The article begins by asserting “Rhetoric requires understanding a fundamental division between what is communicated through language and how this is communicated.” After this the author lists a number of historical accounts where separating content from form served as a teaching tool and was considered to hold academic value in the eyes of some of the worlds most revered thinkers. While offering this information isn’t of no value the reader is still left without a reason as to why an understanding of the difference between logos and lexis is necessary when studying rhetoric. To accept these examples as direct justification for the claim one would have to assume that the teachers named are absolute authorities when discussing rhetoric, despite lack of support.

Next, the author explains that the split between speech and expression is “artificial and conditional,” attempting to divide these reveals the fundamentally inseparable nature of what and how something is said. After this we are again offered insight on the processes those who attended ancient schools of thought used in their attempt to understand communication in support of the original claim, again it falls short.

The author does say “it is impossible to completely capture the meaning and effect of a thought expressed in any terms other than its original words.” This suggest that the non-verbal aspect of communication is of the same importance as the words themselves depending on the conditions. For the first time the author has given a reason as to why one would support the original claim, however the reader is left with nothing that warrants this assertion. It is also the readers responsibility to assume that the impossibleness of fully capturing the original words suggest verbal communication is more than what is said, the author plays no part in helping make this connection.

The article does recognize that speech trumps expression in importance, when discussing more “substantive topics.”

Continuing, the author uses an extended metaphor hoping it will aid the reader in understanding the relationship between res, verba, and there dependence on one another. After this the article touches on how problematic the original argument is and how controversial it has been throughout history, seeing push back from members of various academic communities. All of this though informative, offers little help in proving the importance of division between speech and form when accessing vocal speech.

The article comes to and end with what is a seemingly modified version of the original claim, having effectively proved nothing

It would appear that the author did a suitable job at establishing and defending his points to a reader unfamiliar with a process for analyzing arguments. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by length, condensed information, and advanced language especially if your’e unfamiliar with the topic. Using the “Toulmin Method” proved useful when examining this article. Most readers would give this article the benefit of the doubt out of confusion assuming the “edu” domain name signified academic value. After an introduction to the “Toulmin Method” I was far more mentally equipped with the tools I needed to accurately access the strength of this article. “Content/Form” lacks structure, makes assumptions, and in the end relies of circular reasoning. Of the three methods we’ve learned so far I feel most comfortable with the “Toulmin Method” however that is subject to change depending on the style of writing. This method reminds me of how logic is used in philosophy to structure or challenge an argument.