This presentation was used in an English 101 ("Introductory Writing") class in Fall 2008 at Washington State University. The topics for the day were summary, use of quotes and citations, using one's own voice, and otherwise working with sources to "enter the conversation" in order to continue it. Slides refer to some specific assignments and readings, but some of the content is general enough to be useful.
Good writing is rewriting, rewriting, and rewriting so don't be discouraged that your essay needs editing. Every writer from a professional to the high school student goes through the revising process so that they can write a complete, grammatically correct, and relevant piece of writing. Look at the following questions about each element of your essay and answer them truthfully.
Easiest Way to Write a Thesis StatementCustomWriting
This useful and detailed guide will help you create great thesis statements easily and without any trouble at all!
Great tips created by our academic professionals with over 6 years of experience.
Looking for more academic help?
Check out our website: www.custom-writing.org
This presentation was used in an English 101 ("Introductory Writing") class in Fall 2008 at Washington State University. The topics for the day were summary, use of quotes and citations, using one's own voice, and otherwise working with sources to "enter the conversation" in order to continue it. Slides refer to some specific assignments and readings, but some of the content is general enough to be useful.
Good writing is rewriting, rewriting, and rewriting so don't be discouraged that your essay needs editing. Every writer from a professional to the high school student goes through the revising process so that they can write a complete, grammatically correct, and relevant piece of writing. Look at the following questions about each element of your essay and answer them truthfully.
Easiest Way to Write a Thesis StatementCustomWriting
This useful and detailed guide will help you create great thesis statements easily and without any trouble at all!
Great tips created by our academic professionals with over 6 years of experience.
Looking for more academic help?
Check out our website: www.custom-writing.org
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 9
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism. In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it. In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly critique an argument will also help you make your own arguments more effective.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them. Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn. So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises
The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise. Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The following is a list of questions that will help you not only methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument. In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5, inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some of their premises turn ...
9.4 Confronting DisagreementBy employing the principles of accur.docxransayo
9.4 Confronting Disagreement
By employing the principles of accuracy and charity, and by effectively criticizing arguments, there can be constructive disagreement that avoids heated emotions and verbal aggression.
Mastering the skills of identifying and constructing arguments is not easy, but at this stage you should feel fairly confident in your command of such skills. The big test now is how you will react when someone disagrees with your argument or when you disagree with someone else’s argument. Although advancing an argument does not require an interaction, as mentioned in Chapter 2, disagreements are bound to occur. Many of us likely prefer to avoid disagreements. Indeed, many people are terrified of debating a point because they fear offending others or worry that a debate will only bring out the worst in everyone, quickly escalating into an emotional display of verbal aggression and “I’ll show you!” attitudes on both parts. Few truly gain from or enjoy such an exchange. This is why most people avoid addressing touchy subjects during holiday dinners: No one wants a delicious meal to end with unpleasantness. However, few gain from allowing contested issues to go unchallenged, either, whether you are simply stewing in resentment over your uncle’s unenlightened remark about a group of people or whether society fails to question a wrongheaded direction in public policy. Not knowing how to disagree in a calm, productive manner can be quite problematic. We should recognize, however, that some do like the tension of the battle and find the raising of voices and the test of quick retorts very exciting. Even so, all they gain is the confirmation that they can win by being the loudest, most articulate, or most aggressive. Unfortunately, this is an illusion, since quieting the opposition does not amount to having convinced them.
The solution to this common problem is threefold. The first part involves clearly articulating premises, examining the coherence of the argument, and identifying the support for each claim. This part is the most technically difficult but is already within your reach, thanks to the standard argument form. As we have discussed throughout this book, being able to draw an argument buried underneath filler sentences, rhetorical devices, and such allows us to grasp the meaning and coherence of what is being communicated. In this section, we will closely examine another factor in identifying arguments: the correct interpretation of an argument. We will call this the principle of accuracy.
