In Aristotle’s Rhetoric , syllogism and enthymeme represent the frameworks of persuasion and argument. According to Rapp, Aristotle defines syllogism as a form of persuasion that uses logical concepts and interrelated propositions to draw a conclusion (par. 15). Syllogisms are deductive arguments that interpret two statements making logical conclusions. Additionally, the concept uses logical frameworks to link two independent but interrelated concepts that lead to an acceptable conclusion. One of the implications of syllogism to audiences is in regards to the possibility of creating offensive conclusions from an argument’s statements. Aristotle argues that an enthymeme is similar to syllogisms (Honeycutt par. 1). However, the structure and intentions of these models differ significantly. The relationship between syllogisms and enthymemes is in the deductive nature of arguments presented by each concept. Enthymemes contain statements and conclusions, but omit some of the deductive logics found in syllogisms. In fact, Aristotle describes an enthymeme as a body of persuasion that generates outcomes from accepted opinions, signs, and examples. Most of the accepted ideas represent universal probabilities that enhance beliefs in public speeches. One of the sources of persuasion that is derived from enthymemes is found in its intellectual insufficiency and practical deliberations. The use of enthymemes requires dialecticians to simplify statements and avoid suggestive inferences. They allow listeners to interpret statements and make individual conclusions. Topoi constitute general instructions that help to evaluate conclusions based on the underlying statements (Rapp par. 25). In the context of dialects, topoi provide dialecticians or rhetoricians with an intellectual platform on which arguments are based to generate inferences. They are applied when dialecticians want to question or refute theses that are presented by their opponents. Additionally, they can be used to defend personal assertions and conclusions that are achieved through rhetoric or logic. Therefore, they are mainly used to support or disapprove arguments using a set of general instructions, argumentative schemes, and general principles. Aristotle maintains that most of them must be related to the contents of the inference. Discussions about persuasion by different philosophers have established one of the greatest contentions between Rhetorica utens and Rhetorica docens (Frey par. 5). According to Frey, the first concept refers to the use of rhetoric resources, while the second one refers to the study of rhetoric resources (par. 6). Regarding Aristotle’s rhetoric, the philosopher focuses on the study of rhetoric. In fact, he concentrates on the rules, standards, and frameworks of rhetoric. However, Cicero focuses on the use of rhetoric in the article, Orator. Aristotle focuses on the significance of understanding the basic principles of public speaking, while Cicero emphasises the importance of using oratory skills to improve eloquence. Contentions arise from Cicero’s emphasis on the relationship between wise thinking and elegant speaking. The philosopher observes that smart thinking and elegant speaking are interconnected and should not be separated. The argument interprets rhetorica docens as smart thinking because