Paper Stipulations Correct citations with a bibliography Revised Thesis statement with supporting evidence Counter-arguments & Rebuttals Argumentative Style More formality than the last (3rd person)
Argumentation Taking a position and defending it Convincing the reader of the soundness of a position
Persuasion Using emotional language and dramatic appeals to a reader’s concerns, beliefs, and values Urges readers to action
Supportive Audiences Don’t need many reasoned arguments Can focus on emotional appeal Spur the audience into action Reinforce reader’s commitment
Wavering Audience Interested in what you say, but not fully on board Convince them to take action Need more source material Limit emotional appeals – some but not much
Hostile Audience Avoid emotional appeals Weigh heavily on hard to dispute facts Don’t expect action Hard to convince, but may tolerate in the end
Your Professors Consider who I am Consider who your other professors are Are these audiences supportive? Wavering? Or Hostile? Write to the degree of formality needed Credibility – did you cite your sources? Did you make a bibliography?
Identify the Controversy Assertion or Proposition = Thesis Narrow and specific Avoids tl;dr Avoid writing a simple fact No one is going to argue if you state the sky is blue Limit your focus Tells readers what to expect
Offer Support Personal observation Statistics Facts Examples Expert opinion
1st person or 3rd person 1st person has immediacy 3rd person carries authority For your paper, write in the 3rd person
Research Evaluate sources carefully Watch for bias Forexample, talking about marijuana legalization, I wouldn’t want to use High Times magazine Analyze material as if it were coming from the opposite view Document your sources!
Create Goodwill Don’t alienate readers Avoid morally superior language “Anyone can see…” “Only a fool would believe…” Stay away from Confrontational language “My opponents…” vs “opponents of…” or even “supporters of…” “Screw all ya’ll – I’m out this! Deuces” vs. “In conclusion…”
Organize Evidence Think about the patterns of development Description Narration Definition Process Analysis The ever popular etc… End with your most compelling point
Rogerian Strategy Reducing conflict as opposed to having a winner or a loser Taking account of opposing viewpoints in a respectful manner Some people like cupcakes better; I, for one, care less for them. Emphasize shared interest/common ground
Rogerian Strategy Within a sentence Although many prefer cupcakes, muffins are clearly the superior foodstuff. In the introduction, separate from the proposition, one or two sentence summary of the opposing viewpoint. One or two body paragraphs near the beginning
Refute Different Viewpoints Point out the problems with opposing viewpoints Combine with Rogerian strategy One side at a time or one point at a time
Inductive Reasoning Examination of specifics to draw a conclusion Conclusion can serve as a proposition/assertion Avoid hasty generalizations Atypical information used to generalize
Deductive Reasoning Begins with a generalization then applied to a specific case Three step form of reasoning called syllogism Major premise – general statement about a group Minor premise – statement about an individual in group Conclusion - assertion
Deductive Reasoning Avoid sweeping major premises Sweeping generalizations, vs “most” or “a number of” Watch for faulty conclusions Conclusions that are invalid reverse the “if…then” relationship implied in the major premise
Toulmin Logic Divides argument into three parts Claim – the thesis, assertion, conclusion Data – the evidence used to convince readers Warrant – the underlying assumption that justifies moving from evidence to claim Readers will trust you more if they know your warrant The more widely accepted the warrant, the more likely readers will accept your argument
Warrants Implicit warrant – a warrant so obvious it does not require explanation Explicit warrant – a clearly stated warrant within the paper. Animal testing is painful for the animal – data Animal testing is not always reliable – data There are more reliable and humane methods of product testing – claim Animal testing is wrong when there are more reliable and humane means of testing - warrant
Toulmin Qualify the claim Under what circumstances might the claim be invalid. By qualifying the claim, you increase receptivity to the argument. “Students should play an integral part of developing the curriculum of any school system.” “Because students typically don’t have the pedagogical background of their teachers, their role in curriculum development will have to be designed around this difference.”
