APPROACHING PERSUASIVE WRITING

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "APPROACHING PERSUASIVE WRITING"

Transcription

1 APPROACHING PERSUASIVE WRITING What s the purpose of persuasive writing? To make the writer s opinions agreeable, convincing to an audience To convince readers who disagree to change their minds, or their behavior To use argumentation as a rhetorical strategy for convincing people to agree with you, even when they may initially disagree. Notice how the word audience, readers, and people keep appearing as we try to define the purpose here? It s the needs of the audience that you really focus on when you attempt to write persuasively. That will be crucial to remember when we talk about the parts of an argument. In all of these definitions of purpose, you can see that the need for persuasion implies that there s some problem or issue or disagreement out there that s arguable or debatable. That seems obvious, but what does it really mean? People get into ridiculous or even dangerous arguments all of the time because they try to argue or debate things they disagree about that really aren t arguable because they are matters of belief, feeling, or faith. Feelings. If you feel happy, will you be easily convinced that you that you shouldn t be? Conversely, if you re sad, can you be persuaded to cheer up? If you hate someone or something, will a logical explanation change the way you feel? (Logic can influence the way you think, but does it budge how you feel?) Feelings can change, obviously, and sometimes changing your mind helps you change your feelings, but in general it s

2 understood that feelings are not arguable. You know the cliché people are entitled to their feelings. Faith. Two people who have religious differences, for instance, can argue and debate all day and I guarantee neither one will win. We have vivid illustrations of this all over the world. Belief. Sometimes what s a matter of belief can be a little blurry, and what s arguable or not arguable becomes a lot more challenging to decide. For example, should a red state evangelical Christian argue with a blue state secular humanist that the United States should observe a separation of church and state? Are we talking about belief when we talk about the tradition of separation between church and state? In this case, I would say no we are arguing about how to interpret the Constitution, which is not an article of faith but an article of secular law. In that case, the stronger interpretation, the one with more logical reasoning and evidence to support it, should win (be the most convincing). Of course we all know that disagreements which can t be argued are often battled instead. Might makes right, as the saying goes. How long has that been going on? Forever, right? But this isn t exactly satisfying for either party, and at various times in history there have been those few special individuals who have stood up to disavow the idea that might makes right. Because in the might makes right scheme of solving disagreements, the winner isn t necessarily right, just more muscular; and the loser isn t necessarily wrong, just less muscular. Nothing is really solved. So, the ancient Greeks, who invented western civilization and democracy and all the traditions that attend them, arrived at the idea that the only civilized solution in a disagreement is tolerance or negotiation; you can agree to disagree. You can respect the difference and walk away. Or you can use your rhetorical powers of persuasion to convince your opponent to agree with you. This only works if you posit an adversary who is reasonable and open-minded, and an issue that is truly arguable, truly debatable that is, not an issue based on feeling, belief, or faith, or mere opinion (opinions you hold but fail to or refuse to rationally support). Defining arguable. An issue is arguable if reasonable people disagree about it for rational reasons and both sides are interested in arriving at the most reasonable, most rational, most logical position, whether it s the one they started with or not. Let s look at a sample issue on which reasonable people disagree vehemently today: our war in Iraq. Expressive purpose. Approaching the subject expressively I would attempt, in various ways, to communicate my thoughts, feelings, opinions, or experiences concerning the war, focusing especially on my personal perspective of things. I might have been in Iraq and experienced the war first hand, or I might have a close friend or a relative who s been in Iraq; maybe I follow the news closely and the war is an important moral issue for me. My writing will get readers to understand my own impressions of the war, my personal experiences relating to the war, and my opinion about the war. Objective purpose. Approaching the subject objectively, I would attempt to explain or analyze the situation in Iraq. My writing would be informative. Through my writing, readers will be able to observe many facts about the war; I might even provide an analysis of the war s causes and its effects, or what kind of war it is compared to other wars we ve fought, or an analysis of how to define victory. My purpose would be to

