Composition

*Claims &Argumentation

*Claims*A Simple Claim is a Syllogism (Aristotle):

*From Dictionary.com:*Syllogism: An argument the conclusion of which is

supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion.

*Claims—In Other Words!

A Simple Claim can also be though of as the transitive property of mathematics:

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C

So what is A, B, and C?

Reasons Claim

Warrant/Assumption

REASON: Since small children cannot distinguish fantasy from reality…

CLAIM: …their testimony cannot always be used at trial.

WARRANT: The inability to distinguish fantasy from reality is a viable reason to bar someone’s ability to testify.

*Warrants/Assumptions*B is the Hidden Premise =

Warrant (or ASSUMPTION)* Warrants/assumptions must

be true in order for the claim to hold up

* If warrants/assumptions cannot be proven/established, your argument will be vulnerable

* Identifying Warrants…* Allows you to establish what

you will need to argue in the body of your paper

* Enables you to anticipate what your opponents counterarguments will be

* Helps you gauge whether your argument is too broad or narrow

CLAIM: All students in American public schools should be taught in English-only classrooms.

Warrants/Assumptions:

1. Schools prepare (all) students for success in American society.

2. Success in American society can be determined by our English language skills.

3. Individuals who are not fluent in English will not succeed in our society.

4. Teaching classes only in English will ensure that students will be fluent in English.

REASON: (Because) Fluency in English is essential for success in America.

*Warrants/Assumptions

*Exercise: The Sneaker Argument

*Counterclaims*Take a stance opposite to your original claim

*Provide insight to the opposing view (makes you appear open-minded and that you have considered all options)

*Allows you a chance to rebut the counterclaim and prove the superiority of your claim

*Rebuttals*A rebuttal is a way of proving a counterclaim is weaker

than your claim

*You rebut your counterclaim by explaining why the opposing view is incorrect and reaffirming your viewpoint

*The Whole ProcessClaim (Including Evidence & Assumptions)

Ex. Since smoking can cause cancer, you shouldn’t smoke.

Counterclaim: Ex. Just because something can cause you cancer isn’t a

reason not to do something.

Rebuttal to Counterclaim: Ex. However, when your health is on the line, it’s important

to consider whether the risks of doing what you want outweigh the benefits of doing what you should.

*Argumentation Tips*Explore your own opinions*Pro & Con List*Free writing*Discussing with others*Identify as many reasons for your opinions as possible*Keep in mind this quote:*“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored

by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”* Ralph Waldo Emerson

*Argumentation Tips*Anticipate Opposing Viewpoints*These are counterclaims*Gather evidence/brainstorm ways to refute or rebut

*Remember Your Audience*Different viewpoints appeal to different types of people*Who are you trying to persuade?*How best can you reach that person?

*Argumentation Tips*Narrow Your Argument*Decide which points and counterpoints are worth

including*Not all arguments/reasons/evidence are equal*It’s better to present an in-depth analysis of few

viewpoints than a cursory analysis of many*It may help you to write an “Although…Because” thesis

*Argumentation Tips*Organization (Body Paragraphs)*Pattern A:*First point and supporting evidence*Second point and supporting evidence*Counterclaim and rebuttal for first point*Counterclaim and rebuttal for second point

*Argumentation Tips*Organization:*Pattern B:*Counterclaim and rebuttal for first point*Counterclaim and rebuttal for second point*First point and supporting evidence*Second point and supporting evidence

*Argumentation Tips*Organization:*Pattern C:*First point and supporting evidence*Counterclaim and rebuttal to first point*Second point and supporting evidence*Counterclaim and rebuttal to second point

*Argumentation Tips*Providing Evidence/Reasons:*Give Examples*Present a Comparison or Contrast*Show a Cause and Effect Relationship*Make an analogy, metaphor, or simile*Argue by Definition*Personal Experience*Experiences of Experts*Factual Information/Statistics*Hypothetical Examples*Diagrams or Charts

*Argumentation Tips*Remember Tone*Try to avoid sarcasm or insults*Always be respectful to opposing side*Try not to be accusatory*Write as though you had to tell the opposition everything

in person

*Activity*Read “You Can’t Judge a Crook by His Color” (handout)*After reading, in groups of 3-4, discuss/determine the

following:*Lead-in technique & introduction*Thesis*Organizational pattern*Main claims*Warrants/assumptions*Counterclaims and rebuttals*Types of evidence used*Conclusion technique & conclusion

*Once you have finished, we will share as a large group.

