--Dispose and arrange what there is to say, first, from the nature of the cases and second, by the judgment and prudence of the speaker.
exordium, statement of facts, proof and refutation, peroration
Clark notes that these considerations rise from all speech situations/ speeches, so he will treat them in detail in the section on the oratio.
The second problem, however, is related to situational specific questions for marshaling arguments to win over a given audience at a given time in a given case.
Such questions as: Where should particular arguments be mentioned? When should parts of the organization be given emphasis over others?
1) Speakers should stress the aspects which make the speech seem a logical approach to the topic, then spread ethos and pathos throughout.
2) "Sandwich" ordering: strongest arguments first, but next strongest last with the moderate in the middle (tossing altogether weak arguments) Quintilian also proposed that speeches should be ordered properly--according to particular cases as well as general principles. His examples illustrate how one considers the key elements of the case at hand, then orders accordingly: the status of the case always helps determine the sequencing. Q. argues that arrangement cannot be determined until the facts, arguments, and status of a case have been determined.
The above recommendations apply most specifically to judicial rhetoric. In epideictic, the ordering is primarily for the purpose of variety. In deliberative, less emphasis is placed on introductions and statement of past facts. Also requires intensive adjustment based on listening.