The second part is not technically difficult, because it is an attitude or state of mind. In ordinary idiomatic language, it is referred to as giving a person the benefit of the doubt, letting someone have his or her say, or putting suspicion aside. In other words, we should judge others and their ideas fairly, even if we may be less than inclined to do so. Philosophers call this attitude the principle of charity.
Finally, the third part involv.
1) Explanation of the problem
2) Stating your position
3) Argument supporting your position
4) Rebuttal of expected criticisms
5) Resolution of the issue
The Point of the PaperYour paper is acritical evaluati.docxgabrielaj9
The Point of the Paper
Your paper is a
critical evaluation of the argument
that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.
It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.
Common ProblemsReally a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusionDid not evaluate the argumentOnly discussed premise two, reallyJustified Premise One, then abandoned itDid not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it worksJustifications that simply restate the argument in more wordsSAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve
(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.
Position – one sentence!At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.
ARGUMENTImmediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the conclusion. For example:(1) If the teaching of values in schools will revive America's flagging morality, then values should be taught in schools.(2) The teaching of values in schools will revive America's flagging morality.(3) Therefore values should be taught in schools.
NOTE: THE CONCLUSION IS THE POSITION!!
Justification I – 1 of Top 3 partsFirst, you should defend the validity of your argument. If your argument is an immediately recognizable form, you may say si.
How to Write a Philosophy PaperShelly KaganDepartment of.docxpooleavelina
How to Write a Philosophy Paper
Shelly Kagan
Department of Philosophy
1. Every paper you write for me will be based on the same basic assignment: state a thesis
and defend it. That is, you must stake out a position that you take to be correct, and then you must
offer arguments for that view, consider objections, and reply to those objections. Put another way:
you must give reasons to believe the central thesis of the paper.
Some of you may have never written a paper like this before. So let me contrast it with two
other kinds of papers you probably have written. First, I am not looking for "book reports": I
don't want summaries of one or more of the readings, and I don't want you to "compare and
contrast" what different authors say, or what different moral theories might say, about the given
topic. Rather, I want you to "stick your neck out"--tell me what you believe to be the truth about
the relevant issue. And then I want you to defend that position. Of course, it might well be
relevant, or helpful (or perhaps even part of the specific assignment) to discuss some particular
author or view. But even here the emphasis should be on evaluating that author or view. Book
reports, no matter how superb, simply don't meet the assignment.
Second, I am not looking for "thoughts on topic X", or "meditations on X", or "remarks on
X". It just won't do to simply string together various reflections you may have on the given topic,
even if in the course of doing this you embrace various claims, and offer some reasons for your
views, before moving on to the next reflection. The paper should instead have a single, central
thesis. The point of the paper is to state and defend that thesis. The various contents of the paper
should be selected and organized so as best to defend that central claim. (Stream of consciousness,
for example, is a poor way to organize material, and is likely to include much that is irrelevant to
anything like a main thesis.) No matter how brilliant, mere reflections simply don't meet the
assignment.
2. So the paper should state a central thesis, and defend it. More specifically, it should do the
following things:
A) It should start with a clear statement of the thesis. This need not be the very first
sentence, but it should almost always come in the first paragraph or two. Many papers never give
a clear, official, precise statement of the thesis at all. They leave the reader guessing what the
author's precise position is. Don't do this. It may seem obvious to you what your position is; it
won't be obvious to me.
Other papers do give a clear statement of the thesis--but not until the last paragraph of the
paper. ("Oh! Is that what the author was driving at!") This may be a dramatic way to structure a
short story; but it is a very poor way to structure a philosophy paper. I shouldn't have to spend my
time reading the paper trying to figure out what your view is; I should be abl ...
“Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.” — Max Lucade
First and foremost, you must learn to accept conflict as an inevitable part of your social interactions. How you respond to and resolve conflict will limit or enable your success.
Writing EvaluationStudent NameProf. David W. Cheely.docxambersalomon88660
Writing Evaluation
Student Name:
Prof. David W. Cheely
Assignment:
A (Excellent)
____Thesis Statement:
The Introductory paragraph presents a clear and focused summary of the position to be developed in the paper.
