ArgumentationArgumentation

ArgumentationArgumentation- is a process of reasoning - is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusionposition, belief, or conclusion– Urges people to share the writer’s perspective Urges people to share the writer’s perspective

and insightsand insights

What you should be able to identify What you should be able to identify in the introductory paragraph of an in the introductory paragraph of an

argumentative essay:argumentative essay: 1) The main issue is identified1) The main issue is identified 2) Background information presents both 2) Background information presents both

sides of the issue.sides of the issue. 3) Topic Sentence- take a stand (thesis)3) Topic Sentence- take a stand (thesis)

Uses of ArgumentationUses of Argumentation

Used to convince others to accept (or at Used to convince others to accept (or at least acknowledge the validity of) your least acknowledge the validity of) your positionposition

Defend your positionDefend your position To question or refute a position you believe To question or refute a position you believe

to be misguided, untrue, dangerous, or evilto be misguided, untrue, dangerous, or evil

Persuasion vs. ArgumentationPersuasion vs. Argumentation

Persuasion-Persuasion- how a writer influences an how a writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or follow a course audience to adopt a belief or follow a course of actionof action

Argumentation-Argumentation- appeals to reason; does not appeals to reason; does not try to move an audience to action; its try to move an audience to action; its primary purpose is to demonstrate that primary purpose is to demonstrate that certain ideas are valid and others are notcertain ideas are valid and others are not– Uses appeals most would consider fairUses appeals most would consider fair

Considering all sides of a questionConsidering all sides of a question

Be willing to change (perception, outlook, Be willing to change (perception, outlook, opinion)opinion)

Consider other viewpoints: gives insight to Consider other viewpoints: gives insight to “their” reactions“their” reactions

Can’t be open-minded? Well, choose Can’t be open-minded? Well, choose another topic.another topic.

Additional criteria:Additional criteria:

Take a stand to form your thesisTake a stand to form your thesis Is your topic debatable? It needs to be.Is your topic debatable? It needs to be.

– Maybe create an Maybe create an antithesisantithesis (statement that (statement that asserts the opposite position) asserts the opposite position)

Use of EvidenceUse of Evidence

Main criteria to look for in evidence:Main criteria to look for in evidence:– 1) relevance1) relevance– 2) 2) representative- representative- represents a full range of represents a full range of

opinions about your subject, not just one sideopinions about your subject, not just one side

Use of EvidenceUse of Evidence

You don’t need to document common You don’t need to document common knowledge.knowledge.

Opposition- anticipate the objections; Opposition- anticipate the objections; address objections in your essayaddress objections in your essay

Refute opposing argument by making it Refute opposing argument by making it seem weaker than it actually is (creating a seem weaker than it actually is (creating a straw man)straw man)

Rogerian ArgumentRogerian Argument

Carl Rogers= how to argue without Carl Rogers= how to argue without confrontationconfrontation (proving opponent’s position (proving opponent’s position wrong)wrong)

Confrontation forces opponent into a Confrontation forces opponent into a defensive positiondefensive position

Think of those that disagree with you as Think of those that disagree with you as colleagues, not adversaries.colleagues, not adversaries.

Guidelines for Rogerian Guidelines for Rogerian ArgumentArgument

Begin by summarizing opposing viewpointsBegin by summarizing opposing viewpoints Consider positions of those that disagree with Consider positions of those that disagree with

you.you. Present opposing viewpoints accurately and Present opposing viewpoints accurately and

fairly.fairly. Concede strength of a compelling opposing Concede strength of a compelling opposing

argumentargument Acknowledge shared concernsAcknowledge shared concerns Benefits from the position you are definingBenefits from the position you are defining

Deductive vs. Inductive Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning Reasoning (moving from evidence to (moving from evidence to

conclusion)conclusion) Deductive reasoningDeductive reasoning- proceeds from a - proceeds from a

general premise or assumption to a specific general premise or assumption to a specific conclusion (logic)conclusion (logic)– Holds that if all statements in the argument are Holds that if all statements in the argument are

true, the conclusion must be truetrue, the conclusion must be true

Deductive vs. Inductive Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning Reasoning

