In Biltzer’s piece, he argues how undervalued and overlooked the analysis of the rhetorical situation can be, and he brings up three aspects pertaining to how situational conveying a point to a public audience can be. The fist aspect is Exigence, and he argues the aspects in rhetoric that cannot be changed, such as death. His second aspect analyzes the audience, and how certain rhetoric pertains to a specific audience. The final aspect is constraints, or roadblocks that may affect the audience or exigence negatively pertaining to the rhetoric trying to be implied. Social norms, controversial counter opinions, or prejudice serve as constraints to rhetoric as they challenge anything exigence may imply or dissuade a potential audience.
I found Biltzer’s piece to be fascinating in the sense that he talks about topics never really covered. I find the science he speaks extremely interesting when taking a profound look into what it generally is to be convincing to a public audience. Why people may be attracted to certain opinions any why they may be deterred and who will listen is something that just isn’t really covered very often. To summarize I found the piece so appealing because it basically is an in depth analysis to what it is to be convincing.
In applying Biltzer’s arguments to Emma Watson’s equality speech, it becomes clear that his aspects truly can be found in anything that exists to persuade. The exigence of her speech would be her call for equality between men and women, and that one should not be held in higher regard than the other. Her audience would be anyone concerned for feminism, sexual equality, and even those who wish to know more about the issue. The constraints of her speech would be anyone dissuaded by an actress for a speaker, misogynists, or just any who firmly believe sexuality inequality doesn’t exist or is an issue currently of priority.