Comp and Lit Exam 2

Writing a conclusion

Answer the significance of your argument. Issue a call for action. Bring all your ideas into a coherent whole. Use a relevant quotation in conjunction with, but not in place of, your own concluding ideas.

Along with good factual evidence you also need an ______ of your audience to have a successful argument

Appeal to the needs and values (pathos)

Ad populum

Appeal to the prejudices of people (e.g. appeal to patriotism

Evaluation of examples

Are the examples representative? Are the examples consistence with the experience of the audience?

Evaluation factual evidence

Are the facts up to date? Is the factual evidence sufficient? Are the facts relevant?

False dilemma

Arguer suggests that there are only two alternatives even if there are other explanations or solutions simplification of complex problem

Why are assumptions often unstated?

Arguers may believe assumption is obvious and does not need to be expressed or they may want to conceal the assumption in the hope that the reader will overlook its weakness

Evaluation sources for relevance

Is it relevant to your topic? Does it provide information you haven't found elsewhere? Can you learn anything about the author, and does what you learn inspire confidence?

Reading with comprehension

Understanding what the author is trying to prove. Harder to comprehend a text you disagree with or that is new information. (1) Skim the reading for the main idea and overall structure (2) Pay attention to topic sentences (3) Don't overlook language signposts, usually transitional words and phrases (4) Consider any visuals

Language

Use words you and your listeners are familiar with. Don't use potentially offensive words. Define words audience might not know. Use strong words to create images and cause a listener to feel as well as think. Use short, direct sentences. Use active voice. Use repetition, balance, parallel structure (I have a dream speech)

Needs give rise to _________

Values

Strategies for recognizing assumptions

(1) Locate the one sentence that best states the author's claim (2) What audience is the author targeting? What assumption must the audience make to accept the claim.? (3) What is the support? What assumption connects this to the claim? (4) It may not be stated it a universally accepted truth, but should still be clear to reader.

Stasis Theory Questions

(1) Questions of fact: What are the facts of the issue? (2) Questions of definition: What is the meaning or nature of the issue? (3) Questions of quality: What is the seriousness or value of the issue? (4) Questions of policy: What is the plan of action about the issue? Lead to the four types of claims

How to refute an opposing view?

(1) Read the argument carefully (have to be familiar with the argument to refute it) (2) Summarize an opposing view at the beginning of your paper (3) If you argument is long and complex, choose only the most important points to refute (4) Attack the principal elements in the argument of your opponent: question the evidence, attack the warrants/assumptions, attack the logic/reasoning, attack the proposed solution to the problem (5) Be prepared to do more than attack the opposing view. Supply evidence and good reasons in support of your own claim.

Under what conditions does argument work best?

(1) The issue must have at least two sides (must be arguable) (2) an arguer (3) an audience (4) common ground (5) forum (magazine, tv, class, papers) (6) audience outcome (even if people don't change their minds, they should be more informed about the issue)

Why argue?

(1) To justify what we do/think, both to ourselves and to our audiences and (2) to solve problems and make decisions

Strategies for uncovering logical fallacies

(1) if your source is making use of induction, does it have enough examples to justify the conclusion (2) If your source is making use of deduction, is its conclusion a logical one based on the premise? Write out syllogism (3) Avoid sources that word their thesis statements in absolute terms like all, every, everyone, everybody, and always (4) use the list of fallacies in this chapter as a checklist while you read each of your sources with a critical eye

Claim, assumption, support triangle

(Blue cause support chapter)

The triangle (Aristotle)

A WRITER or speaker presents a text about a SUBJECT to an AUDIENCE. Rhetorical relationship v positional relationship v referential relationship

Hasty generalization

A generalization based on too little or unrepresentative data (often prejudice and superstitions)

Argument

Forms of discourse that attempt to persuade readers or listeners to accept a position on a controversial issue.

Common ground

A writer or speaker and an audience who have very different opinions on a highly charged emotional issue need this if any productive communication is going to take place.

What two general areas do people often disagree about matters of value?

Aesthetics and morality

The Claim

Also called proposition or thesis Answers the question, what are you trying to prove? Three types of claims

Assumption

Also called warrant or inference A belief or principle that is taken for granted, can either be stated or unstated

Toulmin model

An approach to analyzing and constructing arguments created by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin.

Ad hominem

An attack on the person rather than the argument or the issue

Two wrongs make a right

Another way to divert attention from the question at hand

Claims of fact

Assert that a condition has existed, exists, or will exist and are based on facts or data that the audience will accept as being objectively verifiable Making a statement

Claims of policy

Assert that specific policies should be instituted as solutions to problems (contain should, must, or ought)

Appeal to tradition

Assumes that what has existed for a long time should continue to exist because it is a tradition (doesn't answer the question why)

All our claims, both formal and informal, are ground in _____________ that the audience must share with us if our claims are to prove to be acceptable

Assumptions

Straw man

Attack on a view similar to but not the same as the one your opponent holds

Red herring

Attempt to divert attention away from the subject at hand to any other subject, not just one related to the original suject

Claims of value

Attempt to prove that some things are more or less desirable than others. They express disapproval of standards of taste and morality. Making a judgment Right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly, worthwhile or undesirable

Evaluating multimodal sources

Audio too soft, too loud? How does music affect mood? Image size, quality, focus, etc? Film perspective, color, etc.

Post Hoc or doubtful cause

Because one event follows another event, the first event must be a cause of the second

Synthesis

Bringing together and analyzing ideas and formulation of opintions

While claims are usually about specific times and places, assumptions are...

Broad generalizations that can apply to a number of different situations

Evaluation

Builds on a summary by incorporating not only the argument's main point but also the reader's reaction to it. Not just do I agree or disagree with arguer, but analyzing how effective the arguer was.

