Transcript Argumentation, Claims & the Persuasive Essay

*
Composition
*
* A Simple Claim is a Syllogism (Aristotle):
* From Dictionary.com:
* Syllogism: An argument the conclusion of which is supported by
two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term
(major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the
other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the
subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term
(middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion.
*
A Simple Claim can also be
though of as the transitive
property of mathematics:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C
So what is A, B, and C?
Reasons
Claim
Warrant/Assumption
REASON: Since small
children cannot distinguish
fantasy from reality…
CLAIM: …their testimony
cannot always be used at
trial.
WARRANT: The inability to
distinguish fantasy from
reality is a viable reason to
bar someone’s ability to
testify.
*
* B is the Hidden Premise =
Warrant (or ASSUMPTION)
* Warrants/assumptions must
be true in order for the
claim to hold up
* If warrants/assumptions
cannot be
proven/established, your
argument will be vulnerable
* Identifying Warrants…
* Allows you to establish what
you will need to argue in
the body of your paper
* Enables you to anticipate
what your opponents
counterarguments will be
* Helps you gauge whether
your argument is too broad
or narrow
CLAIM: All students in American public schools
should be taught in English-only classrooms.
REASON: (Because) Fluency in English is
essential for success in America.
Warrants/Assumptions:
1. Schools prepare (all) students for success
in American society.
2. Success in American society can be
determined by our English language skills.
3. Individuals who are not fluent in English
will not succeed in our society.
4. Teaching classes only in English will ensure
that students will be fluent in English.
*
* Exercise: The Sneaker Argument
*
* Take a stance opposite to your original claim
* Provide insight to the opposing view (makes you appear
open-minded and that you have considered all options)
* Allows you a chance to rebut the counterclaim and prove the
superiority of your claim
*
* A rebuttal is a way of proving a counterclaim is weaker than
your claim
* You rebut your counterclaim by explaining why the opposing
view is incorrect and reaffirming your viewpoint
*
Claim (Including Evidence & Assumptions)
Ex. Since smoking can cause cancer, you shouldn’t smoke.
Counterclaim:
Ex. Just because something can cause you cancer isn’t a reason
not to do something.
Rebuttal to Counterclaim:
Ex. However, when your health is on the line, it’s important to
consider whether the risks of doing what you want outweigh the
benefits of doing what you should.
*
* Explore your own opinions
* Pro & Con List
* Free writing
* Discussing with others
* Identify as many reasons for your opinions as possible
* Keep in mind this quote:
* “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
* Ralph Waldo Emerson
*
* Anticipate Opposing Viewpoints
* These are counterclaims
* Gather evidence/brainstorm ways to refute or rebut
* Remember Your Audience
* Different viewpoints appeal to different types of people
* Who are you trying to persuade?
* How best can you reach that person?
*
* Narrow Your Argument
* Decide which points and counterpoints are worth including
* Not all arguments/reasons/evidence are equal
* It’s better to present an in-depth analysis of few viewpoints than
a cursory analysis of many
* It may help you to write an “Although…Because” thesis
*
* Organization (Body Paragraphs)
* Pattern A:
* First point and supporting evidence
* Second point and supporting evidence
* Counterclaim and rebuttal for first point
* Counterclaim and rebuttal for second point
*
* Organization:
* Pattern B:
* Counterclaim and rebuttal for first point
* Counterclaim and rebuttal for second point
* First point and supporting evidence
* Second point and supporting evidence
*
* Organization:
* Pattern C:
* First point and supporting evidence
* Counterclaim and rebuttal to first point
* Second point and supporting evidence
* Counterclaim and rebuttal to second point
*
* Providing Evidence/Reasons:
* Give Examples
* Present a Comparison or Contrast
* Show a Cause and Effect Relationship
* Make an analogy, metaphor, or simile
* Argue by Definition
* Personal Experience
* Experiences of Experts
* Factual Information/Statistics
* Hypothetical Examples
* Diagrams or Charts
*
* Remember Tone
* Try to avoid sarcasm or insults
* Always be respectful to opposing side
* Try not to be accusatory
* Write as though you had to tell the opposition everything in
person
*
* Read “You Can’t Judge a Crook by His Color” (handout)
* After reading, in groups of 3-4, discuss/determine the
following:
* Lead-in technique & introduction
* Thesis
* Organizational pattern
* Main claims
* Warrants/assumptions
* Counterclaims and rebuttals
* Types of evidence used
* Conclusion technique & conclusion
* Once you have finished, we will share as a large group.