*Logical Fallacies*Problems to Avoid*Hasty Generalizations*Non Sequiturs*Begging the Question*Red Herrings*Post Hoc, Ergo Propter

Hoc *Ad Hominem (To The

Man) Argument*Ad Populum (To the

People) Argument*Ad Misericordiam (To the

Pity)

*Faulty Use of Authority*Circular Logic*Either/Or*Hypostatization (Reliance

on the Abstract)*Bandwagon*Straw Man*Faulty Analogy*Empty Rhetoric/Quick Fix*Slippery Slope*Stacking the Deck

*Logical Fallacies*Hasty generalization*The writer bases the argument on insufficient or

unrepresentative evidence*Occurs when you rely on one (or few) experience(s)/source(s) to

inform your conclusion*Occurs when writer relies on evidence that is not factual or

substantiated* Be wary of words like always, all, none, never, only, and most* Instead, try to qualify statements with words like many, some, often,

and seldom.

*Ex. That shopping mall is unsafe because there was a robbery there two weeks ago.

*Ex. I’m failing organic chemistry because the teaching assistant can’t speak English well.

*Ex. This book was written by a Harvard professor, and all Harvard professors are smart, so it must be good.

*Logical Fallacies* Non Sequitur (“it doesn’t follow”)* The writer’s conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of

the facts* This occurs when writers misidentify cause and effect relationships* To avoid this, make sure you identify all of the

warrants/assumptions in your argument* Non sequiturs occur when writers create arguments that don’t

come out of their warrants/assumptions

* Ex. Mr. Thompson has such bad breath that it’s a wonder he sings so well.

* Harold Jones is an amazing chemist, so he must be a brilliant professor.

* I supported his candidacy for president because he has been married for 20 years.

*Logical Fallacies* Begging the Question* The writer presents as truth what is not yet proven by the argument* The fallacy gets its name from a metaphor: just as a beggar tries to get

something for nothing, a writer is trying to get something (belief in an argument) from a reader for nothing (not doing any actual work to prove the argument)

* It’s passing off an assumption/warrant as true without proving it* This occurs when writers use their assumptions/warrants as claims in

themselves

* Ex. That foolish law should be repealed.* Why is it foolish?

* Ex. She is compassionate because she’s a woman.* Are women actually inherently compassionate?

* Ex. If you haven’t written short stories, you shouldn’t be critiquing them.* Do you actually have to be a writer to appreciate and/or understand what

good writing is?

*Logical Fallacies* Red Herring* The reader introduces an irrelevant (or minor) point to divert

the reader’s attention from the main issue.* The term is derived from the practice of using the scent of a red

herring to throw hunting dogs off the trail of their real prey.* This occurs when writers don’t have enough confidence in their

argument to rebut the opposition’s best counterclaims* Even though a red herring may distract the reader/audience

momentarily, once someone discovers your true intention as a writer (and that you mislead the reader as to the basis for your argument), he or she will disengage with your piece

* Ex. Even though the hockey player was convicted of vehicular homicide, he shouldn’t go to jail because he is such a great athlete.

* Ex. The teacher gave me an F in the course because she didn’t like me.

*Logical Fallacies* Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (“after this, therefore because of

this”)* A (false) assumption that simply because something happened

before something else in time, the first event caused the second.* This is similar to the phrase in psychology “Correlation is not

Causation”* This occurs often when arguments are based in superstition,

stereotypes, and conspiracies* To avoid, make sure you can define a clear and supportable cause and

effect relationship (through evidence) and define additional factors that may be at play

* Ex. It’s no wonder the prevalence of binge drinking on our campus has shot up, as the state legislature vowed to lower the drinking age last week.

* Ex. Because of the women’s liberation movement, the number of “latchkey” children has risen sharply.

