Two Types of Argumentation Involving Rhetorical Questions 45 “You should do X.” In presenting an argument demonstrating the proposition “Not A”, the speaker implicitly expresses his refusal to comply. The goal of arguments that serve as refusals is to induce the addressee to withdraw the directive. Modus tollens and denying the antecedent are both used to refuse directives. Denying the antecedent challenges the addressee to justify the directive, and conveys the speaker’s belief that the directive is in fact unjustifiable. Such arguments may be effective in cases where the addressee does not wish or is not able to impose his or her will on an uncooperative speaker (52). In other cases, denying the antecedent fails to induce the addressee to withdraw the directive. In 1 Kgs 11,22, above, for example, the addressee rejects the argument with a simple “no”, followed by a repetition of the directive. Modus tollens can be a more definitive means of refusal, as in the Rabshakeh’s response in 2 Kgs 18,27 to the Judean official’s request to speak to them in Aramaic: Was it to you and your master that my master sent me to speak these words? Why, it was to the men who are sitting on the wall, who will have to eat their dung and to drink their urine with you. The Rabshakeh’s argument can be analyzed as follows: “If we should talk to you in a language that the people do not understand, it follows that our message is meant exclusively for you. But our message is meant for all the common people. Therefore we should not talk to you in Aramaic.” Given the second premise, which the Judean officials have no reason to doubt, the conclusion inexorably follows (53). In a fair number of refusals by modus tollens, however, the premise implied by the RQ is a subjective assertion at odds with the addressee’s perspective. An example is the insult/self-abasement formula X ym “Who is X” mentioned earlier, e.g. (54), Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and take the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exod 3,11) “Who is X” in arguments like this one implies the premise “X is not worthy of doing Y”, where Y is the action that the addressee has just commanded or requested the speaker to perform. The addressee obviously rejects this premise, for s/he would not otherwise have made the speaker the subject of the directive. It is not immediately clear how such an argument can be expected to be compelling from the perspective of the addressee. Once the purpose of the argument is taken into account, the rationale for refusals involving subjective modus tollens becomes clearer. Like denying the antecedent, the subjective modus tollens argument makes clear the speaker’s negative view of the directive, placing the onus on the addressee to show that the directive is reasonable. In other words, subjective modus tollens arguments are in effect presumptive, shifting the burden of proof back to the addressee. It is hoped by the speaker that this will be sufficient to (52) See, e.g., 2 Sam 19,34.36. (53) See also Gen 30,2. (54) See also 1 Sam 18,18; 25,10.