____Explication:
The writer demonstrates an excellent understanding of the arguments/position of the author through a clear and concise explication of the ideas to be considered.
____Interrogation:
The writer presents a specific critical analysis of the author’s position.
____Declaration:
The writer explicitly declares his/her stance with respect to the author’s ideas - thesis.
____Elaboration:
The writer raises a strong objection to his/her own thesis and elaborates upon his/her thesis in response to this objection.
____References:
The writer makes use of relevant textual citations and smoothly fuses these citations into the paper without breaking the flow of the argument.
____Grammar:
Few, if any, grammatical errors. Sentences read smoothly without being overly wordy. Appropriate word choices.
B (Very Good)
____Thesis Statement:
The Introductory paragraph presents the thesis; however, the thesis seems somewhat muddled and unclear.
____Explication:
The writer understands the arguments/position of the author; however, the explication of this understanding wanders from the text at times.
____Interrogation:
The writer’s critical analysis of the author’s position lacks precision.
____Declaration:
The writer presents his/her thesis well, but the thesis is off-target and/or unclear.
____Elaboration:
The writer raises a solid objection to his/her thesis, but the writer’s response to this objection does not improve the strength of the thesis, or generate further questions.
____References:
The writer makes use of references; however, the cited material is forced and seems to chop into the flow of the paper.
____Grammar:
Minor grammatical errors. Sentences are somewhat wordy and wandering. Word choice is sometimes questionable.
C (Average)
____Thesis Statement:
The Introductory paragraph merely implies a thesis.
____Explication:
The writer presents a limited understanding of the arguments/position of the author.
____Interrogation:
The writer’s critical analysis of the author’s position is superficial, unconvincing, and un-supported.
____Declaration:
It is difficult to tell what the thesis of the paper is and/or its relation to the author’s position.
____Elaboration:
The writer makes use of a straw-man objection that does little to elaborate upon and strengthen the writer’s position, or generate further questions.
____References:
The writer uses far too many references such that it is difficult to tell if the writer understands the text or not, or the writer fails to employ appropriate references to the text.
____Grammar:
Far too many grammatical errors. Sentences, word choice, and word economy make it difficult to follow the writer’s arguments.
D (Substandard)
____Thesis Statement:
The writer fails to state a thes.
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to seek truth, then we must be clear that the task isnot limited to the formation of true beliefs based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming falsebeliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more specifically, they are common patterns ofreasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resembleperfectly legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France. This is a common formal fallacy known asaffirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informalfallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this chapter will cover some of the most commonand important fallacies, with definitions and examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticingfallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This chapter will consider only a sampling of some of themost well-known fallacies. Second, there is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as differentfallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting that only one can be right. Third, different philosophersoften have different terminology for the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that others usedifferent terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Ourgoal is to learn to identi.
Assignment 3 Persuasion Versus JudgmentConsider various guideli.docxrock73
Assignment 3: Persuasion Versus Judgment
Consider various guidelines for approaching controversial topics, gathering evidence, forming judgments, and constructing arguments to persuade others to agree with our judgments.
For this short assignment:
Think about the processes of forming a judgment and persuading others in your professional environment. Construct a 2- to 3-paragraph essay intended to persuade someone to agree with your position on a particular topic. Be sure to identify the topic and cite and explain the evidence you consider supportive of your position.
Make reference to the 11 guidelines for constructing persuasive arguments, and apply two to three of them in your response.
GUIDELINE 1: RESPECT YOUR AUDIENCE
This guideline may sound idealistic, but it is eminently practical. If you believe the people you are trying to persuade are doltish or intellectually dishonest, you are bound to betray that belief, if not directly then indirectly in your tone or choice of words. Moreover, they will generally sense your disparaging view of them and feel hurt or resentful, hardly the kind of reaction that will make them open to persuasion.
