Enthymeme

An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthýmēma) is an argument with a hidden premise.^[1]^[2] Enthymemes are usually developed from premises that accord with the audience's view of the world and what is taken to be common sense. However, where the general premise of a syllogism is supposed to be true, making the subsequent deduction necessary, the general premise of an enthymeme is merely probable, which leads only to a tentative conclusion.^[3] Originally theorized by Aristotle, there are four types of enthymeme, at least two of which are described in Aristotle's work.^[4]

Aristotle referred to the enthymeme as "the body of proof", "the strongest of rhetorical proofs...a kind of syllogism" (Rhetoric I, 1.3,11). He considered it to be one of two kinds of proof, the other of which was the paradeigma. Maxims, Aristotle thought, were a derivative of enthymemes. (Rhetoric II.XX.1). Aristotle discusses two types of enthymemes: demonstrative [deiktika] and refutative [elentika or rézoi (ῥέζοι)].^[5] (Rhetoric II.XXII.14). Demonstrative enthymemes are of the fact that something is or is not the case; they draw a conclusion from what is agreed. Refutative enthymemes draw conclusions that are not agreed to by the opponent. (Rhetoric II.XXII.15). According to Aristotle, refutative enthymemes are better liked by audiences because the inconsistencies or opposing arguments are clearer when placed side by side. (Rhetoric II.XXIII.30). Enthymemes are derived from probabilities, or what happens for the most part, and signs, which sometimes point to a necessary conclusion and other times are refutable.

^ Walton, Douglas (2009), Simari, Guillermo; Rahwan, Iyad (eds.), "Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction", Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 1–22, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_1, ISBN 978-0-387-98196-3, retrieved 2024-02-20
^ Bizzell, Patricia (2001). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 171. ISBN 9780312148393.
^ Bizzell, Patricia (2001). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 4. ISBN 9780312148393.
^ Benoit, William (Winter 1982). "The Most Significant Passage in Aristotle's Rhetoric". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 12 (1): 2–9. doi:10.1080/02773948209390622.
^ Cope, Edward Meredith (1867). An introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric : with analysis, notes and appendices. London: Macmillan. p. 175.

[1] Walton, Douglas (2009), Simari, Guillermo; Rahwan, Iyad (eds.), "Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction", Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 1–22, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_1, ISBN 978-0-387-98196-3, retrieved 2024-02-20

[2] Bizzell, Patricia (2001). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 171. ISBN 9780312148393.

[3] Bizzell, Patricia (2001). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 4. ISBN 9780312148393.

[Benoit1982-4] Benoit, William (Winter 1982). "The Most Significant Passage in Aristotle's Rhetoric". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 12 (1): 2–9. doi:10.1080/02773948209390622.

[E000-5] Cope, Edward Meredith (1867). An introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric : with analysis, notes and appendices. London: Macmillan. p. 175.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]