• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Inventing arguments chap 1 2

Inventing arguments chap 1 2






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 2,866

http://learn.vccs.edu 2866



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.


11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • thank you .... =)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Inventing arguments chap 1 2 Inventing arguments chap 1 2 Presentation Transcript

    • Inventing Arguments Chapters 1-2 Information College Comp II
    • Argument
      • An argument is the act of asserting, supporting, and defending a claim.
      • A claim is the statement the author makes that he/she is trying to convince the reader is true.
      • Argument is found everywhere around us from commercials to text and media.
    • Argument Cont.
      • Argument does not always involve beating an opponent, but it deals with making others see the wisdom of a position or perspective.
      • Each academic area has its own arguments on the fields of study within the dicipline.
    • Argument Cont.
      • Many often say that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion; however, this ignores how people actually work together to build, transform, and trading opinions.
      • Opinions are only just that
      • if not accurately supported.
    • Rhetoric
      • Rhetoric is a process of recognizing and using the most effective strategies for influencing thought.
      • Every time someone offers information, describes something a particular way, or arranges information in a particular way so that someone else will accept a claim, he or she is making rhetorical decisions.
    • Five Categories of Rhetoric
      • Invention: the discovery and development of ideas
      • Arrangement: the organization of ideas in a coherent and engaging fashion
      • Style or voice: the personal or individualized use of language conventions, with attention to appropriateness, situation, and audience
    • Five Categories of Rhetoric Cont.
      • Memory: the recollection of prepared points
      • Delivery: the presentation of ideas
    • Rhetorical Situation
      • The rhetorical situation refers to an opportunity to address a particular audience about a disputed or disputable issue.
      • Is an opportunity to gather and use the available means of persuasion
      • Involves exigence—an occasion when something happens or does not happens that results in some uncertainty.
    • Rhetorical Situation
      • Includes:
        • Exigence
        • Arguer (Speaker/writer)
        • Audience
        • Method of communication
        • Rules of communication
        • Text message
      • None are independent from each other
    • The Academic Essay and Rhetoric
      • The student is usually the speaker/writer.
      • The audience is normally the student’s peers and instructor.
      • The rules are defined by the syllabus and the assignment, which is the exigence or opportunity to address the audience and make an assertion
    • Academic Essay Cont.
      • A savvy writer will include social, cultural, and historical situations to his/her advantage.
      • They will try to make a conncetion by sharing the audience’s values, assumptions, emotions, and beliefs as well as cultural, past and present political trends, discoveries, local events, and widely used literature.
    • Academic Essay Cont.
      • In academic writing, the writer brings forward unfamiliar topics while introducing them in new and revelatory situations.
      • They do not reinforce what the audience already thinks, but bring in new claims, assumptions, hopes, and even fears.
    • Structure of Argument: Claims
      • The claim is the main argumentative position (or thesis) being put forward.
      • Support give substance and legitimacy to a claim and allows or convinces the audience to accept the claim.
        • Facts
        • Statistics
        • Scenarios
        • Appeals to logic, emotion, character, value, & need
    • Argument Structure: Claims Cont.
      • Basic format for an argument is a claim with support information.
      • More complex form is to give a main claim and then give the subclaims or supporting claims with support information for those subclaims/supporting claims.
    • Types of Claims
      • Claims of fact: argue that a condition exists, has existed, or will exist. (Facts must be proven to be truth.)
      • Claims of value: argue that something possesses or reflects a particular quality whether it be good/bad, unreasonable, practical, unfair, fair, etc.
    • Types of Claims Cont.
      • Claims of policy: argue that some action should be taken or some change made. This requires some change in behavior, policy, approach, or even attitude.
    • Characteristics of Claims
      • Focused claims: guide the reader’s and writer’s attention to a specific issue, even to a particular aspect of a specific issue. This means a focused thesis to gain depth.
      • Arguable claims: make assertions that could be challenged on various grounds that invite or directly address opposition.
    • Characteristics of Claims Cont.
      • Revelatory: writing attempts to do more than argue for the opinions, but it reveals an unfamiliar topic or reveal a new layer of a familiar topic. The object is to change the reader’s thinking.
      • A good thesis statement is a declarative sentence with three subtopics/claims, and it comes as the last sentence in the introduction of the essay.
    • Arguable Claim Issues
      • A thesis statement is not a question.
      • It does not state an obvious fact.
      • It invites several positions or multiple perspectives on the same topic.
    • Argument Structure: Support
      • Called grounds or proof, support comes in many forms:
        • Evidence: authorities, testimony, facts, statistics
        • Examples: allusions, anecdotes, illustrations, scenarios
        • Appeals: to logic, emotion, character, value, need
    • Evidence
      • Evidence support already exists.
        • Authorities: are experts who offer specialized knowledge—give credibility to a writer’s claim
          • Support own claim
          • Support opposing claims
          • Help explain a topic
          • Help to give some history or context to argument
    • Evidence Cont.
        • Testimony: eyewitness or firsthand account
        • Facts: agreed-upon bits of knowledge that do not require further support in an argument
        • Statistics: figures drawn from surveys, experimentation, and data analysis
    • Examples
      • Examples are specific occurrences of a phenomenon.