Inductive reasoning- Inductive reasoning- proceeds from proceeds from individual observations to a more general individual observations to a more general conclusion and uses no strict formconclusion and uses no strict form

Using Deductive reasoningUsing Deductive reasoning

Syllogism-Syllogism- consists of a major premise, which consists of a major premise, which is a general statement; a minor premise, is a general statement; a minor premise, which is a related but more specific statement; which is a related but more specific statement; and a conclusion drawn from those premisesand a conclusion drawn from those premises

Ex.Ex.– Major premise: All Olympic swimmers are fast.Major premise: All Olympic swimmers are fast.– Minor premise: Michael Phelps is an Olympic Minor premise: Michael Phelps is an Olympic

swimmer.swimmer.– Conclusion: Michael Phelps is fast.Conclusion: Michael Phelps is fast.

Deductive and Inductive Deductive and Inductive ReasoningReasoning

In order for an argument to be In order for an argument to be validvalid, a , a conclusion has to follow logically from the conclusion has to follow logically from the major and minor premises. major and minor premises.

To be sound a syllogism must be logical and To be sound a syllogism must be logical and true.true.

Unlike deduction, induction has no Unlike deduction, induction has no distinctive form, and its conclusions are less distinctive form, and its conclusions are less definitive than those of syllogism.definitive than those of syllogism.

Toulmin LogicToulmin Logic

Toulmin logicToulmin logic: divides arguments into three : divides arguments into three parts: the claim, the grounds, and the parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.warrant.– Claim-Claim- is the main point of the essay is the main point of the essay– GroundsGrounds- the material a writer uses to support - the material a writer uses to support

the claim-can be evidence or appeals to the the claim-can be evidence or appeals to the emotions or values of the audienceemotions or values of the audience

– Warrant-Warrant- is the inference that connects the is the inference that connects the claim to the groundsclaim to the grounds

Toulmin LogicToulmin Logic

Ex.Ex.– Claim: Yale should be elected class president.Claim: Yale should be elected class president.– Grounds: Yale is an honor student.Grounds: Yale is an honor student.– Warrant: A person who is an honor student Warrant: A person who is an honor student

would make a good class president.would make a good class president.

Recognizing FallaciesRecognizing Fallacies

FallaciesFallacies are illogical statements that may are illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true, but are actually sound reasonable or true, but are actually deceptive and dishonest.deceptive and dishonest.

Types of Fallacies:Types of Fallacies: 1) 1) Begging the question:Begging the question: This tactic asks the This tactic asks the

readers to agree that certain points are readers to agree that certain points are self-self-evidentevident (so obvious it needs no proof) when (so obvious it needs no proof) when in fact they are not.in fact they are not.

Types of FallaciesTypes of Fallacies

2) Argument from analogy2) Argument from analogy: Analogies don’t : Analogies don’t constitute proof. Often ignores constitute proof. Often ignores dissimilarities between objects being dissimilarities between objects being compared.compared.

3) Personal Attack (argument 3) Personal Attack (argument Ad hominemAd hominem): ): tries to divert attention from facts of an tries to divert attention from facts of an argument by attacking motives or character argument by attacking motives or character of the person making the argument.of the person making the argument.

Types of Fallacies (p.568-569)Types of Fallacies (p.568-569)

4) False Dilemma (Either or fallacy)4) False Dilemma (Either or fallacy): occurs : occurs when a writer suggests that only two when a writer suggests that only two alternatives exist even though there may be alternatives exist even though there may be others.others.

5) Red Herring:5) Red Herring: occurs when the focus of an occurs when the focus of an argument is shifted to divert the audience from argument is shifted to divert the audience from the actual issue.the actual issue.

6) Appeal to doubtful authority:6) Appeal to doubtful authority: people are cited people are cited as evidence who are not experts on the subjectas evidence who are not experts on the subject

Types of Fallacies Types of Fallacies

7) 7) Post hocPost hoc reasoning: assumes that reasoning: assumes that because two events occur together in time, because two events occur together in time, the first must be the cause of the secondthe first must be the cause of the second

8) Non sequitur8) Non sequitur: occurs when a statement : occurs when a statement does not logically follow from a previous does not logically follow from a previous statementstatement