10.1 Advanced Techniques Overview

These come under the categories of advanced techniques not necessarily because they are more complicated than the “basic” techniques, but because they are designed to work with topics that are not too broad and have been arrived at using some of the other methods of invention – topics the writer is wanting to know more about or deepen in someway. For example, the topoi questions would work better with topics like freedom of speech, alcoholism, or public transportation, rather than topics like the meaning of life, the size of the universe, or the location of all the socks that have ever been lost. Some of the advanced techniques are designed to yield a specific kind of answer, like the 5 Whys technique, which must be stated in terms of a problem or effect, and is specifically intended to find a root cause.

10.2 Interrogating Your Topic

10.2.1 List of Questions

This method simply applies the list method of brainstorming to questions. It is easiest to start out with the  five journalist’s questions: who? what? when? where? and why? From there, the inventor can come up with questions they have about the topic that go beyond these initial questions. How questions are especially revealing, but there are others.

10.2.2 The Topoi

The Greek word topoi, roughly, means “places.” But yet it has that same double meaning, kind of, that we saw in ethos, in that it can mean both places or topics, resulting ultimately in a confusion between what the classical rhetoricians meant when they said topic, and what they meant when they said commonplace. The division in classical rhetoric is, in fact, unclear, as the writers used the terms interchangeably to mean different things. Here we follow Crowley and Hawhee in their distinctions between what the rhetoricians called common topics, special topics, and commonplaces; in fact, we may here simplify them even further by suggesting that what Aristotle called the common topics were classes of arguments, while the commonplaces were specific arguments, and that what Aristotle called the special topics were merely less common commonplaces. There are, admittedly, problems with this, as there are with any oversimplifications, but for our purposes, in the words of Farmer Hoggett: “it’ll do.”^[1]

10.2.2.1 Common Topics

Aristotle divided the common topics up as follows:

10.2.2.1.1 Definition

• Genus
• Species

10.2.2.1.2 Comparison

• Similarity
• Difference
• Degree

10.2.2.1.3 Relationship

• Cause and Effect
• Antecedent and Consequence
• Contraries
• Contradictions

10.2.2.1.4 Circumstance

• Possible and Impossible
• Past Fact and Future Fact

10.2.2.1.5 Testimony

• Authority
• Testimonial
• Statistics
• Maxims
• Laws
• Examples

10.2.2.2 Special Topics

Classical rhetoricians identify 3 general categories of rhetorical discourse : deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Somewhere within these general categories arise particular claims, topics, and means of argument that may not be as universally applicable as the common topics. For example, in the judicial category, legal arguments have very specific rules for what counts as evidence, for what kind of testimony is credible, and what kinds of questions can be asked. Most of the information in this handbook concerns the deliberative mode, but for our purposes, we can collapse most of the special topics into “commonplaces,” so long as we are sensitive to the idea that common places, in spite of the word “common” in the name, are treated as audience specific.

10.2.2.3 Commonplaces

Commonplaces are something like common topics of discussion, but some are more common than others, and none are universal, as the classical rhetoricians say the common topics are. Crowley and Hawhee suggest that shared ideologies of communities large and small are made up of a complex of commonplaces, or beliefs about”how the world works what is valuable, and what is to be avoided.”^[2] Commonplaces include basic truths, but more importantly, basic types of reasoning. These specific truths and types of reasoning are especially easy to see codified in cliches or short aphorisms like these you may recognize:

• All that glitters is not gold.
• Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
• Children should be seen and not heard.
• If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.

It is aphorisms or commonplaces like these that can reveal a kind of commonplace structure of discourse communities both large and small, major and minor, dominant or subordinate. If we treat commonplaces as components of discourse communities, then my thinking is that they subsume any of the special topics, allowing us to ignore special topics, as such, for now. Just as a quick example, the question: “is light a particle or a wave?” might be a special topic, since it requires scientific experimentation to answer it, but the commonplace “light is both a particle and a wave” belongs also to the discourse community of quantum physics. At the same time, is is a type of universal topic, or a common topic, in that it is a comparison of the likenesses and differences between two things.

To simplify, think of the common topics as the universal arguments, and commonplaces as particular arguments.

10.2.2.4 Topoi Questions

Coming up with an idea or topic for an essay can be looked at in one of two ways. From the magic hat perspective, the writer is coming up with some topic out of thin air. But it isn’t really that there aren’t enough topics to address, it is more that there are too many, and the most difficult part is trying to narrow the list of all possible topics down to something the writer is interested in or that hasn’t been talked about too much over and over again. One way to narrow a topic down is to use the topoi questions, which if used properly, can suggest interesting and original possibilities for sub-topics.

