CMS 150 - Argument Analysis Form

 
      Forensic Rhetoric

              If the text reflects the perspective of the accused,

                    How does the accused respond to the factual allegtions of his/her
                    accusors?

                           Does the accused accept the factual allegations of the accusor? 

                           Does the accused refute, contradict or challenge the factual
                           allegations of the accusor? 

                           Does the accused treat the factual allegations of the accusor as
                           irrelevant?






                    How does the accused characterize the law under which he/she is being
                    charge?




                    How does the accused characterize the relationship between the facts and
                    law in the case? 






                    Does the accused suggest that the charges against him/her mask the "true"
                    charges of the case (which themselves could not be the basis of a trial)?






                    Does the accused put his/her own character in issue (i.e., argue that based
                    on the sort of person he/she is (a characterization of class, gender, status,
                    reputation), he/she could not have violated the law under which he/she is
                    charged or committed the conduct alleged against him/her?





                    How does the accused treat the character or reputation of his/her
                    accusors?





                    How does the accused treat the trier of fact (explicitly, implicitly, not at
                    all)?






                    How does the accused treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of
                    fact and the accusor? 






                    How does the accused treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of
                    fact and the accused?





                    Does the accused address an audience beyond the trier of fact (members
                    of the public present that day, subsequent generations?)






              If the text reflects the perspective of the accusor, 

                    On what factual allegations does the charge depend?






                    How does the accusor prove the truth of his/her factual allegations
                    (testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, appeals to common
                    knowledge, arguments based on the character of the accused)?






                    Does the accusor make factual allegations that he/she does not attempt to
                    prove?


                           If so, what is the purpose of these allegations?






                    How does the accusor describe the law under which the accused is tried?






                    Does the accusor attempt an explicit argument linking factual allegations
                    to the law under which the accused is tried?






                    Does the accusor make arguments based on the character and reputation
                    of the accused?






                    Does the accusor make arguments based on his/her own character and
                    reputation?






                    Does the accusor attempt to anticipate objections the accused might have
                    to his/her factual allegations or characterization of the law?






                    Does the accusor attempt to anticipate arguments that the accused might
                    make based on the character or reputation of the accusor?






                    Does the accusor attempt to anticipate arguments that the accused might
                    make based on the accused's character or reputation?






                    How does the accusor treat the trier of fact (explicitly, implicitly, not at
                    all)?




                    How does the accusor treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of
                    fact and the accusor? 




                    How does the accusor treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of
                    fact and the accused?





                    Does the accused address an audience beyond the trier of fact (members
                    of the public present that day, subsequent generations?)






              Textual Rhetoric

                    What genre of text is the trial recorded in (biography, memoire,
                    transcript, letter, novel, courtroom speech, etc.)?




                    How do you think conventions associated with this genre affect the
                    account of the trial offered by the text?






                    How do you think these conventions may have affected the way the text
                    presents the forensic rhetoric of the accused or accusor?






                    Does the text purport to represent the voice of the accused or accusor
                    directly (as opposed to embedding that voice within another perspective;
                    e.g., that of a biographer, a historian)? If yes,

                           Do we know if the text actually does represent that voice directly?






                           If the text doesn't present that voice directly, how do you account
                           for this deliberate misrepresentation?






                           Does this misrepresentation affect the way you analyze the
                           forensic rhetoric of the text? How?





                    If the text does not, or does not pretend to present the voice of the accusor
                    directly, how does it present the perspective of the author, narrator,
                    creator of the text?





                           Does it repress or acknowledge this perspective? 
                           How?






                    Do you detect tensions between the authorial perspective and that of the
                    accused or accusor in the text? What are they?






                    Does the knowledge that the text explicitly offers a representation of the
                    accused or accusor affect the way you analyze the forensic rhetoric of the
                    text? How?