In “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Reinterpreting Invention,” asserts that the use of the topics in the Rhetoric were not intended as methods of invention, but rather as useful theories to aid in interpretation. Reading the Rhetoric with excerpts from Aristotle’s Topics, along with the work of Plato, Socrates and Cicero, Quandahl, examines the way that Aristotle’s use of the topics must be looked at in relation to the works of his contemporaries and the way followers edited his ideas in their own works. Quandahl attributes her theory that the topics are a tool of interpretation to the fact that the Aristotle’s rhetoric itself is a rhetoric of interpretation (135) and the topics cannot be seen as separate from the remainder of the text. While the theory Quandahl explores appears simple in a summation, familiarity with a breadth of other classical texts is imperative for a full understanding of the assertions and connections made within the text. Quandahl presents the facts to the topics in Aristotle’s Rhetoric in order to make her readers think about the implications for their teaching that should evolve from the new use of the topics.

Cicero presents the five-part enthymematic reasoning as one that is comprised of a major premise, a major proof, a minor premise, minor proof, and a conclusion. In this manner, each premise is immediately followed by a proof that supports the premise and provides validity to the reasoning and further support the overall conclusion. Conversely, with the three-part enthymematic reasoning Cicero explains that there is no difference in what is presented, but that the difference lies in the combination of the premise and proof. In other words, the major premise and major proof are seen as one component, the minor premise and proof as a second component, and the conclusion as the final component.

Stylistically, there is no difference in the types of proofs; however, what Cicero views as imperative to the use of enthymematic reasoning lies in its ability to be flexible. It is this flexibility that is only offered in the five-part style. Cicero, following in the style of Aristotle, argues that a proof is not always needed, thus creating the five-part style as the most useful form of enthymematic reasoning. He explains that “if in a given argument it is sufficient to use the major premise and is not necessary to add the proof of the premise…then the proof is something separate from the major premise” (62). For this reason, the five-part style allows the orator the flexibility to omit the proof when the premise alone has stated the necessary materials while the three-part style requires that the proof be included even if it is redundant.

Cicero expands on the differences in the five-part and three-part style of enthymematic reasoning to assert that the proof is, in fact, separate from the premise. This assertion aids in his argument that there are forms of argument in which “neither the major nor the minor premise needs proofs of this sort” (66). For these specific types of arguments, the orator needs a style flexible enough to allow him to remove the two premises in order to avoid redundancy and improve his own oratory style. This is not possible, in Cicero’s opinion, with the three-part style since the premise and proof are combined and, therefore, necessitate the use of the proof.