*
* Problems to Avoid
* Hasty Generalizations
* Non Sequiturs
* Begging the Question
* Red Herrings
* Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
* Ad Hominem (To The Man)
Argument
* Ad Populum (To the People)
Argument
* Ad Misericordiam (To the
Pity)
* Faulty Use of Authority
* Circular Logic
* Either/Or
* Hypostatization (Reliance
on the Abstract)
* Bandwagon
* Straw Man
* Faulty Analogy
* Empty Rhetoric/Quick Fix
* Slippery Slope
* Stacking the Deck
*
* Hasty generalization
* The writer bases the argument on insufficient or
unrepresentative evidence
* Occurs when you rely on one (or few) experience(s)/source(s) to
inform your conclusion
* Occurs when writer relies on evidence that is not factual or
substantiated
* Be wary of words like always, all, none, never, only, and most
* Instead, try to qualify statements with words like many, some,
often, and seldom.
* Ex. That shopping mall is unsafe because there was a robbery
there two weeks ago.
* Ex. I’m failing organic chemistry because the teaching
assistant can’t speak English well.
* Ex. This book was written by a Harvard professor, and all
Harvard professors are smart, so it must be good.
*
*
Non Sequitur (“it doesn’t follow”)
*
*
*
*
The writer’s conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of
the facts
*
*
This occurs when writers misidentify cause and effect relationships
*
Non sequiturs occur when writers create arguments that don’t
come out of their warrants/assumptions
To avoid this, make sure you identify all of the
warrants/assumptions in your argument
Ex. Mr. Thompson has such bad breath that it’s a wonder he
sings so well.
Harold Jones is an amazing chemist, so he must be a brilliant
professor.
I supported his candidacy for president because he has been
married for 20 years.
*
*
Begging the Question
*
*
The writer presents as truth what is not yet proven by the argument
*
The fallacy gets its name from a metaphor: just as a beggar tries to get
something for nothing, a writer is trying to get something (belief in an
argument) from a reader for nothing (not doing any actual work to prove the
argument)
*
*
It’s passing off an assumption/warrant as true without proving it
Ex. That foolish law should be repealed.
*
*
Why is it foolish?
Ex. She is compassionate because she’s a woman.
*
*
This occurs when writers use their assumptions/warrants as claims in
themselves
Are women actually inherently compassionate?
Ex. If you haven’t written short stories, you shouldn’t be critiquing
them.
*
Do you actually have to be a writer to appreciate and/or understand what
good writing is?
*
*
Red Herring
*
*
*
The reader introduces an irrelevant (or minor) point to divert the
reader’s attention from the main issue.
*
The term is derived from the practice of using the scent of a red
herring to throw hunting dogs off the trail of their real prey.
*
This occurs when writers don’t have enough confidence in their
argument to rebut the opposition’s best counterclaims
*
Even though a red herring may distract the reader/audience
momentarily, once someone discovers your true intention as a writer
(and that you mislead the reader as to the basis for your argument), he
or she will disengage with your piece
Ex. Even though the hockey player was convicted of vehicular
homicide, he shouldn’t go to jail because he is such a great
athlete.
Ex. The teacher gave me an F in the course because she didn’t
like me.
*
*
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (“after this, therefore because of
this”)
*
*
*
A (false) assumption that simply because something happened
before something else in time, the first event caused the second.
*
This is similar to the phrase in psychology “Correlation is not
Causation”
*
This occurs often when arguments are based in superstition,
stereotypes, and conspiracies
*
To avoid, make sure you can define a clear and supportable cause and
effect relationship (through evidence) and define additional factors
that may be at play
Ex. It’s no wonder the prevalence of binge drinking on our campus
has shot up, as the state legislature vowed to lower the drinking
age last week.