GUIDELINE 2: UNDERSTAND YOUR AUDIENCE’S VIEWPOINT
Many people make the mistake of thinking that knowing their own viewpoint is all that is necessary to be persuasive. “What my readers think about the issue is really irrelevant,” they reason. “All that matters is what I’m going to get them to think.” In addition to being pompous, this attitude ignores two crucial points. First, people’s views matter very much to them, and when others refuse to acknowledge this fact they feel offended. Second, we must know where people stand before we can hope to reach them.
Situation 1: You are writing for a single reader who has presented his or her ideas in an article, book, speech, or conversation. Review what your reader said, noting not only the person’s position but also the reasoning that supports it. Determine both the strengths and the weaknesses of the person’s position.
Situation 2: You are writing for a single reader who has not, to your knowledge, expressed a view on the issue in question. Suppose, for example, you are writing a letter to the president of a company objecting to
GUIDELINE 3: BEGIN FROM A POSITION YOU HAVE IN COMMON WITH YOUR READERS
Beginning from a position of agreement with your reader is not an arbitrary requirement or a matter of courtesy or good form. It is a simple matter of psychology. If you begin by saying—in effect, if not directly—”Look here, you are wrong, and I’m going to show you,” you push your readers to defensive if not outright hostile reactions. They are likely to read the rest of your paper thinking not of what you are saying but of ways to refute it, concerned with measuring only the weaknesses of your argument. And if they are unreasonable and unbalanced in their reading, the fault will be more yours than theirs.
GUIDELINE 4: TAKE A POSITIVE APPROACH
Whenever possible, b ...
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
2. “Will a template stifle my
creativity?”
Arguments are complex and can be difficult
to write in a couple of sentences.
The more complex an argument, chances are,
the more complex the communication.
However, using a template to agree,
disagree, or both is one way of solving these
problems.
3. Agreeing, disagreeing, or
both
1. Why is it better to use a direct, no-nonsense
formula such as “I agree” when responding to
a “they say”?
4. Answer:
By using a direct, no-nonsense formula, your
readers can get a strong grasp of your
position and then be able to appreciate how
your argument unfolds.
Having a baseline for your argument will help
your readers follow you better.
6. Answer:
It’s easy to state you disagree with
something, but the true problems arise if you
don’t state why you disagree.
A strong argument that disagrees provides
reasons to support this stance.
Think “because” to complete your statement.
Example: I disagree that ______ because
______...
7. Templates for Disagreeing
Ex: I disagree with Geier’s view that people
can drive and talk on their cell phones
simultaneously because as research shows,
the human brain cannot consciously process
doing two activities at once.
Ex: By focusing solely on education budget
cuts in the Fine Arts department, Bradfield
overlooks the deeper problem of a school’s
fiscal responsibilities.
9. Answer:
Agreeing can be difficult because it’s
important to bring something new and fresh
to the table.
When you agree, this can be hard to do.
You want to add something that makes you a
valuable participant in the conversation.
10. Agreeing and disagreeing at
the same time
“Yes and no,” or “Yes, but”
Agreeing and disagreeing at the same time
allows writers to tailor their argument to
make it more complicated and nuanced.
A writer can agree with one part of an
argument while disagreeing with another.
Moreover, with this option a writer can subtly
tip her argument by placing stress on one
part and not the other.
11. Templates to agree and disagree
simultaneously
Although I agree with X up to a point, I
cannot accept his overriding assumption
that ____________________.
Though I concede that ________, I still
insist that_______.
X is right that _________, but she seems
on more dubious ground when she claims
that________________.
12. Other favorites
I’m of two minds about X’s claim that ______
On the one hand, I agree that _______. On
the other hand, I’m not sure if________.
My feelings on this issue are mixed. I do
support X’s position that _________, but I find
Y’s argument about _________and Z’s
research on ________to be equally
persuasive.
13. A little of each=superstar
Naturally, writers lean towards one side or
the other on an issue and will decide to
whole-heartedly agree or disagree.
But if writers can find a way to agree and
disagree with an author’s argument, they are
much more likely to develop a unique,
nuanced argument that really separates
theirs from the rest.
