Vatz says that it is not that important for a rhetor to understand a certain situation, but it is important for them to be responsible for the attention they have created. I do not agree with Vatz on this idea. I think that in order for rhetor to complete their job as being a rhetor they must understand the situation entirely. Not fully understanding the situation would not be beneficial to the rhetor at all. How would the rhetor be able to engage with their audience if they do not fully understand what it is that they are talking about? Isn’t the goal of the rhetor to persuade the audience to take their side in the topic of discussion? If so, then how would the rhetor be able to do this if they do not understand the entire situation they are discussing? An example of this is a lawyer in a courtroom defending their client. If the lawyer does not fully know the situation that they are defending their client from, then how would they be able to win the case? More importantly, how would they be able to persuade the jury to take their side on if their client is guilty or not guilty? This could also tie into the question of is it possible to fully understand the context of a situation? If the rhetor in this case is a lawyer …show more content…
Olivia fixes people’s problems and helps them get back to a normal life, just like a lawyer. With many of her cases, it is hard for Olivia to fully understand the situation especially when her clients do tend to keep things hidden from her about the situations. It is then her job to not only fix her clients problems, but to discover the full truth about each situation. This leads back to a discussion we had in class about whether or not it is a rhetor’s job to reveal the truth. I believe that it is the rhetor’s choice as to if they should give their audience the truth or not. This is something seen with politicians all of the