Rhetorical Surrender
A common practice of developing writers is to open an essay with a Rhetorical Question, the purpose of which, supposedly, is to pique the reader’s interest and get her to start expressing an opinion on the author’s topic. To prime the pump, so to speak.
It’s a terrible strategy that gives all the power and momentum to the reader before the writer—that’s YOU—even gets started. For chess players, the equivalent would be choosing to play the black pieces, on the defense from the start.
You’re the author. The chessboard is yours. Play white. Start first. Let’s look at an example.
Rhetorical questions are a red flag that something is wrong with your argument, Username. But they are also white flags of surrender. Readers see them as an opportunity to make up their own minds. You want to make up their minds for them.
Let’s look at your whole paragraph:
Staying or keeping someone alive only to suffer seems rather counterintuitive. There’s a conflict when it comes to the elderly—whether they’re human relatives or animal companions—and that is at what point is life too burdensome to continue? At what point does caring and showing compassion towards a dying creature become counterintuitive and shift from care and compassion to selfishness and cruelty? When photographing elderly animals after caring for her own aging parents, photographer Isa Leshko acknowledges the importance of accepting that they are mortal. After making the conscious decision to not photograph her own aging and dying family, Leshko expresses and emphasizes the importance of remaining respectful to the memory of the elderly by displaying who they truly are as beings through pictures rather than ignoring their mortality, and it is clear that she regrets making her decision about her parents.
You start with a straightforward claim.
Staying or keeping someone alive only to suffer seems rather counterintuitive.
Then immediately lose control of your own argument.
There’s a conflict when it comes to the elderly—whether they’re human relatives or animal companions—and that is at what point is life too burdensome to continue?
Half of your readers will silently respond: Never. Now you’re playing defense.
At what point does caring and showing compassion towards a dying creature become counterintuitive and shift from care and compassion to selfishness and cruelty?
At which point that same half, perhaps joined by others, respond: How dare you!
If your Summary has a Purpose, be clear from the start what it is. Here you appear merely to want to inform readers of the conflict Isa Leshko experienced. That’s a pretty narrow purpose, and it’s hard to imagine the paper to which this paragraph would make a strong contribution.
Your opening claim is twofold where one fold would suffice. The “staying” alive part disappears immediately. You develop only the “keeping someone alive” part. Now imagine the thesis to which it would make the biggest contribution. Revise without rhetorical questions:
Keeping someone alive only for them to suffer is savagely counterintuitive. Human relatives—or our animal companions—deserve the right to decide when their lives have become too burdensome to continue. Beyond that point, our caring and compassion towards a dear dying creature, however well-intentioned, become selfishness and cruelty.
Same material, same claims, ambiguity removed. Your readers may still resist, but the pressure is on them to refute your clearly-stated position. You’re playing offense.
IN-CLASS NOTES
In the Reply field below, leave your impressions. Does the example demonstrate the weakness of Rhetorical Questions vs. the power of bold claims? Are you always tempted to use Rhetorical Questions to introduce your Big Premise? Do you see how they invite your readers to reject your ideas before you present them?
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Writers should stay away from opening up with a rhetorical question because they will make a claim to that question before you get to explain it. What the writer should do is lead the reader into asking that question.
Rhetorical questions allow the reader to name their position on the matter before we even begin to say our point of view. It become harder to show the reader a different side of the argument, as they already made their mind up. A rhetorical question can be done well when it doesn’t give the reader the opportunity to state their own opinion before we even make our point.
This example helped me see the flaws in asking rhetorical questions. I was taught in high school that rhetorical questions help keep readers intrigued but now I see it leaves room for counterarguments. If we start with a rhetorical question we instantly give readers counterarguments and must write the rest of the paper playing defense trying to prove those arguments wrong.
This exercise shows me that rhetorical questions could weaken our argument, as we invite the reader to reject our ideas before we present the claim(s).
I do realize that rhetorical questions usually work against you. You are able to introduce the topic of your article through other methods, but only the rhetorical question can lose your argument to half of your readers. A clear cut “yes or no” answer will scare away half of the readers from the jump, and bring them to a point where you will be unable to bring them back.
The example demonstration shows the benefit of leaving out rhetorical questions to keep your reader on defense and not the other way around. Bold claims help rid ambiguity and make the reader less likely to completely resist your ideas.
This example does demonstrate the weakness about rhetorical questions by explaining to you how it makes you play defense the entire writing because now you’re trying to convince them after letting them pick a side. It gives them time to not really hear you out on your ideas. I do like writing rhetorical questions because it allows me to transfer to the next claim with ease so it’s gonna take some work to change.
writer should not state there rhetorical question fast because when they do they state there claim before explain it
you lead the reader on before stating your rhetorical question
The examples above really help me understand how negatively rhetorical questions can effect the purpose of your paper.
Very good example. I really like doing rhetorical questions since I think they are fun, but I can see where this argument is coming from. If i’m trying to convince someone of something, allowing them to come to their own conclusion is the exact opposite of what I want to do.
The example demonstrates the weaknesses of rhetorical questions which really withers your argument. You are aiming for the reader to reject our ideas before presenting the claims.
Rhetorical questions allows readers to decide whether they agree with your article before you present your argument which might discourage readers from continuing your article. Stating your opinion and and giving your evidence to prove it works best because readers want to know why you believe your claim so firmly.
I found this largely helpful and agree with the conclusions made for the most part. However, I have a few clarifying questions about it.
Firstly, doesn’t this reasoning only apply for a piece of work where convincing the author of a specific, subjective claim is the main goal? What about works that are more focused on being informative? Furthermore, what if the answer the audience has for the question is not actually critical to the strength of our argument, but instead is just used to progress the reader along a certain train of thought.
Secondly, what if the reader responding by coming to a different conclusions is accounted for and expected as part of an effort to preempt and address or debunk expected counterarguments to a point? Do you not believe that is something which holds any merit?
Thank you for always going to such lengths to help us understand these rhetorical or grammatical concepts.