1 4 4 PART 1 / INVENTION

light. As the pictures appear, an announcer says "Bush and Dukakis on crime." A picture of Bush flashes on the screen. "Bush supports the death penalty for first-degree murderers." A picture of Dukakis. "Dukakis not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first-degree murderers to have weekend passes from prison." A close-up mug shot of Horton flashes onto the screen. "One was Willie Horton, who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him nineteen times." A blurry black-and-white photo of Horton apparently being arrested appears. "Despite a life sentence, Horton received ten weekend passes from prison." The words "kidnapping," "stabbing," and "raping" appear on the screen with Horton's picture as the announcer adds, "Horton fled, kidnapping a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping his girlfriend." The final photo again shows Michael Dukakis. The announcer notes "Weekend prison passes. Dukakis on crime."

When the Bush campaign's "revolving door" ad began to air on October 5, viewers read Horton from the PAC ad into the furlough ad. This stark black- and-white Bush ad opened with bleak prison scenes. It then cut to a procession of convicts circling through a revolving gate and marching toward the nation's living rooms. By carefully juxtaposing words and pictures, the ad invited the false inference that 268 first-degree murderers were furloughed by Dukakis to rape and kidnap. As the bleak visuals appeared, the announcer said that Dukakis had vetoed the death penalty and given furloughs to "first-degree murderers not eligible for parole. While out, many committed other crimes like kidnapping and rape."

The furlough ad contains three false statements and invites one illegitimate inference. The structure of the ad prompts listeners to hear "first-degree mur- derers not eligible for parole" as the antecedent referent for "many." Many of whom committed crimes? First-degree murderers not eligible for parole. Many of whom went on to commit crimes like kidnapping and rape? First-degree murderers not eligible for parole.

But many unparoleable first-degree murderers did not escape. Of the 268 fur- loughed convicts who jumped furlough during Dukakis's first two terms, only four had ever been convicted first-degree murderers not eligible for parole. Of those four not "many" but one went on to kidnap and rape. That one was William Horton. By flashing "268 escaped" on the screen as the announcer speaks of "many first-degree murderers," the ad invites the false inference that 268 murderers jumped furlough to rape and kidnap. Again, the single individ- ual who fits this description is Horton. Finally, the actual number who were more than four hours late in returning from furlough during Dukakis's two and a half terms was not 268 but 275. In Dukakis's first two terms, 268 escapes were made by the individuals who were given a total of furloughs. In the ten-year period encompassing his two completed terms and the first two years of his third term (1987-88), 275 of 76,455 furloughs resulted in escape.

This figure of 275 in ten years compares with 269 who escaped in the three years in which the program was run by Dukakis's Republican predecessor, who created the furlough program. (17-20)

charts some of the enthymematic conclusions that voters were expected to supply. The first ad asked viewers to create the following enthymeme:

C H A P T E R 5 / L O G I C A L P R O O F : R E A S O N I N G I N R H E T O R I C 1 4 5

Major Premise: Convicted criminals ought to be kept in prison. Minor Premise: Our opponent allows convicted criminals to take

end furloughs outside prison.

Minor Premise: One prisoner committed a horrible crime while on furlough.

Conclusion: Our opponent does not keep convicted criminals in prison where they belong (or more subtly, "Our opponent is soft on crime"). The first statement is a general premise, drawn from beliefs held by the community. The minor premises are particular premises, since they refer to opponent and one prisoner. The third state- ment is a conclusion derived from comparing the premises. And as Professor Jamieson demonstrates, voters were then asked to connect this enthymeme to another, constructed in the "revolving door" ad.

As is apparent from this example, the placement of premises in rhetoric does not require the rigorous formal analysis that is necessary in logic. Thus other conclusions could be drawn from the premises of this enthymeme: that our opponent does not share beliefs that are widely held within the community and that, as a result, the community should not vote for him. Obviously, the ad writers hoped that voters would draw these fur- ther conclusions. Nor are rhetors obligated to offer only two premises and a conclusion, as logicians are. Rather, an enthymeme may contain as many premises as are needed to secure the audience's belief in the conclusion.

Ordinarily, rhetors do not state all of the premises and conclusions of an enthymematic argument. The ad writers who devised the enthymeme about furloughed criminals omitted its first general premise (convicted criminals ought to be kept in prison), and they did not explicitly state its conclusion in their television the second ad, they care- fully constructed the enthymeme so that it was ambiguous, allowing view- ers to draw conclusions that were not true.

From the winning candidate's point of view, this was a very success- ful argument. From a rhetorician's point of view, however, it is an exam- ple of what Aristotle called "false reasoning," because its premises were not true. Rhetoricians are ethically obligated to avoid using premises that are not true.

Enthymemes are powerful because they are based in community beliefs. Because of this, whether the reasoning in an enthymeme is sound or whether the statements it contains are true or not, sadly enough, makes little difference to the community's acceptance of the argument. Enthymemes work best when listeners or readers participate in construct- ing the is, if their prior knowledge is part of the argument, they are inclined to accept the entire argument if they are willing to accept the rhetorician's use of their common, prior knowledge. For this reason, enthymematic arguments do not have to be spelled out completely. The rhetorician may even omit premises or conclusions. The audience will enjoy supplying the missing premises for themselves, and may be more

1 4 6 PART 1 /

readily persuaded by the argument because they have participated in its construction.

Take this enthymeme, for example: "Good people do not commit mur- der; Ethica is a good person; therefore Ethica did not commit murder." While delivering this argument, the rhetor might omit the minor premise, saying only this: "Since good people do not commit murder, obviously Ethica is not guilty." Or he might omit the conclusion: "Good people do not commit murder, and Ethica is a good person." It is easy for the audience to supply the implied conclusion. As is true of all rhetorical premises, the major premise of this enthymeme is a probability rather than a certainty, and thus exceptions to it do exist.

The placement of premises in rhetoric does not require the rigorous for- mal analysis that is necessary in logic. And ordinarily, rhetors do not state all of the premises and conclusions of an enthymematic argument. Nor are rhetors obligated to offer only two premises and a conclusion, as logicians are. Rather, an enthymeme may contain as many premises as are needed to secure the audience's belief in the conclusion.

Cicero pointed out that while experienced rhetoricians know how to trace out all the arguments that appear in enthymemes, they do not present them according to the strict arrangement of their premises developed dur- ing invention. Rather, when it came to arrangement and delivery, a rhetor should chain premises together in the most effective way. The important thing, for Cicero, was to take a variety of approaches to laying out argu- ments for audiences. He counseled that a rhetor should "use induction at one time and deduction at another; and again, in the deductive argument not always employ possible parts nor embellish the parts in the same fashion, but sometimes to begin with the minor premise, sometimes use one of the . . . proofs, sometimes both, and finally, use now this and now that form of conclusion" (De Inventione I 76). In other words, enthymemes may begin sometimes with premises or conclusions, depend- ing on which is most effective in a given rhetorical situation. Furthermore, rhetors may omit premises that are self-evident to an audience. Cicero maintained that a few practice sessions would demonstrate just how easy it is to compose effective enthymemes.