermore, the overarching criterion of persuasive effect is difficult to implement in criticism. However, Aristotle’s definition presupposes that there are also intrinsic qualities that are based on ‘the available means of persuasion’, and it is here argued that evaluation can be based on quality and effect. These criteria build on the ‘art’ of rhetoric, especially the use of pisteis, at the intersection of speaker, speech, and audience. Additionally, the fallacies are a useful tool to describe weak arguments, the analysis of which can be extended with critical questions.
