Rogerian rhetoric is a type of arguement paper that was inspired by Carl Rogers and his way of thinking. He was a “humanist” psychologist that believed that an topic of debate would better be approached from a neutral stand point. This is a good point because who would want to listen to an essay that immeadiately states something you don’t agree with. How will you ever get people to see the other side of the topic? Plus, It’s not just about getting the other side to listen, it’s about showing in the paper that there is common ground that both sides, regaurdless of their views, can agree on.
My own questions about it would be:
What is the best format for a specific topic? (which view/opinion goes first?)
Could there be some cases that follow different patterns – when?
How do i write the last paragraph, the solution, without giving too much of my own opinion??
I didn’t really understand the last paragraph of that sample essay. She didn’t really come up with a solution, just kind of stated that the behavior is something we grow out of.
Do many topics have a common ground that can be uncovered?