One of the topoi questions, for example, is What is ___________ different from? How? The trick here is to substitute our topic for the ____________in the topoi question, so if you have general topic like, let’s say “trash,” you might ask “what is trash different from?” Recalling the aphorism, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, one might say that trash is different from treasure. Okay, so what about the second part of the question: How? That is the part that can generate ideas. How is treasure different from trash? Treasure is something that has value to someone, while trash is something that has no value or use to anyone. The original iphone might have been a treasure to someone in 2007, but now it is considered to be trash by many and is quickly becoming fodder for landfills. This could make one wonder what has changed? Same object, different value. Other old stuff is trash for a while but becomes treasure again, like phonograph records, many of which cost far more now than they did when they were first released. What’s up with that?

In this one simple question, you can see, there are multitudes of questions and answers, and, more importantly, possible topics. Not only that, there are a lot more topoi questions that cover various aspects of a given topic, like questions of definition, questions of value, and questions of cause and effect. Really, going through the topoi questions and NOT thinking of new and interesting aspects of a particular topic would be an anomaly. If you have a well-rehearsed topic like gun control, capital punishment,  and abortion (which is not to say these topics are no longer relevant – but that nearly everything that can possibly said about them has already been said), then you might be able to find a new angle through the use of the topoi.

10.2.2.4.1 List of Topoi Questions^[3]

Use these questions to interrogate a general topic. Some of the answers may not make sense, but the true efficacy of these questions lies in the thinking that the writer has to go through to come up with a viable answer, not in the answer itself.

10.2.2.4.1.1 Definition

1. How does the dictionary define _________________?
2. What do I mean by _________________?
3. When is the meaning of _________________ misunderstood?
4. What group of things does _________________ seem to belong to? How is _________________ different from other things in this group?
5. What parts can _________________ be divided into?
6. Does _________________ mean something now it didnʹ t years ago?
7. What other words mean approximately the same as _________________?
8. What are some concrete examples of _________________?

10.2.2.4.1.2 Comparison

1. What tensions or oppositions exist in ________?
2. What are potential contradictions in ________?
3. Are there paradoxes/irreconcilable contradictions in __________?
4. What is _________________ similar to? How?
5. What is _________________ different from? How?
6. _________________ is superior to what? How?
7. _________________ is inferior to what? How?

10.2.2.4.1.3 Relationship

1. What causes _________________?
2. What are the effects of _________________?
3. What is the purpose of _________________?
4. Why does _________________ happen?
5. What is the consequence of _________________?
6. What comes after _________________?
7. What comes before _________________?

10.2.2.4.1.4 Circumstance

1. Is _________________ possible or impossible?
2. What qualities, conditions, or circumstances make _________________ possible or impossible?
3. When did _________________ happen previously?
4. Who has done or experienced _________________?
5. Who can do _________________?
6. If _________________ starts what makes it end?
7. What would it take for _________________ to happen now?
8. What would prevent ________________ from happening now?

10.2.2.4.1.5 Testimony

1. What have I heard people say about _________________?
2. Do I know any facts or statistics about _________________? What?
3. Have I talked with anyone about _________________? 4. Do I know any well ‐ known saying about _________________?
4. Can I quote proverbs or poems about _________________?
5. Are there any laws about _________________?
6. Have I read anything about _________________ in books or journal articles?
7. Do I want to do any research on _________________?

Notice when you reach the rhetorical stasis technique, that these topic divisions correspond quite closely to the four classical rhetorical stases or types of claims, to which I, like many composition textbooks including Everything’s an Argument and Writing Arguments, would add the causal argument.  The causal argument corresponds to the relationship topic designated above.

10.2.3 Five Whys Root Cause Analysis

It is highly likely that your thesis statement, especially if it uses the proposal format of a should…because statement, either points directly to a problem, is associated with a problem, or stems from multiple underlying problems. Take the following thesis statement for example:

The Aspen City Council should replace all paved city streets with parks because doing so will reduce traffic in town, reduce pollution, and save money on traffic enforcement.

It is pretty obvious that the proposed solution of demolishing the city’s infrastructure stems from three problems, which here are stated as reasons for implementing it:

Too much traffic.

Too much pollution.

Too much money spent on traffic enforcement.

The question we should be asking is “Are these problems all caused by paved streets?” If not, what is their real root cause? Discovering the root cause can sometimes lead to inventive solutions one might not have originally thought of. That is where the five-whys root cause analysis can come in handy as a tool of invention.

Introduction

Sakichi Toyoda, founder of the Toyota Motor Company, is often credited with the invention of the Five Whys methodology, but I am pretty sure that 5-year-old children all over the world invented it, and the root cause after about 20 whys turns out to be “just because, now stop asking why!”

The methodology suggests that, when faced with a problem, you should create a statement of the problem and then ask why it occurs five times, with each why question constructed from the answer to the previous why question. By the time you have asked why five times, the methodology suggests, you should have arrived at something like a root cause, rather than just a symptom of some deeper phenomenon.

