In this reading “Content and Form”, the author is talking about  the difference in how things are said, and what things are said. He says that there is a difference between the both of them and goes on to talk about how they differentiate.  The author references Aristotle and Quintilian to support his claim. Aristotle’s logos and lexis definitions support his claim about what is Sid, and how it is communicated. Furthermore, Quintilian shows the difference between res and verba. The author talks about how language is more than just delivering a thought, it affects the thought process.

There doesn’t seem to be much rebuttal here, as far as I can tell. When he says that the division between what is said and how It is said is problematic, I would consider that a rebuttal because he compares that to religion, philosophy, and science and makes a comparison to that.

I think the Toulmin method isn’t very affective to me. In my opinions, it doesn’t do anything better for me, just another technique to analyze a reading and understand it.