Ex. Because of the women’s liberation movement, the number of
“latchkey” children has risen sharply.
*
* Ad Hominem (“To The Man”) Argument
* The writer attacks the opposition’s character rather than the
opposition’s argument
* This occurs when writers are not confident in the strength of their
argument and resort to personal attacks (name calling, sarcasm, etc.)
* Readers generally do not respond positively to “character” arguments,
and, at the worst, they can undercut the writer’s credibility and offset
his/her other strong points
* Ad hominem arguments should be used only when the writer can prove a
person’s character is directly impacting the issue in a negative way.
*
Ex. If it is revealed that the organizer of a petition to build a statesupported recycling center owns the land on which the proposed recycling
center would be built.
* Of course he doesn’t see anything wrong with violent movies; he’s
a warmonger.
* We cannot expect Ms. Lucas to know what it means to feel
oppressed; she’s the president of a large bank.
*
* Ad Populum (“To the People”) Argument
* The writer evades the issues by appealing to readers’
emotional reactions to certain subjects.
* These are arguments that are rooted deeply (too deeply and
negatively) in pathos, aimed at the supposed prejudices,
emotions, and fears of the masses
* Writers use provocative language and hot-button words as a
smoke screen, attempting to distract from the lack of evidence
or support for an argument.
* This is a poor technique, as the goal of an argumentative essay
is to persuade, and readers of the opposite stance will not be
won over by unsubstantiated character arguments.
* Ex. Doctors oppose health reform because it will hinder
their ability to keep lining their deep pockets.
* Ex. If you were a true American patriot, you would want
every terrorist to be captured and killed.
*
* Ad Misericordiam (“To the Pity”) Argument
* The writer relies too heavily on pathos to elicit an emotional
reaction from people that will “force” them to act
* In laymen’s terms, you can think of this as a “guilt trip”
* However, when an argument is based solely on the exploitation of the
*
*
reader’s pity, the true issue gets lost.
Think of it this way: if a defendant embezzled millions of dollars from his
company, the fact that he was abused as a child would humanize him,
but never exonerate him.
In the same way, arguments that appeal to pity are never enough on
their own (and, at the worst, can sometimes turn off a reader because
they recognize them as distractions)
* Ex. It makes no difference if he was guilty of Nazi war crimes. The
man is eighty years old and in frail health, so he should not be
made to stand trial.
* Ex. Capital punishment should be illegal, because on death row
many criminals realize what they have done is wrong, and they
become better people.
*
* Faulty Use of Authority
* The writer relies on “experts” who are not convincing or
credible sources
* This an incorrect use of ethos, and it often occurs when someone is
an expert in one area, but is used as an authority in another
unrelated area
* Name recognition is never enough; the source must have expertise,
credentials, or relevant experience in the area under discussion
* While the opinions of a four-star general are excellent in matters of
foreign policy, they will not be as relevant to the discussion of
assisted suicide, education, health care, etc.
* Ex. Americans shouldn’t find hunting objectionable because
Theodore Roosevelt, one of our most popular presidents, was
an avid hunter.
* Ex. Since Cindy Crawford recommended these vitamins, they
must be beneficial.
*
* Circular reasoning/logic
* The conclusion of a deductive argument is hidden in the premise
(thus, the argument goes in a circle).
* In brief, this occurs when the writer repeats key terms (either exactly or
in synonyms) in both his reason and claim, often because of insufficient
evidence or “lazy” arguing
* For example, take this common argument: “Smoking is bad for you
because it ruins your health.”
* In a nutshell, the speaker is saying “Smoking is bad for you because it is
bad for you.”
* This is the defense tired parents use with children! While it convinces kids
(sometimes), it will not convince your readers.
* Instead, focus on finding specific evidence to support your point.
* Ex. People who are happy with their work are cheerful because they
enjoy what they are doing.
* Ex. Bank robbers should be punished because they broke the law
*
* Either/Or (False Dilemma)
* The writer tries to convince readers that there are only two
sides to an issue—one right/one wrong.
* This occurs when a writer is unable to see the gray areas of
issues
* As a technique, it’s problematic because it demeans the
humanity and intelligence of the opposition
* If you are writing your paper to change someone’s mind, it’s not
a convincing technique to call someone essentially immoral for
their previous/existing stance.
