Purpose:
Authors may apply the use of procatalepsis to address a possible conflict with their argument before it can be brought up by the opposer. Anticipating the opposer’s counterclaim prior to them announcing it could possibly be beneficial to the overall strength of the claim made in the speech or writing. If a person with an opposing idea tried to take down the author’s argument, the author would already have their response to the opposition planned out. It is possible that this will not work at all times, because there is always going to be an argument that may not be accounted for, but it is helpful during debate situations.
Steps for Analysis:
Identify if the author made an assumption in the piece of writing
Assess if the situation is in a dramatic fashion.
Identify if the author’s claim would result in backlash from the audience.
Identify if a rhetorical question is being asked.
Analysis of the Apology by Plato
Apology by Plato
“Someone will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong.
"Apology." The Internet Classics Archive, classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html. Accessed 7 Sept. 2022.
The Apology by Plato regarding the trial of Socrates and the statement made during said trial by Socrates. He asks a rhetorical question to the audience, assuming that someone will oppose his argument. Plato asks the audience a question, “And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end?” in order to predetermine the beliefs of the audience and prepare an argument in his defense. Using rhetorical questions could create tension between the speaker and the audience as he makes assumptions. Although procatalepsis may cause tension, it allows the speaker to prepare in advance for possible arguments against the claim, which would be beneficial in an argument or debate.
Sydney S. and Taylor P.