The use of arguments containing increasingly technical materials has grown significantly in the recent years. Specifically, arguments that are used to justify military expenditures or to allege violations of international agreements are becoming more sophisticated. This study examines the dissemination and use of technical argument in claims made by the United States government that the Soviet Union violated chemical and biological treaties in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. This study employs the Jowett-O'Donnell method for analyzing propaganda to determine the extent and effectiveness of the government's claims. The study concludes that propaganda was used extensively by the government in order to justify new weapons programs and that the propaganda campaign was effective because of the technological orientation of its claims.

Virtually all studies on the presidential use of metaphor focus on one particular event and speech. These studies look only at speeches that justify military actions after they have already occurred, and these researchers seek to discover a relationship between the use of the metaphor and the public's support of a military action. In order to analyze the persuasive elements of President Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric in developing popular and Congressional support for war preparation, this study seeks to answer three specific questions. To what extent does Franklin Roosevelt develop a common theme in selected speeches of war preparation immediately prior to World War II? To what extent was Roosevelt's development of this theme persuasive to the American public? What consequences can be anticipated if future presidents or speakers for social movements employ these procedures.

One hundred thirty-five undergraduate students were queried at North Texas State University. Perceptions of self-disclosure as a compliance-gaining tactic were surveyed. A fifteen item questionnaire was utilized. Fourteen questions were tested by an analysis of variance. One question was tested by chi-square. Data indicated that self-disclosure was viewed as an effective compliance-gaining tactic for both males and females; but females were perceived as more effective than males utilizing the tactic. Self-disclosure utilized as a compliance-gaining tactic was perceived as appropriate by both males and females. Results indicated females and males have similar perceptions regarding the appropriateness of utilizing the self-disclosure tactic. Male and female raters did not differ significantly from each other.

This study seeks to determine the extent to which Jimmy Swaggart's program for defense in 1988 complies with the expectations of the apologia genre. Three discourse media are examined for evidence of denial, bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence. Swaggart's defense is classified as "justificative" in that it seeks approval of actions. Swaggart's motivating drive force is defined as the need to assure the financial success of his ministry. Swaggart's defense is then compared with the past apologies of Nixon, Truman, and Kennedy. It was determined that certain apologies cannot serve as a reference standard if the contextual factors are not similar. There are some rhetorical resources available to religious figures that are not available to politicians.