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
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
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
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
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.”
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.
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