*Logical Fallacies*Ad Hominem (“To The Man”) Argument* The writer attacks the opposition’s character rather than the

opposition’s argument* This occurs when writers are not confident in the strength of their

argument and resort to personal attacks (name calling, sarcasm, etc.)* Readers generally do not respond positively to “character” arguments,

and, at the worst, they can undercut the writer’s credibility and offset his/her other strong points

* Ad hominem arguments should be used only when the writer can prove a person’s character is directly impacting the issue in a negative way.* Ex. If it is revealed that the organizer of a petition to build a state-supported

recycling center owns the land on which the proposed recycling center would be built.

*Of course he doesn’t see anything wrong with violent movies; he’s a warmonger.

*We cannot expect Ms. Lucas to know what it means to feel oppressed; she’s the president of a large bank.

*Logical Fallacies*Ad Populum (“To the People”) Argument*The writer evades the issues by appealing to readers’

emotional reactions to certain subjects.* These are arguments that are rooted deeply (too deeply and

negatively) in pathos, aimed at the supposed prejudices, emotions, and fears of the masses

*Writers use provocative language and hot-button words as a smoke screen, attempting to distract from the lack of evidence or support for an argument.

* This is a poor technique, as the goal of an argumentative essay is to persuade, and readers of the opposite stance will not be won over by unsubstantiated character arguments.

*Ex. Doctors oppose health reform because it will hinder their ability to keep lining their deep pockets.

*Ex. If you were a true American patriot, you would want every terrorist to be captured and killed.

*Logical Fallacies*Ad Misericordiam (“To the Pity”) Argument* The writer relies too heavily on pathos to elicit an emotional reaction

from people that will “force” them to act* In laymen’s terms, you can think of this as a “guilt trip”* However, when an argument is based solely on the exploitation of the

reader’s pity, the true issue gets lost.* Think of it this way: if a defendant embezzled millions of dollars from his

company, the fact that he was abused as a child would humanize him, but never exonerate him.

* In the same way, arguments that appeal to pity are never enough on their own (and, at the worst, can sometimes turn off a reader because they recognize them as distractions)

* Ex. It makes no difference if he was guilty of Nazi war crimes. The man is eighty years old and in frail health, so he should not be made to stand trial.

* Ex. Capital punishment should be illegal, because on death row many criminals realize what they have done is wrong, and they become better people.

*Logical Fallacies*Faulty Use of Authority*The writer relies on “experts” who are not convincing or credible

sources* This an incorrect use of ethos, and it often occurs when someone is

an expert in one area, but is used as an authority in another unrelated area

*Name recognition is never enough; the source must have expertise, credentials, or relevant experience in the area under discussion

*While the opinions of a four-star general are excellent in matters of foreign policy, they will not be as relevant to the discussion of assisted suicide, education, health care, etc.

*Ex. Americans shouldn’t find hunting objectionable because Theodore Roosevelt, one of our most popular presidents, was an avid hunter.*Ex. Since Cindy Crawford recommended these vitamins, they

must be beneficial.

*Logical Fallacies*Circular reasoning/logic* The conclusion of a deductive argument is hidden in the premise

(thus, the argument goes in a circle).* In brief, this occurs when the writer repeats key terms (either exactly

or in synonyms) in both his reason and claim, often because of insufficient evidence or “lazy” arguing

* For example, take this common argument: “Smoking is bad for you because it ruins your health.”

* In a nutshell, the speaker is saying “Smoking is bad for you because it is bad for you.”

* This is the defense tired parents use with children! While it convinces kids (sometimes), it will not convince your readers.

* Instead, focus on finding specific evidence to support your point.

* Ex. People who are happy with their work are cheerful because they enjoy what they are doing.

* Ex. Bank robbers should be punished because they broke the law

*Logical Fallacies*Either/Or (False Dilemma)*The writer tries to convince readers that there are only

two sides to an issue—one right/one wrong.* This occurs when a writer is unable to see the gray areas of

issues* As a technique, it’s problematic because it demeans the

humanity and intelligence of the opposition* If you are writing your paper to change someone’s mind, it’s

not a convincing technique to call someone essentially immoral for their previous/existing stance.

