1. Is there a method for telling one kind of rhetorical technique from another?

First some advice about how precisely we can draw such distinctions. As with the classifications of pseudoreasoning we come across in the next two chapters, you will find here that the distinctions are partial, often overlapping, and to some extent intrinsically vague. Rhetorical techniques are not automobile models, and critical thinkers are not car enthusiasts who look at the headlights to tell a '93 Mustang from a '94. Chapter 4's organization of rhetorical techniques into types is ultimately meant to assist critical reasoning, not obstruct it with terminology or replace it with rote acts of labeling.

That said, we may give some rough guides to choosing the best name for the spin being used in a given example. First, eliminate those possibilities whose form gives them away: A loaded question must first be a question; a rhetorical comparison is a comparison; rhetorical definitions and explanations are, likewise, definitions and explanations before they are anything else. If none of these categories fits the case, the technique (assuming there is one) must be euphemism, dysphemism, stereotype, innuendo, weaseler, downplayer, hyperbole, or proof surrogate.

But even if you have found the structure of, say, a definition, you do not yet have a slanter. As a next step, look for loaded words that convey more than the literal meaning the claim needs from them. (See "Tips on Applications" for more on the difference between appropriately and inappropriately loaded words.) Remember as you do this that unusually unloaded words may function as slanters when they are not the most natural words for a context. "Assault rifles are a kind of manually operated firearm, as are shotguns and hunting rifles" is a definition that becomes persuasive precisely by not pumping up your reaction to its words--the most charged word in that sentence is "assault"--but by describing the same item in less emotive terms.

If the language you are looking at falls into one of the categories already named, you have your answer: loaded question, rhetorical comparison, rhetorical definition, or rhetorical explanation. If it does not, ask whether the loaded words produce a positive or negative effect. Where it is positive, you have either a euphemism or hyperbole; where negative, a dysphemism, a stereotype, or (again) hyperbole. Once you have narrowed down your example this far, it is not hard to pick the name that fits best.

Suppose no obviously charged language is present, nor any cues to a loaded question or the other grammatical giveaways. Check to see if the speaker appeals to vaguely described authorities--that tells you a proof surrogate is at work. Otherwise, look for the intended effect of the claim. If it aims at suggesting something about a person or thing, it is innuendo. If it more generally diminishes the importance of a claim or a description, it is a downplayer. If it tries to evade precision, it is a weaseler.

To summarize: You will look for (1) obvious structural cues; (2) loaded language; (3) intended effects. The process of elimination will lead you to the best description of the slanter.