3. Recap: In the previous session
• We examined rhetoric.
• We identified certain stylistic techniques that
persuade us in arguments.
• Sometimes our interlocutor will use these
rhetorical techniques purposefully.
• Sometimes they might use them without
being aware that they are doing so.
• In both cases, our interlocutor is motivated
from a position to ‘win’ the argument.
4. 3 key messages from last week:
• Being able to separate rhetoric from legitimate
comment within arguments in the media is a
worthwhile transferable skill.
• In constructing your argument for the debate and
related rationale you should avoid using rhetoric
of others in your arguments.
• Importantly, you should avoid using rhetoric in
your own arguments in any of the module
assignments. (And future written assignments in
other modules).
5. Today’s session
• Writing a title for your argument can often
lead to a sense of the ‘position’ that you are
about to take. (It is acceptable to write a
rhetorical title).
• However, sometimes the title does not ‘come
to you’ until the end.
• Spend a few moments discussing with your
neighbours what your working title might be.
Have a go at writing it out.
6. Read Leahy’s ‘20 titles for the writer’
(Excerpt 1 in today’s pack)
• Are any of them
helpful/Unhelpful?
• Could you address point 6?
• With your neighbour discuss
point 17 with your neighbour –
can you address it?
7. Fanning the flames? Put more: Coal
on.
• Join the title you created in
point 17 with a colon to your
original working title.
• What do you think?
8. Plan: Debate notes: Rationale
• “If you do enough planning
before you start to write,
there's no way you can have
writer's block. I do a complete
chapter by chapter outline” (R.
L. Stine)
10. Writing Tight (Cutts, 2009)
Concision and brevity without loss of
structure and meaning are key
features of the rationale writing aspect
of this assignment.
(And I would argue ALL assignments)
11. Kirton ‘Academic Conventions’
• Write about the action – not who
is doing it.
• Let us examine the example on
page 132 ‘ In this country…’
• Cliches… (page 135)
• Hedging (the ‘off the peg’
‘combination’
12. Conclusion
• Be clear of the main focal claim that you are
arguing. Never forgot this ‘point in the dartboard’
• Write your argument as if you were constrained
within train tracks (tight parameters)
• Always consider the big picture implications
between the focal claim and the warrant.
• Evidence should reasonably sit within the
warrant.
• A title can held define your claim more clearly.
• Avoid rhetoric (Except perhaps in your title).
