The document provides an overview of argumentation and persuasion techniques for academic papers. It discusses developing a thesis, addressing opposing viewpoints, using logical reasoning and credible evidence to support claims, and avoiding logical fallacies. The document outlines plans for upcoming class meetings and assignments, and strategies for crafting persuasive arguments tailored to different audience types.

1. ARGUMENTATION
Persuasion and Your Papers

2. Today’s Agenda
 Plan for Thursday
 Plan for Next Tuesday
 Paper Stipulations
 Argumentation-Persuasion
 Break
 Logical Fallacies
 Writing Assignment

3. Thursday’s Plan
 Conferences on Grades/Personal Success
Plan
 Group Work Revision of Argumentative Thesis
 Argumentative Paper – thesis & supporting
evidence + contrary evidence – due by
midnight

4. Tuesday’s Plan
 Revision workshops
 Grade conferences (if necessary)

5. 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)

6. Argumentation
 Taking a position and defending it
 Convincing the reader of the soundness of a
position

7. Persuasion
 Using emotional language and dramatic
appeals to a reader’s concerns, beliefs, and
values
 Urges readers to action

8. Argumentation-Persuasion
 Techniques usually combined
 Emotion supports logic
 Pathos - logos

9. Controversy
 Assumes controversy
 Addresses opposing viewpoints
 Important for your papers!
 Assume there is an opposition – how do you
address it?

10. Concerns
 Logos
 Soundness of your argument
 Facts, statistics, examples, authoritative
statements
 Citable sources
 Firm backup to your claim

11. Concerns
 Pathos
 Emotional power of language
 Move readers to a point of view
 Move readers to action

12. Concerns
 Credibility and reliability
 Built up with credible sources
 Limit emotional drive (to a point)

13. The Paper
 Interplay of ethos, pathos, logos
 Building credibility and reliability
 Writing directed by audience and purpose

14. Audience
 Supportive Audience
 Wavering Audience
 Hostile Audience

15. Supportive Audiences
 Don’t need many reasoned arguments
 Can focus on emotional appeal
 Spur the audience into action
 Reinforce reader’s commitment

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. Strategies
 Identify the controversy
 Offer support
 Create Goodwill
 Organize Evidence
 Rogerian Strategy
 Refute Opposition
 Induction/Deduction
 Toulmin logic
 Avoid Logical Fallacies

20. 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

21. Offer Support
 Personal observation
 Statistics
 Facts
 Examples
 Expert opinion

22. 1st person or 3rd person
 1st person has immediacy
 3rd person carries authority
 For your paper, write in the 3rd person

23. 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!

24. 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…”

25. Organize Evidence
 Think about the patterns of development
 Description
 Narration
 Definition
 Process Analysis
 The ever popular etc…
 End with your most compelling point

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Induction/Deduction
 Inductive Reasoning
 Deductive Reasoning

30. Inductive Reasoning
 Examination of specifics to draw a conclusion
 Conclusion can serve as a
proposition/assertion
 Avoid hasty generalizations
 Atypical information used to generalize

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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.”

36. 5 Minute Break

37. Logical Fallacies
 Gaps in logic
 Eliminate them in your writing
 Expose and refute them in the writing of the
opposition.

38. 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

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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

42. Appeals to Questionable
Authority
 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.

43. Do you trust this doctor?

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. Either/or Fallacy – False
Dichotomy
 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.

47. 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.

48. Godwin’s Law
 “As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or
Hitler approaches 1.”

49. 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.

50. 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”?

51. 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.

52. 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