COMM 274: Rhetoric at TLU: May 2022

INTRODUCTION:

{Attention Grabber}

-So, I kinda have a weird Obsession with Conspiracy theories. Like I think it’s pretty bad, because I actually want to solve them, even though I have no clearance to actually do that and people are obviously just going to call me a nut job, but oh well.

Creditability:

-Besides being in Rhetoric for a good minute now, well I like to investigate, and I’ve taken two criminal justice classes already, so I might know a bit about the system.

Thesis:

Loner or team effort? Did Oswald act alone or did he have help hiding in plain sight? Was it Oswald or Oswalds?

The Authors:

-Jeremy Bojczuk

- The author provides the “For” for the conspiracy theory and the evidence against as well and is very interesting when comparing to see the “Evidence”

Devices:

Schemes (Orthography-Acronyms can be seen through out the book. For ex. JFK, TSBD

Arrangement (climax- building up suspense by explaining how it was an open and shut case or so they thought.

Tropes:

Question {anthypophora}-because the conspiracy just goes on asking how many witnesses claimed to hear a shot from the ground and explaining the multiple shooter theory

PREMISES: (VALUES-{Abstract} not concrete "Truth" "justice"

I went with Values because the whole idea of the theory itself is based on how Lee Oswald was not the only shooter and how there is more then just one shooter. To me that seems like there is something suspicious with the “Truth” that it was just him.

PREMISE Modifiers:(Interpretations- {Specific Choices} Choosing between alternatives

I chose Specific choices because the conspiracy presents the idea that there is an alternative to what is presumed to be the truth and opens people’s eyes to seeing the different options.

Argument Type: (Quasilogical argument- {Division} Breaking something into parts

I went with my argument type being Division because you can really see the breaking up of the case and seeing all the parts as pieces rather than as a whole, which offers more questions.

The fallacies I choose were….

Begging the question because the conspiracy focuses on how Oswald did commit the crime, however he could not have done it by himself, but the argument continuously circulates to Oswald being a part of the plan.

I also included Slippery Slope because the author goes through listing and giving lots of reasons to support the probability that Oswald did not act alone.

Appeal to consequences because the belief that Oswald did this by himself would go away if the conspiracy were true, however the bad part would be that whoever helped him was never found or brought to justice.

Wishful thinking simply because the conspiracy is true because someone believes and wants it to be true.

Toolbox:

Reyes & Smith – [pipes- “Conspiracism”]

Because the idea of the conspiracy is built around multiple people believing that one man is not capable of carrying out this attack without someone’s help, which is why the conspiracy is based on other people’s views of the events in order to make itself relevant and have some kind of credibility.

Conclusion:

After all the evidence the conclusion is that the conspiracy of more then one shooter or people involved in the assassination of JFK is most certainly a possibility, because the source provides a lot of suggestive information that could have played a role in the assassination and could possibly give the conspiracy life.