*Ex. If you don’t sign up for the military, you obviously don’t love your country.*Ex. If you don’t want to pay taxes, you obviously don’t

love your country.

*Logical Fallacies*Hypostatization (Reliance on the Abstract)*The writer uses an abstract concept as if it were a concrete

reality.* This occurs when writers preface arguments with statements like* History has always taught us…* Science has proven…* Research shows…

*History, science, etc. comprises multiple, diverse, and dissenting voices, so be sure not to lump everyone together

* Being as specific as possible—always—will help guard against this issue (again, try to use words like “many” and “some”)

*Ex. Society feels that juvenile delinquents can be rehabilitated, which is why they receive lesser sentences than adults.*Ex. Scientists believe that stem-cell research can help cure

many diseases.

*Logical Fallacies*Bandwagon Appeal*The writer tries to validate a point by intimating

that “everyone else believes this.”*The reason this tactic is ineffective is that it is yet

another way to evade the real issues of an argument*This type of argument panders to many people’s base

fear: not being accepted* In general, a “get with the majority because the

majority rules” argument is not going to be convincing enough for readers; they will see it as childish or phony

*Ex. Smart shoppers shop at Sears.*Ex. Choosy moms choose Jif.

*Logical Fallacies*Straw man*The writer selects the opposition’s weakest or most

insignificant point to argue against*The fallacy gets its name from this metaphor: the writer

easily knocks down a “scarecrow”—a doll—that would never put up a fight

*This usually occurs when the writer is not confident enough to argue against the opponent’s strongest point(s)

*However, readers who oppose the writer’s stance will not be won over by this method, as they recognize a win isn’t really a win unless the fight is fair

*Ex. I shouldn’t have been fired, as I was on time to work yesterday. (However, “I” had came in late two weeks in a row before yesterday).

*Logical Fallacies*Faulty analogy*The writer uses an extended comparison as proof of a

point when, in fact, the two things compared do not match up feature for feature (or the ideas do not logically connect)* This will happen when a writer is stretching too far to prove a

point or comparing two unfamiliar or complex subjects* A sound analogy will clarify a difficult or unfamiliar concept by

comparing it with something easily understood or familiar

*Ex. This whole gun control issue is polarizing the nation the way slavery did people living above and below the Mason-Dixon line. Do we really want another Civil War?

*Ex. Letting emerging nations have nuclear weapons is like giving loaded guns to children.

*Logical Fallacies*Empty Rhetoric/Quick Fix*The writer leans too heavily on catchy phrases or

empty slogans*This is the definition of “style superseding substance”*This occurs when a writer uses a particular catch

phrase or writes a lot of flowery B.S. in lieu of making an actual argument

*While catch phrases can grab attention, they cannot be used as evidence in and of themselves

*Ex. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.*Ex. Gay, straight, black, white, all unite for equal

rights.

*Logical Fallacies*Slippery Slope*The writer presumes one event will inevitably lead to a

chain of other events that end up in catastrophe*This argument gets its name from this metaphor: one slip on

a mountain top will cause a climber to tumble down and bring down/take out everyone behind him

*This “domino-effect” reasoning is fallacious because it depends more on presumption (hypothesizing about future results) rather than evidence (drawing conclusions from past ones)

*Ex. Legalized abortion is a step toward creating an antilife society.*Ex. A ban on ethnic slurs will mean no more freedom of

speech.

*Logical Fallacies*Stacking the Deck*Writers give only the evidence that supports their claim and

withhold or disregard evidence that contradicts their position.* Scientists, statisticians, and pollsters call this “data beautification”* This is a poor technique, because the opposition will recognize you

failed to do your job as a persuader when you bypassed crucial information.

* Also, if you “stack the deck,” you won’t be able to address and refute counterclaims, which are the hallmark of a strong argumentative essay.

*Ex. Parents should realize that private schools simply encourage elitism in young people.

*Ex. We cannot take four more years of her in office, given the way she voted again increasing the minimum wage.

*Argumentative Essay*Logical fallacies activity