3 observe as many facts about the war as possible in order to inform readers about what s actually happening in Iraq. I might analyze our efforts in Iraq to draw conclusions about our success or failure there, or I might leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions about our relative success or failure to achieve our mission. Persuasive purpose. Approaching the subject persuasively, I will state a claim relating to the war and try to persuade readers to agree with my claim. I may make it clear that I am either for or against the war and indicate my reasons (claim of judgment). I might claim that the war is too costly and that it s time to bring it to a end (claim of policy). I may claim that, even if we grant that it was begun with the best intentions, it has failed to achieve anything positive, and has actually done more harm than good (claim of value). I may claim that the real causes of the war were other than the ones sold to the public and that the results of this deception have been catastrophic (claim of cause/effect). I may claim that our actions against Iraq and our treatment of prisoners and detainees is illegal and morally bankrupt according to U.N. standards (claim of interpretation). Whatever kind of claim I make, I m interested in making sure these claims become convincing or at least respectable to people who initially disagree with them. SAMPLE CLAIM ON THE SUBJECT OF THE IRAQ WAR Examine the following sample claim: The war in Iraq is a colossal mistake that has undermined our democracy as well as our security. You can ask a series of questions to test whether this is an arguable claim. It obviously expresses an opinion, but will it be mere opinion (with nothing to prove it)? Is it a claim based on feeling, belief, or faith, or does the writer intend to prove this statement through logical reasoning and evidence? Do reasonable people disagree? Do some people hold an opposing view for rational reasons that they attempt to support with factual, objective evidence and logical reasoning? Depending on your answers to these questions, it s either an arguable claim or it s not. After examining this claim, you might decide: It s not mere opinion; the writer intends to provide support. It s not based on feeling or belief; the right reasoning and evidence can prove it. Reasonable people do disagree, and this counter-position can be supported with reasoning and evidence, too. This is an arguable claim because there s clearly another side to the issue. The Bush administration and its supporters strongly disagree with this claim. Their counterposition is that the war in Iraq is a necessary battle in the more general war on terror that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorists were in league with one another, which led to the 9/11 attacks. Our war in Iraq is necessary for our nation s security. Furthermore, our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq only strengthens, not weakens, our own democratic principles. We have done and are doing the right thing, and we can t quit now. We have to refuse to be quitters and stay the course. Examining this counterposition, the writer of the sample claim must decide how strong or weak this opponent s claim really is. Can it be disproved? How? If the writer decides to conduct this argument, a necessary part of the task will be to disprove this counter-position by demonstrating that its logically flawed or based on flimsy evidence, or both. The intellectual battle is on, but there will be no bloodshed, and no real losers, since by mutually

4 seeking the most logical, rational position, both sides will win when that position is ultimately identified. Engaging in this kind of debate and trying to sway your opponent to your side is the essence of rational persuasion. This engagement with an opposition is what separates persuasive writing from objective writing. But more importantly than that, it s the foundation of our whole democratic system. Democracy requires involvement, choice among alternatives, and decision-making. We the people are supposed to think about these things and make intelligent decisions, rational choices. If we can t do this, then history proves that someone or some group will step up to fill the void and make those decisions for us. They may not be the most rational, and they might not be in the people s best interest but that won t matter to the might makes right crowd, which never really goes too far away, unfortunately; it just bides its time in the corner waiting for us to get lazy and our diligence to fade so it can spring back into power. (I guess you can tell I think this is an important skill!) It s possible to approach learning the art (or science) of persuasion by observing how it operates in the real world. In the real world outside the university, the persuaders are hard at work telling us what to feel and how to act, what to buy and who to vote for. The language of advertising and the language of political propaganda are both highly successful means of persuasion, but they are both dubiously manipulative and more than a little unethical when we closely examine them. Therefore, successful as they are, they will not be our role models. The culture of the university promotes an alternative to the blunt manipulation of advertising and propaganda, and the alternative is rational argument. Rational argument is the tool, the rhetorical strategy, to use to be persuasive in an ethical, non-manipulative manner. When you want to persuade someone to agree with you without resorting to trickery or violence, you turn to rational argument. DEFINING RATIONAL ARGUMENT Conducting a persuasive argument is somewhat complicated. It requires you to take four steps (in no particular order): Make a claim Support the claim with reasoning and evidence Present your opponent s views Refute your opponent s views Do we have the suggestion of these parts of the argument so far? We know the claim, but what s the reasoning and evidence? I can start by brainstorming my reasons in support of my claim (recall my sample claim: the war is a colossal mistake that s undermining our democracy and our security ). It s based on lies, deceit, manipulation of media; it s been carried out in defiance of the United Nations rule of law. In three years it s failed to achieve its ever-shifting mission, despite the sacrifice of thousands of military personnel and even more thousands of Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire. It has destabilized the entire region (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Pakistan).