        • Allusions: references to some public knowledge from history, current events, popular culture, religion, or literature. Used for formal essays, informal articles, and literary works.
    • Examples Cont.
        • Anecdote: short accounts of a particular event or incident and often presented as brief stories that support the arguer’s claim.
        • Illustrations: graphic descriptions or representations of an idea by carefully describing the details to create an image in the reader’s mind.
    • Examples Cont.
        • Scenarios: fictional or hypothetical examples and can support just about any argumentative claim
    • Appeals
      • Sometimes called reasoning, appeals are major forms of support that help the arguer create a connection between the audience and the topic.
        • Advertisements are probably the most abundant examples of appeals used.
    • Appeals Cont.
      • Appeals to Character: draw attention to the arguer’s personal nature, integrity, experience, wisdom, or personality. Fend off doubts about arguer’s credibility and make the audience comfortable so as to accept the arguer’s claim.
    • Appeals Cont.
      • Appeals to logic: usually done with statistics and facts. Line of reasoning or logic appeals to engaging the audiences intellect and reasoning.
        • Inference: process of deriving a logical conclusion based on premises known to be true; logical step from one idea to another
    • Appeals Cont.
      • Line of reasoning: refers to a series of logical steps that lead arguer and audience to a main claim.
        • Type of Reasoning:
          • Deductive logic: builds a conclusion from accepted premises or general principles
          • Inductive logic: builds a conclusion from particular observations or examples
          • Analogical logic: borrows the logic from one situation and applies it to another.
    • Appeals: Reasoning Cont.
      • Deductive reasoning allows the arguer to conclude only what the premises allow; even if it is false, the logic may be valid.
        • Found behind legal or ethical decisions
        • Syllogisms: are lines of deductive reasoning that require three steps—premise 1 + premise 2= Conclusion
          • Require support and sometime significantly more reasoning, examples, or evidence to be accepted as truth.
    • Appeals: Reasoning Cont.
          • Enthymemes: are not certain in all situations but emerge in particular situations; contain a number of steps or premises—more than three; contain a missing or unstated premise—those that are obvious are often not state.
            • Do not require a lot of support, if any, to be taken as truth
    • Appeals Cont.
      • Appeals to Emotion: bring about some type of emotional reaction from the reader.
        • Can be used dishonestly and should be used sparingly.
      • Appeals to Need: make a connection between the subject and a basic human need such as food, shelter, belonging, intimacy, self-realization, etc.
        • Reach inside an audience to people’s essential requirements of living
    • Appeals Cont.
      • Appeals of Value: connection between the topic and general value of fairness, equality, honor, kindness, selflessness, duty, responsibility, economics, pragmatics, etc.
        • Values may compete with one another, so good arguers know how to bring a particular value to the forefront and make it seem the most important or pressing one.
    • Appeals: Reasoning Cont.
      • Inductive reasoning: builds from a specific point or premises and leads to a general claim or conclusion.
        • Deductive vs. induction: go together constantly in everyday life and often operate in the same argument.
        • Deductive arguments reinforce some standing assumptions people have while inductive arguments create particular benefits or liabilities in people’s minds.
    • Appeals: Reasoning Cont.
      • Analogical reasoning: depends on comparisons or analogies.
        • Arguer moves from one particular to another particular through the use of comparisons, metaphors, allegories, parables, and examples.
    • Other Elements of Argument
      • Counterargument: refute claims or positions opposed to those that the writer or speaker is trying to prove. It is often called refuting the opposition.
        • Good arguers carefully examine others’ positions and try to imagine contrary points to help draw a clear distinction between the two camps of thought.
    • Other Elements of Argument Cont.
      • Concession: involves acknowledgement or granting value to an opposition claim and usually done through qualifiers.
        • Concede the good points that an opposition may make and qualifying others makes for a strong argument. (The ideas the arguer agrees with the opposition on.)
    • Other Elements of Argument Cont.
      • Qualifiers: they acknowledge the limits of an arguer’s claims. By qualifying one’s claims, the arguer acknowledges there are limitations.
        • Words such as perhaps, seems, maybe , some , several , many , could , and might .
    • Logical Fallacies
      • Ad hominem: attack the person instead of the idea the person puts forth—often seen in politics and everyday life.
      • Straw person: misrepresenting a position and then proving it wrong.
      • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: faulty cause-effect that one thing happened before another when they are not really related
    • Logical Fallacies Cont.
      • Either/or: claims only two opinions exist when there are more.
      • Hasty generalizations: draw conclusions based on too little evidence.
      • Non sequitur: skips or confuses logical steps—does not follow logic.
      • Slippery slope: claims that a certain way of thinking or acting will necessarily lead to more of the same
    • Logical Fallacies Cont.
      • Begging the question: no support is provided, but only the restating of the claim.
      • Red herring: deliberate attempts to change the subject.
      • Bandwagon: everyone else is doing it, you should, too because it is commonplace that makes it okay.
    • Logical Fallacies Cont.
      • Association: claims that two people or things share a quality just because they are somehow associated, connected, or related.
    • Toulminian Logic
      • Six Components:
        • Claim: conclusions or assertion
        • Support: appeals, evidence, and examples
        • Warranting Assumption: statement to connect claim and support in logical way
        • Backing: evidence that supports warrant
        • Modal Qualifiers: words or phrases that limit scope
        • Rebuttal: refutes an opposing claim or charge