Logical Fallacies Gaps in logic Eliminate them in your writing Expose and refute them in the writing of the opposition.
Post Hoc Fallacy “After this, therefore because of this” Faulty cause-effect relationship Hurricane Sandy hit the United States before the election. Two states recognized gay marriage in the election. Hurricanes cause voters to vote in favor of gay marriage. This is also a non sequitur – see in a couple of slides
Post Hoc Fallacy Immigrants move into a town Town has an economic decline Immigrants caused an economic decline. Perhaps declining property values brought the immigrants. Perhaps the economic slump was because of big- box superstores driving out local businesses. Always consider the other possibilities before making a grand claim.
Non Sequitur Fallacy “It does not follow” The conclusion does not have a logical connection to the evidence cited. See: The Westboro Baptist Church “America’s acceptance of homosexuality leads to dead soldiers.” NASA hasn’t cured the common cold, therefore we should stop funding NASA. Millions of Americans own cars, therefore, we have no need for public transportation
Ad Hominem “to the man” Attacking a person rather than the point of view Your professor says you should practice writing to do well in an English class. Your professor is also kind of a fatty and takes prescriptions from Dr. Whiskey, if you know what I mean. Do you really think you should practice writing? This avoids the validity of the argument – instead tries to muddy the conversation
Appeals to QuestionableAuthority Calling on an authority to back up your claim without clearly identifying the authority or pulling from a clearly questionable authority “Experts claim…” “Studies show…” “4 out of 5 dentists…” Who are these experts? What studies? And 4 out of 5 – what about the 6th? Several experts [who I paid] said a cigarette smoking is good for your health.
Begging the Question Failure to establish proof for a debatable point. Expecting the reader to accept a controversial point without proving it. Prayer should be banned from public school because it violates the US Constitution. Does it actually do that? Implicitly or explicitly? Prove it. Marijuana should be illegal because it’s a gateway drug. Is it actually a gateway drug? Any more than drinking or smoking cigarettes? Prove it.
False Analogy Disregards dissimilarities Implies because two things have SOME similarities, they are similar in ALL respects. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are both regulated substances. Driving while smoking isn’t illegal. Drinking and driving shouldn’t be illegal.
Either/or Fallacy – FalseDichotomy Assumes that a course of action or viewpoint can only have one of two diametrically opposed outcomes. Ifyou aren’t with us, you’re against us. The bar must close early in order to reduce drunk driving incidents. Ignores other causes of drunk driving Ignores other solutions to drunk driving.
Red Herring Deflects attention from the matter being discussed. Arguing that condoms shouldn’t be dispensed to students in school, you begin to talk about the responsibilities of parents to talk to their children about sex. Sure, parents should talk to their kids about sex. But that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is the pros and cons of schools distributing condoms.
Godwin’s Law “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
Association Fallacy Guilt by association “Hitlerwas a vegetarian. Bob is a vegetarian. I’m not saying Bob’s Hitler, but I wouldn’t trust him.” The people who broke in to my house had tattoos. Everyone who has tattoos is a criminal.
No True Scotsman The assertion that a counterexample is not a “real” example of the group being discussed. Giving no discernable/arguable rationale behind a qualification for a counterexample. “No men are gay.” “That man’s gay.” “A real man wouldn’t be gay.” “Women should not get jobs.” “That woman has a job.” “A real woman would stay at home and in the kitchen.” “Professors shouldn’t be laid back.” “My professor is.” “He’s not a real professor.” What constitutes a “real” version of each example? And what rationale is there for these being “real”?
Writing Assignment Write a short (3-4 paragraph) argumentative piece in support of, or against, one of the following. Immigrant Amnesty The Death Penalty Gay Marriage Universal Healthcare Environmental Regulation Write an example of a logical fallacy one could make regarding your argument.
The Fallacies Post Hoc Non Sequitur Ad Hominem Appeal to Questionable Authority Begging the Question False Analogy False Dichotomy Red Herring Association Fallacy No True Scotsman