5 It has stretched our military too thin; we are hard pressed to meet our obligations at home (Katrina) and we re less able to meet threats elsewhere in the world (Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Sudan). It s distracted us from our real enemy, and strengthened that enemy exponentially. Our government has engaged in illegal domestic propaganda campaigns in its attempt to gain support for the war. As political activists have been illegally and/or unethically profiled and sometimes harassed, the press has been frequently censored so that negative images of the war don t reach the mainstream media. Protest has been suppressed or kept invisible. Any form of dissent against the President s policies is immediately smeared as unpatriotic. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq have not brought liberation and peace but, on the contrary, our continued occupation has sparked a violent civil war. Religious fundamentalism is more prevalent there now than previously. We ve brought horrific levels of violence to Iraq and little security or stability. Our actual sphere of influence is confined to a small green zone, outside of which it is impossible for westerners to safely travel. The infrastructure in Iraq is in shambles and the culture is becoming more oppressive instead of less as the religious fundamentalists, who are now the majority, take power. The U.S. is viewed as becoming more and more morally corrupt; our image around the world has been severely tarnished by countless scandals relating to secret prisons and our government sanctioned torture of prisoners. Etc! These are some of the reasons a writer could develop to arrive at the claim stated above. They explain why the writer has made that particular claim. They are not argumentative in and of themselves, but they are necessary parts of an argument. Reasoning and evidence work together to help readers understand how and why you ve arrived at your claim; readers evaluate the reasoning and evidence to decide whether the claim is convincing or not. So the reasoning better be valid and the evidence better be strong. LOGICAL REASONING AND EVIDENCE A definition of logical reasoning. Wikipedia.org explains that reasoning is the act of using reason to derive a conclusion from certain premises, using a given methodology; and the two most commonly used explicit methods to reach a conclusion are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Logical reasoning involves lining up a series of statements to see what valid conclusion can be inferred. There are two slightly different models you can use: Aristotle s ancient but ever useful syllogism or Stephen Toulmin s more recent model. They are probably more alike than they are different. Aristotle s model involves lining up valid premises to reach a valid conclusion (truth); Toulmin s model involves looking at specific data and figuring out what general truth that data suggests. Both explain how it s possible to use inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at an agreed upon truth. Inductive reasoning begins with empirical data or specific evidence, and from this particular data infers a general truth; deductive reasoning does the opposite: it begins with a generally accepted statement of truth to arrive at an understanding of particular data. It s always easier to grasp these concepts when you see them in action.

6 Start with the simple example of inductive reasoning: MAJOR PREMISE: Ralph is human. (particular data, specific evidence) MINOR PREMISE: All humans are mortal. (assumption of truth) Therefore, Ralph is mortal. (conclusion, a statement of truth) You can arrange these premises to make the line of reasoning deductive: MAJOR PREMISE: All humans are mortal. MINOR PREMISE: Ralph is human. Therefore, Ralph is mortal. The Toulmin model is also an inductive model: DATA = Ralph s mortality WARRANT = Human s are mortal. (What everyone knows to be true; what I can prove to be true; what I want to assume to be true. There can be more than one warrant.) CLAIM = Ralph is mortal. In each case the point is to have a series of valid premises leading to a valid conclusion. Now let s examine a more complex line of reasoning using our sample issue: the Iraq war. Inductive Reasoning OR DATA = Sadaam Hussein is not cooperating with inspectors. WARRANT = His uncooperativeness suggests he s hiding something, and what he s hiding is a nuclear weapons program. CLAIM = Iraq has a nuclear weapons program that poses a threat to us. MAJOR PREMISE: Sadaam Hussein is not cooperating with inspectors. MINOR PREMISE: His uncooperativeness means he s hiding a nuclear weapons program. Therefore, Iraq has a nuclear weapons program that poses a threat to us. When you examine this line of reasoning, you may want to challenge the validity of the conclusion (especially in hindsight!). How will you do that? You will have to prove that the premises are not valid or that the conclusion doesn t logically (necessarily) follow from the stated premises, even if they are true. If the assumptions underlying the conclusion are false, weak, or unprovable, then the whole structure becomes weak. What would make the above warrant more convincing? Evidence. In the Toulmin model, it s called backing. What evidence is there to suggest that he is hiding a nuclear weapons program? If this evidence is strong or compelling, the conclusion gets a lot more acceptable. Sometimes people will accept a weak conclusion because they aren t evaluating the validity of statements or examining the evidence very carefully. The evidence that was presented to support these premises and this conclusion before the war was extremely thin and even disproved, but the American public accepted it anyway. The fact that no nuclear program and no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq was not a surprise to those who closely evaluated this line of reasoning in the run-up to the war.