Here is how it works:

How the Five Whys Root Cause Analysis Works

First, pick a problem. We will use one of the problems above and see if, perhaps, we end up with a different root cause, which in turn, might suggest a different solution.

Second, state the problem in terms that don’t suggest a cause or a solution you already have in mind. In the Aspen Streets example above, the statement of the problem might be:

There is too much traffic in Aspen.

You will get nowhere if you state the problem in a way that already presupposes a cause, like this:

There is too much traffic in Aspen since there are too many streets.

Third, use the statement of the problem as the basis for your first why question:

Why is there too much traffic in Aspen?

Fourth, answer the question in the simplest terms possible.

There is too much traffic in Aspen because there aren’t enough roads in Aspen to keep up with the population growth in Colorado.

Fifth, use the answer to the previous why question to form a new problem statement.

There aren’t there enough roads to keep up with the population growth in Aspen because there is not enough money allocated to pay for them.

Next, reframe the new problem statement as a question, answer it, and repeat:

Why aren’t there enough roads to keep up with the population growth?

There aren’t enough roads in Aspen to keep up with the population growth because the John Denver sanctuary takes up too much room in the center of town.

Why does the John Denver sanctuary take up so much room in the center of town?

The John Denver sanctuary takes up so much room in the center of town because John Denver was a popular singer who lived in Aspen and wrote a song called “Starwood in Aspen.”

Why did John Denver write the song “Starwood in Aspen”? (Notice that you have several options to base a new question off of here – it would be an opportunity to create a new branch of the 5 whys analysis, which would result in a branching 5 whys analysis – we will talk about that in a minute)

John Denver wrote the song “Starwood in Aspen” because he was homesick.

Why was John Denver Homesick?

John Denver was homesick because, as a popular musician, he spent a lot of time on

the road touring.

Finally, draw a conclusion about the root cause by combining the first statement of the problem with the answer to the last why question, like this:

There is too much traffic in Aspen because John Denver spent too much time on the road touring.

Now, this conclusion is admittedly pretty silly. That is going to happen with this methodology, but that is also the generative power behind it; it can drill down to deeper causes that are not immediately apparent.

Your Challenge

Identify a possible problem you might need to address in your argumentative research essay, then  perform a branching 5 whys root cause analysis on it.

1) Identify a problem.

2) Ask why and respond to each answer at least 5 times.

3) Identify at least 2 additional branches of why questions.*

4) Identify finally a root cause of the problem that invites potential solutions.

*A branching Five Whys root cause analysis accounts for the fact that there might be multiple answers to any one of the five why questions.

Most importantly, remember that the name of this method in no way limits you to five questions. Sometimes it could take more, sometimes it could take less. The idea is to look at the why chain you have created and find the link that makes the most sense.

10.3 Prospecting for Claims and Reasons

In order to create an argument you will at some point need to make a claim. This is where the House of Invention begins to bleed over into the House of Arrangement. Once you settle on a claim, your activity will be directed toward finding and expanding upon reasons for that claim, which altogether will constitute the thesis – the bridge between Invention and Arrangement. To find claims that arise out of your invention efforts so far, try using the preceding techniques to focus on a single word or phrase you are interested in, and make a list of possible claims that could arise from a word, idea, or concept. For example, take a simple concept like “danger” – what claims arise out of danger?

Danger exists.

Danger exists because human beings are not immortal.

Driving is dangerous.

Living a dangerous life is better than living a safe life.

Laws requiring drivers to wear seat belts should be eliminated.

10.4 Rhetorical Stasis

Once you have decided on a claim, it is important to know what kind of an argument it lends itself to because knowing that will further focus your invention journey by opening up constellations or reasons that will be appropriate to your specific argument. For example, if you are claiming that your town should demolish all paved roads and replace them with greenways and parks, as Hunter Thompson did in his 1971 campaign for Sheriff of Aspen, then you must have already made assumptions of consensus on many different levels. In other words, for this proposal to make sense to anyone they will have to have already agreed to the conjecture that the Air Quality Index (AQI) in Aspen regularly exceeds 210 in the winter months, that this is causally related to excessive motor vehicle traffic, that this constitutes poor air quality, that poor air quality is a serious threat to health and therefore a thing to be avoided, that this poor air quality can be reduced by limiting accessibility to motor vehicles, and finally that an ordinance should be enacted forcing the city to destroy all existing roads and prohibiting all future road construction. If the audience disagrees with any of these waypoints, then the best option for the writer seeking stasis is to return to that waypoint and establish agreement there before moving on, since that is where the actual disagreement is located.

