Transcript Writing the Argumentative Essay By Caryl Bishop Argumentation  “. . . the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or.

Writing the
Argumentative Essay
By Caryl Bishop
Argumentation

“. . . the art of influencing others,
through the medium of reasoned
discourse, to believe or act as we
wish them to believe or act.”
Structure of Argument

Claim
– Proposition

Support
– Evidence
– Motivational Appeals

Warrant
– Assumption(s) that have been taken for
granted
Features of
Argumentation

Writer
– Develop your own ETHOS or borrow from
established authority

Audience
– Know your audience and be sensitive to their
views

Text
– Use the language to make your point, but be
careful not to misuse language
The Writer

Ethos
Your own
 You
must look like you know what you’re
talking about
 Educate yourself on the issue(s) before
writing
Borrow from authority
 Be
sure to give appropriate credit where due
The Audience


Who is your audience?
Qualities you should presume of your
audience:
– Assume they are as knowledgeable about your
topic as you are.
– Assume they are aware of common knowledge.
– Assume they could be fundamentally opposed to
your argument and be sensitive to their
prejudices –

Don’t Alienate Your Audience
The Text

Argue from logic and reason
– Do NOT base your entire argument on:
Emotion
 Religious Conviction
 Tradition


Avoid fallacious logic
– There are a multitude of formal errors in
logic, known as FALLACIES
Some Common Fallacies







Hasty Generalization
Faulty Use of Authority
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter
Hoc
False Analogy
Ad Hominem
False Dilemma
Slippery Slope
Hasty Generalization




Black or White thinking
Prejudice
Drawing Hasty Conclusions
Insufficient Evidence
Faulty Use of Authority



Misuse of a source
Misquoting
Fitting the quotation to your own
needs
– If four out of five dentists prefer Colgate,
don’t use the one dentist who prefers
Crest as your authority!
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter
Hoc

“After this, therefore because of this”
– Faulty Cause and Effect Reasoning
False Analogy

Faulty Connection Between Two
Things Being Compared
Ad Hominem


“Against the Man”
Attacking the person rather than
attacking an issue.
– If you don’t like this administration’s
policies, and want to see them changed,
don’t attack the President, address the
issues you want changed.
False Dilemma

“Black or White Fallacy”
– There are only two alternatives, no room
for compromise and no grey areas.
Nearly every issue has at least two sides, and
somewhere, someone has determined that
the OTHER side is the only legitimate
approach.
 Nothing is black and white; there are shades
of grey everywhere!

Slippery Slope
 The assumption that “A” will inevitably
lead to “B”
 Then “B” will inevitably lead to “C”
 And so on…
 And so on…
More Common Fallacies







Begging the Question
The Straw Man Fallacy
“Two Wrongs Make a
Right”
Non-Sequitur
Ad Populum
Appeal to Tradition
Faulty Emotional
Appeal
Begging the Question


The statement
being argued
actually assumes
the issue has
already been
proven true.
An argument that
assumes itself
Straw Man Fallacy

Set up a slightly different problem and
attack it, rather than the problem at
issue
– Diverts attention away from the real issue

“Wag the Dog”
“Two Wrongs Make A
Right”

“But all my friends are doing it…”
– Diverts attention away from the question
at issue
Non-Sequitur

“It does not follow”
– Erroneous Cause and Effect Reasoning
– Uses irrelevant information to back of a
claim
Ad Populum



Appeals to the prejudices of the
people
Appeals to popular opinion
Appeals to what you believe your
teacher wants to hear
Appeal to Tradition

“But we’ve always done it that way
before…”
– Just because it has always been that way
doesn’t make it right
Faulty Emotional Appeals


Don’t base your whole claim on an
appeal to emotion
Don’t use emotional appeals that are
– Irrelevant to the argument
– Draw attention away from the real issue
– Appear to conceal another purpose