7 Deductive Reasoning MAJOR PREMISE: Preemptive war is our national prerogative when we feel threatened. MINOR PREMISE: Iraq is a threat to us. Therefore, we are justified in attacking Iraq preemptively. The validity of this line of reasoning hinges on the writer s ability to convince readers that preemptive war is legally and morally the right action to take. The underlying assumption is that a preemptive military strike ( shock and awe ) is the best action to take when a threat is perceived. That s a tough sell for many who would argue that preemptive war is overly aggressive and unlawful, and that there are more effective, more peaceful means for dealing with perceived threats. EVIDENCE The evidence you provide to back up your reasoning is crucial to making your argument convincing. The strength or weakness of evidence is often the deciding factor when we decide whether we re convinced or not convinced to accept a claim. Hard evidence carries a lot of weight in an argument; it s very convincing. Facts, the opinion of experts or authorities, and statistics can all be used as hard evidence to support your reasoning. Soft evidence carries less weight but may be very effective if used in conjunction with harder kinds of evidence. Soft evidence might not be convincing by itself, but it can be used as a supplement. Your personal experience, personal observations, or the limited observations of others are soft evidence. Individual cases or case studies are considered soft evidence because they are limited; over-generalizing from limited data would be a logical fallacy (an error in reasoning). Hypothetical scenarios may be attention grabbing but because they are imaginary, they are also soft evidence. In the run-up to the war, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice all used the scary scenario of a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud as a form of soft evidence to support the idea that Iraq was a threat, and it was very effective in getting the public s attention. PRESENTING THE COUNTER-POSITION A claim is not going to be persuasive to an audience who disagrees with it unless the writer acknowledges that audience s reasons for disagreement. The aim is to present the opposing view fairly and accurately, without ridiculing or belittling it in any way. Any perceived ridicule will have an immediate alienating effect, and you will lose the audience you are trying to persuade. Always be fair to your opponent s position and attempt to present it as accurately as you can. It s not necessary to explain your opponent s view at length, but it is necessary for you to demonstrate that you know your opponent s counter-claim and the reasons in support of this counter claim.

8 NEGOTIATION OR REFUTATION Once you ve identified your opponents views you can either concede to that view, negotiate common ground, or attempt to refute the counter position. To refute means to disprove. How can you disprove your opponents position? You can t do it by mere contradiction, or by stating your belief to the contrary. You have to take the hard route of evaluating the quality of the reasoning and evidence that supports their counterviews. When you closely analyze your opponent s reasons (the logic of those reasons), do you find invalid premises that invalidate a conclusion? Do you find conclusions that don t necessarily follow from premises? Do you see any logical fallacies (common, tricky flaws in reasoning, explained in The Bedford Guide, pp )? Can you identify an assumption that s false? Do you spot weak evidence, or a lack of evidence? Any of these things would help you refute, or disprove, your opponents position.

Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals

Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals Argument and Persuasion Stating Opinions and Proposals The Method It all starts with an opinion - something that people can agree or disagree with. The Method Move to action Speak your mind Convince someone

More information

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me?

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Page 1 of 10 10b Learn how to evaluate verbal and visual arguments. Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Download transcript Three common ways to

More information

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating

More information

Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade

Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade by Dr. John R. Edlund, Cal Poly Pomona Over 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that there were three basic ways to persuade an audience

More information

Reading and Evaluating Arguments

Reading and Evaluating Arguments Reading and Evaluating Arguments Learning Objectives: To recognize the elements of an argument To recognize types of arguments To evaluate arguments To recognize errors in logical reasoning An argument

More information

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument ARGUMENT Questions for Critically Reading an Argument What claims does the writer make? What kinds and quality of evidence does the writer provide to support the claim? What assumptions underlie the argument,

More information

Some Templates for Beginners: Template Option 1 I am analyzing A in order to argue B. An important element of B is C. C is significant because.