The classical rhetoricians identified four questions of stasis that determine the type of claim you are making. They proposed that you make them in order to identify where, exactly, your claim and the audience’s view of it is out of stasis. If you get all the way through the questions and find that there is stasis on all sides, or in other words, that everyone agrees on all levels, then you have probably identified a fairly high level commonplace, or something taken for granted. If, on the other hand, you find that stasis breaks down at a particular level, there you have have found an opportunity to insert your proposed addition to the discourse.

Here are the following types of arguments and their associated questions:

• Arguments of Fact or Conjecture (Theoretical)
  • Does the thing about which we are disputing exist? Did it happen? What is it? What kind of a thing is it? Is it true or false? How many are there? What causes it?
• Arguments of Definition (Theoretical)
  • If it (the thing about which we are disputing) exists, what is it?
• Arguments of Quality or Value (Theoretical)
  • What kind of a thing is it? Is it good or bad? Is it to be sought after, or is it to be avoided?
• Arguments of Policy or Procedure
  • What should we do about it?

These can be expanded by looking at the topoi questions in each category. The last question under Arguments of Fact or Conjecture concerns the cause of a thing, which is indeed a matter of conjecture, but in many ways constitutes its own type of claim: x causes y. I suggest the the Causal Argument should be added to this list. An example of a causal argument that has not reached stasis yet is the global warming argument, the central sticking point of which is not whether the earth is currently getting warmer generally, but whether that warming is caused by human activities or not. The feature of causal arguments to watch out for is that for most effects, multiple causes can be posited, and that the causal argument remains out of stasis until a root, cause, a primary cause, or a causal complex has been agreed upon.

So, if you find the argument you want to make is a policy or procedure argument, but you find significant disagreement over the underlying facts, definition, or quality, you will have to circle back to address the arguments that are out of stasis first.

10.5 The Grocery List Method

This method uses the thesis statement as an organizing principle, so while it starts off as pure invention, it utilizes the thesis statement of a way of winnowing, grouping, and ordering the items the inventor discovered into a cogent and original argument. Because it stands on the cusp of invention and arrangement, I include it as the last item in the arrangement chapter.  It is called the Grocery List Method because it mimics how the most organized shoppers would start their grocery list with only a general cuisine in mind.

Here is how it works:

1. List: With a general topic in mind, use one of the preceding methods of brainstorming to come up with an extensive list of items that are generally related to that topic. Using the grocery list as a metaphor, if you were thinking generally about Italian food, you might add pasta, cheese, tomato sauce, garlic, wine, bread, fruity pebbles, salt, pepper, chicken, pepperoni, ricotta, parmesan, etc. You are going to have a lot, but unless you have unlimited funds and commercial grade food storage, you probably don’t want to buy everything you could possibly need for any unspecified Italian meal. So you might look at the list of ingredients and start thinking about which elements most interest you or suggest a specific meal. In this case, we might go with something like Fettuccine Alfredo.
2. Ignore (cut): Once you have decided on a specific meal, which is a metaphor for a thesis statement, you can begin to cross out items on your original list that don’t make sense in the new, narrowed context you have created. In this case, you could probably get rid of pepperoni, fruity pebbles, and tomato sauce to start. Don’t worry if you start adding items at this stage, but the general trend should be to narrow the list of possible things to purchase at the grocery store, or in the case of the argumentative essay, to narrow the list of items to include in your argument.
3. Sort (group): I’m not sure you are quite ready to go to the grocery store yet, even though you have limited your list to only the items that are necessary to prepare your meal, or in the case of the argumentative essay, the items that are necessary to prove your claim. The most organized shoppers will now group these items according to the arrangement aisles in the grocery store, which I suggest are metaphors for paragraphs or sections in an essay. In other words, the smart shopper will want to prevent traveling through the grocery store in a haphazard manner so they can collect all the cheeses at once, all the meats at once, all the spices at once, and so forth.
4. Time (order): Once the organized shopper, or writer, has grouped all the similar items together, they can go on to order them in the way that makes the most sense or is most effective. For a trip to the grocery store, this might depend on the organization of the store, but more than likely will be to proceed from an outer aisle through the store to finish at the frozen food section. For some of us, we might start at the frozen food section, find a frozen lasagna, and not have a need to go any further. For an argumentative essay, this would mean deciding on the most effective order, maybe chronologically, or maybe in order of importance. Many different organizing principles can apply, but that is the concern of the next chapter, and properly belongs to to House of Arrangement.

Remember, the grocery list method is a metaphor for a way to go about writing an argumentative essay. I have sacrificed the explanatory power of the verbs to describe each step (list, ignore, sort, and time) in order to create an acronym to serve as a mnemonic device – to help you remember the process. Remember also that the only part of this method that belongs to the House of Invention properly is the first sloppy list, although that doesn’t mean invention stops there entirely. After the introduction of the thesis statement, however, the primary concern is narrowing, grouping, and ordering, all of which will be discussed at length in the next chapter.