* Ex. If you don’t sign up for the military, you obviously don’t
love your country.
* Ex. If you don’t want to pay taxes, you obviously don’t love
your country.
*
* Hypostatization (Reliance on the Abstract)
* The writer uses an abstract concept as if it were a concrete
reality.
* This occurs when writers preface arguments with statements like
* History has always taught us…
* Science has proven…
* Research shows…
* History, science, etc. comprises multiple, diverse, and dissenting
voices, so be sure not to lump everyone together
* Being as specific as possible—always—will help guard against this
issue (again, try to use words like “many” and “some”)
* Ex. Society feels that juvenile delinquents can be
rehabilitated, which is why they receive lesser sentences than
adults.
* Ex. Scientists believe that stem-cell research can help cure
many diseases.
*
* Bandwagon Appeal
* The writer tries to validate a point by intimating that
“everyone else believes this.”
* The reason this tactic is ineffective is that it is yet another
way to evade the real issues of an argument
* This type of argument panders to many people’s base fear:
not being accepted
* In general, a “get with the majority because the majority
rules” argument is not going to be convincing enough for
readers; they will see it as childish or phony
* Ex. Smart shoppers shop at Sears.
* Ex. Choosy moms choose Jif.
*
* Straw man
* The writer selects the opposition’s weakest or most
insignificant point to argue against
* The fallacy gets its name from this metaphor: the writer
easily knocks down a “scarecrow”—a doll—that would never
put up a fight
* This usually occurs when the writer is not confident enough
to argue against the opponent’s strongest point(s)
* However, readers who oppose the writer’s stance will not be
won over by this method, as they recognize a win isn’t really
a win unless the fight is fair
* Ex. I shouldn’t have been fired, as I was on time to work
yesterday. (However, “I” had came in late two weeks in a
row before yesterday).
*
* Faulty analogy
* The writer uses an extended comparison as proof of a point
when, in fact, the two things compared do not match up
feature for feature (or the ideas do not logically connect)
* This will happen when a writer is stretching too far to prove a
point or comparing two unfamiliar or complex subjects
* A sound analogy will clarify a difficult or unfamiliar concept by
comparing it with something easily understood or familiar
* Ex. This whole gun control issue is polarizing the nation the
way slavery did people living above and below the MasonDixon line. Do we really want another Civil War?
* Ex. Letting emerging nations have nuclear weapons is like
giving loaded guns to children.
*
* Empty Rhetoric/Quick Fix
* The writer leans too heavily on catchy phrases or empty
slogans
* This is the definition of “style superseding substance”
* This occurs when a writer uses a particular catch phrase or
writes a lot of flowery B.S. in lieu of making an actual
argument
* While catch phrases can grab attention, they cannot be used
as evidence in and of themselves
* Ex. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
guns.
* Ex. Gay, straight, black, white, all unite for equal rights.
*
* Slippery Slope
* The writer presumes one event will inevitably lead to a
chain of other events that end up in catastrophe
* This argument gets its name from this metaphor: one slip on
a mountain top will cause a climber to tumble down and
bring down/take out everyone behind him
* This “domino-effect” reasoning is fallacious because it
depends more on presumption (hypothesizing about future
results) rather than evidence (drawing conclusions from past
ones)
* Ex. Legalized abortion is a step toward creating an
antilife society.
* Ex. A ban on ethnic slurs will mean no more freedom of
speech.
*
* Stacking the Deck
* Writers give only the evidence that supports their claim and
withhold or disregard evidence that contradicts their
position.
* Scientists, statisticians, and pollsters call this “data
beautification”
* This is a poor technique, because the opposition will recognize
you failed to do your job as a persuader when you bypassed
crucial information.
* Also, if you “stack the deck,” you won’t be able to address and
refute counterclaims, which are the hallmark of a strong
argumentative essay.
* Ex. Parents should realize that private schools simply
encourage elitism in young people.
* Ex. We cannot take four more years of her in office, given
the way she voted again increasing the minimum wage.
*
* Logical fallacies activity