Some Templates for Beginners: Template Option 1 I am analyzing A in order to argue B. An important element of B is C. C is significant because. Common Topics for Literary and Cultural Analysis: What kinds of topics are good ones? The best topics are ones that originate out of your own reading of a work of literature. Here are some common approaches

More information

CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE. What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior.

CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE. What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior. Logos Ethos Pathos Chapter 13 CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior. Persuasive speaking: process of doing so in

More information

Argumentation Paper Honors/AP Language and Composition English 11

Argumentation Paper Honors/AP Language and Composition English 11 Argumentation Paper Honors/AP Language and Composition English 11 What does an argument essay look like? Read and answer the questions in The Norton Sampler: Short Essays for Composition, chapter for Argument.

More information

Chapter 1 Why Study Logic? Answers and Comments

Chapter 1 Why Study Logic? Answers and Comments Chapter 1 Why Study Logic? Answers and Comments WARNING! YOU SHOULD NOT LOOK AT THE ANSWERS UNTIL YOU HAVE SUPPLIED YOUR OWN ANSWERS TO THE EXERCISES FIRST. Answers: I. True and False 1. False. 2. True.

More information

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one?

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument Vs Persuasion Everything s an argument, really. Argument: appeals strictly by reason and logic Persuasion: logic and emotion The forum of your argument

More information

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S 14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S 1. Demonstrate the importance of ethics as part of the persuasion process. 2. Identify and provide examples of eight common

More information

In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the

In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the The Flow of Argument Lecture 9 In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the central concept of validity. Visualizing syllogisms in terms of three-circle Venn diagrams gave us

More information

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around

More information

The Critique (analyzing an essay s argument)

The Critique (analyzing an essay s argument) The Critique (analyzing an essay s argument) The Assignment: Write a critique of the essay that you summarized. Unless you come up with a different structure (please see me if you have a specific plan),

More information

The Roman empire ended, the Mongol empire ended, the Persian empire ended, the British empire ended, all empires end, and none lasts forever.

The Roman empire ended, the Mongol empire ended, the Persian empire ended, the British empire ended, all empires end, and none lasts forever. BASIC ARGUMENTATION Alfred Snider, University of Vermont World Schools Debate Academy, Slovenia, 2015 Induction, deduction, causation, fallacies INDUCTION Definition: studying a sufficient number of analogous

More information

I. Claim: a concise summary, stated or implied, of an argument s main idea, or point. Many arguments will present multiple claims.

I. Claim: a concise summary, stated or implied, of an argument s main idea, or point. Many arguments will present multiple claims. Basics of Argument and Rhetoric Although arguing, speaking our minds, and getting our points across are common activities for most of us, applying specific terminology to these activities may not seem

More information

Rhetorical Appeals: The Available Means of Persuasion

Rhetorical Appeals: The Available Means of Persuasion Rhetorical Appeals: The Available Means of Persuasion Aristotle defined Rhetoric as the available means of persuasion. But what are these available means? Think about it this way: what are the various

More information

Writing Module Three: Five Essential Parts of Argument Cain Project (2008)

Writing Module Three: Five Essential Parts of Argument Cain Project (2008) Writing Module Three: Five Essential Parts of Argument Cain Project (2008) Module by: The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication. E-mail the author Summary: This module presents techniques

More information

I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes

I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes CRITICAL THINKING Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the finest computers on the earth. But, like any other muscle in your body, it needs to be exercised to work its best. That exercise is called

More information

Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument

More information

CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS

CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS Fall 2001 ENGLISH 20 Professor Tanaka CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS In this first handout, I would like to simply give you the basic outlines of our critical thinking model

More information

This document consists of 10 printed pages.

