Inventing arguments chap 1 2


Published on

1 Comment
1 Like
  • thank you .... =)
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Inventing arguments chap 1 2

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