ELLIE LORAN’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
GORGIAS QUESTION, WITH MY COMMENTS
This is a wonderfully
composed thesis
paragraph. Because
there’s absolutely no fluff
here, Ellie is able to
explicate her main
argument in full, clear
detail. Note the steps she
takes: First she states her
main claim (i.e., that she
disagrees with Socrates).
And then she explains the
reasoning in support of
that claim step-by-step:
(1) she tells us that
Socrates claim is based
on a logical fallacy; (2)
explains what that fallacy
is (the unexamined
assumption that truth is
absolute); then shows
how that fallacy leads
Socrates into error (i.e., if
he had conceded the
possibility of relative
truths, he would have to
concede the potential
value of rhetoric.
A simple but effective
transition. Ellie talks
about Socrates overall
argument in paragraph 1,
so by referring us here to
the “building” of that
argument, readers know
that they’re being asked
to focus on a particular
part of the argument, i.e.,
its beginning.
Another simple but
effective transition. Ellie
talked about the
beginning Socrates
argument in the preceding
paragraph; here she let’s
us know she’s focusing
on the end while still
sticking the same topic:
examples of faulty
generalizations by
Socrates.
“Rhetoric may be useful,” claims Socrates in Plato’s
Gorgias, “but it is of small if any use to him who is not I added this phrase. It’s a
intending to commit injustice.” I firmly refute this good idea not to “float
statement, and primarily because Socrates was using none quotes,” i.e., to drop
quotations into your text
other than the art of rhetoric to convince Polus of his without integrating them into
stance. The way in which Socrates’ led to this conclusion your own writing. A reader
was the skillful employing of truths—statements with may lose track of who’s
speaking: you or the writer
which Polus agreed—to convince Polus of his (Socrates’) you’re quoting. What’s
opinion of reality. And yet, this persuasion would have more, by attributing this
merely been “an excuse for injustice,” in Socrates’ quotation to Socrates and
indicating its source, I help
analysis. The fallacy he employed when discoursing was orient the reader to relevant
that truth is absolute—that right and wrong are always features of the text under
clear. He did not explicitly state this assumption for he discussion.
knew that Polus would not have readily agreed to it.
However, he based his argument on this fallacy, and was
thus able to show that, “rhetoric is no use to us . . . that it
is only a [mechanism] for unjust actions to be made
manifest.” Had Socrates acknowledged that truth is
relative, he would have had to concede that rhetoric has
purposes besides helping to commit injustice: namely,
that rhetoric is an indispensable tool for seeking justice
“in instances when reasonable people can disagree.”
In the building of his argument Socrates employed several
metaphors comparing rhetoric to other “arts,” and yet two
of his primary metaphors conflict, voiding his point.
Shortly after the shift in dialogue when Socrates starts If Ellie were going to develop
this brief response into an
answer questions from Polus, Socrates proclaims that essay of, say, 5 or more
rhetoric is not an art at all, for it is like cooking, which is pages, she could develop
only an “experience in producing a sort of delight and individual analyses of some
or all of the examples
gratification. . . the habit of flattery.” Socrates continues mentioned (but not quoted)
labeling rhetoric as ignoble dismissing it as a frivolous here. Of course, she would
pursuit. Towards the end of the debate, in contrast, then have to think long and
hard about the order in which
Socrates reverses his opinion as it suited his argument and to present her analyses.
drew a parallel between doctors serving sick patients, You never want to sequence
money-makers serving the poor, and rhetors serving your discussion of the
relevant evidence in the
unjust souls. Not only does he convey that rhetoric thus is order that it appears in the
purposeful, but also that it is comparable with other text simply because that’s
the order you found it in.
vocations that serve to advance society.
This kind of organizational
decision should be made
At the end of the discourse, Socrates throws in another deliberately, i.e., in an effort
to best and most clearly
generalization that goes unchallenged by Polus—that “if
present your argument.
an enemy injures a third person, then [one] should try to
prevent his being punished.” Yet this statement rests
solely on the fact that humans are selfish by nature—a
contention that Socrates needed to have demonstrated, if
he wanted to utilize. At the conclusion of the argument, it
is clear that Polus is aware that Socrates is using
rhetorical techniques to prove his point, and that his point
may be just, even if rhetorical. The entire dialogue proves,
ironically, that rhetoric is always useful and in nearly
every circumstance.

If this were a longer

piece, it might need a
more substantial
conclusion: something to
tie together and round off
the threads of the
argument. Because this
is a brief response, Ellie’s
one sentence conclusion
works just fine.