Summary

Can be referential or rhetorical

Rhetoric

Communication (writing or speaking)

Evaluation of statistics

Do the statistics come from trustworthy sources? Are the terms clearly defined? Are the comparisons between comparable things? Has any significant information been omitted?

Inductive reasoning

Drawing a conclusion based on example Form of reasoning in which we come to conclusions about the whole on the basis of observations of particular instances Moving from specifics to generalizations (look at price of milk and four stores and state that pricemart has the cheapest milk) Have to ask how accurate conclusion is Can other probability, not certain truth

Deductive reasoning

Drawing a conclusion based on probability Starts with a general statement that would apply to a number of specific situations. Conclusions from deduction are certain. only as strong as the premise (if premise is that all men with chalk dust on fingers are school teachers, and George has chalk dust on fingers, so George must be teacher. Only true if premise is true.)

Why do claims of facts need to be proven?

Due to different interpretations, due to causal relationships (are sugary drinks or a sedentary lifestyle the leading cause of obesity in America), predictions, new data

Pathos

Emotional appeals Not legitimate if irrelevant to argument or if used to conceal another purpose

Examples of consensual argument

Emphasis on agreement Dialectic (two people participating as equals attempting to find best position on issue) Academic inquiry (to discover new views, new knowledge, new truths) Negotiation and mediation (two or more people trying to reach consensus) Internal argument (person trying to convince themselves)

Examples of traditional argument

Emphasis on winning Public debate (both participants trying win) Courtroom argument (lawyers pleading before a jury and judge) Single-perspective argument (with one person arguing to convince a mass audience) one-on-one, everyday argument (with one person trying to convince another)

Quotation

Exact words of source in quotation marks

Factual evidence examples

Examples, statistics, expert opinion,

primary sources

Firsthand information aka information taken directly from the original source Includes field research (interviews, personal observations, experiments) Memoirs, letters, photographs, contemporary news reports of historical events, etc. can also be firsthand often generates new information which can produce new interpretations of familiar conditions

Referential summary

Focuses on an authors ideas about the subject focuses on the content itself

Evaluating appeals to needs and values

Have the values been clearly defined? Are the needs and values to which you appeal prominent in the reader's hierarchy at the time you are writing? Is the evidence in your argument clearly related to the needs and values to which you appeal?

Evaluation sources for reliability

If is current enough? Have circumstances changed since this text was published? Is the author someone you would want to call on as an expert witness? Does the author have the experience or credentials to make a solid argument that will carry weight with your readers? Is it reliable information for your purposes? It may be highly opinionated, but are the basic facts it presents confirmed in other sources? Is the evidence presented in the text convincing?

How to evaluate web-based sources

Is the author an expert in the field or otherwise qualified through experience to write about the subject? Does the support the author offers convince you that the major ideas expressed are valid and accurate? Does the author reveal bias that could keep the content from being reliable? Is the information recent? Does the author provide enough information about the subject, in enough detail?

Evaluation of images

Is the image relevant? Are you confident the photograph has not been altered? Does the image depend too much on emotional appeal?

Evaluation of expert opinion

Is the source of the opinion qualified to give an opinion on the subject? Is the source biased for or against their interpretation? Has the source bolstered the claim with sufficient and appropriate evidence?

Non sequitor

It does not follow

Syllogism

Lays out basic elements of an argument Has the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion, which follows logically from the two premises

Logos

Logical appeals Aristotle thought this would be enough in an ideal world The evidence or proof that supports a writer's claim: example (induction) or enthymeme (deduction)

Begging the questions

Making a statement that assumes that the very question being argued has already been proved Circular reasoning

Support

Materials the arguer uses to convince an audience that his or her claim is sound. Include (1) evidence (facts, statistic, testimony from experts) and (2) motivational appeals to needs and values

Under what conditions does argument fail?

No disagreement or reason to argue Risky or trivial issues Difficulty in establishing common ground Standoffs or fights that result in negative outcomes

Summary

Overview, usually shorter

slippery slope

Predicting that taking a first step will lead inevitably to a second, usually undesirable, step

Critical reading prcess

Prereading, comprehension/reading,

Rogerian argument

Presents opponent's views accurately and objectively Presents writer's view fairly and objectively Explains what common ground exists between the two positions Thesis statement presents a compromise between the two positions Carl Rogers

What are the two types of sources?

Primary and secondary

Secondary sources

Provide commentary on and analysis of a topic Allow us to see how others are examining an issue

What do you need to evaluate sources for?

Relevance, reliability

Paraphrase

Restatement idea for idea

Writing an introduction

Should not just include your claim, but should invite the reader to give attention to what you have to say and point to the direction your argument well take

Rhetorical summary

Summaries the text in therms of rhetorical or structural choices the author made Focuses on how the author structured his article

What is the link between the claim and the support?

The assumption

Prereading

The most important things to understand about a text before you read it The title, purpose, author, target audience, understand the kind of text, and the context of writing

Toulmin model of argument

The uses of argument book Has claim, support, assumption, Analyze arguments

Fallacies

Weaknesses that cause an argument to break down

Audience analysis

What type of audience? Friendly, hostile, neutral? Questionnaires, surveys Should you use humor, simpler language, visual aids?

Faulty use of Authority

When individuals are presented as authorities in fields in which they are not (tv doctor)

Enthymeme

When only two parts of a syllogism appear

False analogy

When two things are compared to each other on the basis of superficial similarities while significant dissimilarities are ignored

Ethos

Writer's credibility Their knowledge, moral uprightness, dependability, goodwill towards others

Can images be evidence?

Yes

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

physiological, safety, social, esteem, self-actualization

Aristotle rhetoric

ethos, pathos, logos