Extrinsic Proofs

                Extrinsic proofs , as described by our authors, are proofs that exist wholly upon themselves, that are self-evident, and that do not require invention by a rhetor. Our authors go on to explain that there are two types of extrinsic proofs, data and testimony. Rhetoric has application in many different facets of life, and here we will explore where applications of data and testimony used as extrinsic proofs can be found.

                In a court of law, testimony can be given orally by a witness, or a written testimony can be used as an exhibit while a witness is giving a testimony. When giving testimony in a court of law, there are witnesses to the event, and expert witnesses. Our book describes these different types of witnesses as community authorities and proximate authorities. Community authorities would be considered to be the “expert witnesses”. Examples of people who could be considered community authorities would be ballistics experts, doctors, coroners, scientists, and other experts. In a courtroom setting, usually they are depended on to explain an item that is of evidentiary value, no matter if it may be a physical item or testimony. Examples of people who could be considered to be proximate authorities would be persons witness to a crime or an event that have firsthand knowledge of the situation that is at issue. In a courtroom setting, these people are depended on to tell the story of what they saw so that the court would be able to assemble a clearer picture of the events that surround the issue.

An example of data that is used in a rhetorical setting are statistics. Even around a single issue, you may find several data sets that can support or not support a claim. For example, a person could make the argument that seat belts save lives. There are many highway safety studies that support this position, and as such, there are many states that have adopted laws requiring seat belt use while operating a motor vehicle on the roadways of the state. However, a person could also make an argument that seat belts can kill. To support this argument, a person may seek out a data set from a study of traffic related fatalities that involve entrapment in a vehicle due to seat belt use. Although rare, this statistic does exist, and a skilled rhetor could perhaps make a convincing argument that seat belt use places the users at a higher risk of death due to entrapment in a motor vehicle. While this idea may seem silly; I personally know people who refuse to wear seatbelts due to the fact that they believe that in the event of a serious motor vehicle collision, the risk of dying due to entrapment and dying by fire, asphyxiation, or drowning by vehicle submersion, is far greater than the risk of death from blunt force trauma or ejection from the vehicle.

As mentioned before, skilled rhetors can use these proofs to fashion an argument using both testimony and data to illustrate a point that is more easily accepted by the audience. For example, one may make the argument for the adoption of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, that allows off-duty police officers to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection. Such an argument would use testimony of off-duty police officers victimized, or would use the testimony of off-duty officers witness a crime but are powerless to act because of a lack of means of self-defense. Additionally, police experts may be called in to give testimony on regards to the danger that off-duty police officers face due to their vocation. Data may be used in the argument in a way to illustrate the statistics of off-duty police officers that are victims of violent crime that were prohibited from concealed carrying a firearm, and thus were not carrying a firearm, due to restrictive state laws. Additionally, data could be gathered by way of a survey or statistics of the number of times that officers have witnessed a crime off-duty and have failed to act due to a lack of a means to self-defense.

It’s plain to see at this point that while extrinsic proofs are self-evident, they mean different things to different people, and both the interpretation and content may be skewed due to who may be interpreting those facts. Skilled rhetors, therefore have great latitude to form and carry out an argument, dependent on how the facts are presented.