Considering the role of psychology in rhetoric, is creating understanding sufficient to say one has been rhetorically successful? Or must one create understanding and move people to action

*****Answer premises with book reading (200 words!!!) ******

*Due Tuesday, Sept. 13 @10am!*

NOTE: This week's Chapter Response is on chapter 4 

Some guiding questions for you to consider as you are reading chapter 4:

–Considering the role of psychology in rhetoric, is creating understanding sufficient to say one has been rhetorically successful? Or must one create understanding and move people to action (i.e., move their will)?

–In terms of the "long debate," >>(content attached under the name 1) does it make more sense to you to think of rhetoric as managerial–i.e. Campbell's theory, at least according to Ehninger–or as a means of creating knowledge itself? Can these perspectives be reconciled?

–Do you agree with Perelman's distinction between persuading the particular audience vs. convincing the universal audience? Why or why not?