This document consists of 10 printed pages. Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Level THINKING SKILLS 9694/43 Paper 4 Applied Reasoning MARK SCHEME imum Mark: 50 Published This mark scheme is published as an aid

More information

The Toulmin Model in Brief

The Toulmin Model in Brief The Toulmin Model in Brief A popular form of argument is the Toulmin model (other forms include classical and Rogerian). This model is named after Stephen Toulmin, who in The Uses of Argument proposed

More information

Argumentative Writing

Argumentative Writing Argumentative Writing Anca T-Hummel NBCT-AYA/ELA taus-hummel@phoenixunion.org Joanna Nichols I.L. English jnichols@phoenixunion.org ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that

More information

Skill Realized. Skill Developing. Not Shown. Skill Emerging

Skill Realized. Skill Developing. Not Shown. Skill Emerging Joshua Foster - 21834444-05018100 Page 1 Exam 050181 - Persuasive Writing Traits of Good Writing Review pages 164-169 in your study guide for a complete explanation of the rating you earned for each trait

More information

Fallacies. Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Fallacies. Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. Fallacies 1. Hasty generalization Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes about

More information

Building Your Framework everydaydebate.blogspot.com by James M. Kellams

Building Your Framework everydaydebate.blogspot.com by James M. Kellams Building Your Framework everydaydebate.blogspot.com by James M. Kellams The Judge's Weighing Mechanism Very simply put, a framework in academic debate is the set of standards the judge will use to evaluate

More information

Claim Types C L A S S L E C T U R E N O T E S Identifying Types of Claims in Your Papers

Claim Types C L A S S L E C T U R E N O T E S Identifying Types of Claims in Your Papers Claim Types C L A S S L E C T U R E N O T E S Identifying Types of in Your Papers Background: Models of Argument Most textbooks for College Composition devote a chapter to the Classical Model of argument

More information

Logical Appeal (Logos)

Logical Appeal (Logos) Logical Appeal (Logos) Relies on sound reasoning, facts, statistics Uses evidence well Analyzes cause-effect relationships Uses patterns of inductive and deductive reasoning Pitfall: failure to clearly

More information

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope Fallacies in logic Hasty Generalization Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes

More information

OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3

OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Commentary on Schwed Lawrence Powers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive

More information

Thesis Statement. What is a Thesis Statement? What is a Thesis Statement Not?

Thesis Statement. What is a Thesis Statement? What is a Thesis Statement Not? Thesis Statement What is a Thesis Statement? A thesis statement is an argument that clearly states the point of view of the author, and outlines how the author intends to support his or her argument. The

More information

2. Public Forum Debate seeks to encourage the development of the following skills in the debaters: d. Reasonable demeanor and style of presentation

2. Public Forum Debate seeks to encourage the development of the following skills in the debaters: d. Reasonable demeanor and style of presentation VI. RULES OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE A. General 1. Public Forum Debate is a form of two-on-two debate which ask debaters to discuss a current events issue. 2. Public Forum Debate seeks to encourage the development

More information

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING 1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process

More information

Logical (formal) fallacies

Logical (formal) fallacies Fallacies in academic writing Chad Nilep There are many possible sources of fallacy an idea that is mistakenly thought to be true, even though it may be untrue in academic writing. The phrase logical fallacy

More information

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference

Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference 1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of

More information

HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) 1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

More information

Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore. I. Moorean Methodology. In A Proof of the External World, Moore argues as follows:

Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore. I. Moorean Methodology. In A Proof of the External World, Moore argues as follows: Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore I argue that Moore s famous response to the skeptic should be accepted even by the skeptic. My paper has three main stages. First, I will briefly outline G. E.

More information

Criticizing Arguments

Criticizing Arguments Kareem Khalifa Criticizing Arguments 1 Criticizing Arguments Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College Written August, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Step 1: Initial Evaluation

More information

The role of ethical judgment based on the supposed right action to perform in a given

The role of ethical judgment based on the supposed right action to perform in a given Applying the Social Contract Theory in Opposing Animal Rights by Stephen C. Sanders Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. The role of ethical judgment based on the supposed right action to perform in a

More information

Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument?

Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? . What is the purpose of argumentation? Argumentation 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? According to Toulmin (964), the checking list can be outlined as follows: () The Claim

More information

ANOTHER VIEWPOINT (AVP_NS84 January 2003) GEORGE BUSH TO SADDAM HUSSEIN: DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO! Elias H. Tuma

ANOTHER VIEWPOINT (AVP_NS84 January 2003) GEORGE BUSH TO SADDAM HUSSEIN: DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO! Elias H. Tuma ANOTHER VIEWPOINT (AVP_NS84 January 2003) GEORGE BUSH TO SADDAM HUSSEIN: DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO! Elias H. Tuma That is the message of President Bush to President Saddam Hussein, for what is permissible

More information

Inductive Logic. Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.

Inductive Logic. Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence. Inductive Logic Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence. An inductive leap is the intellectual movement from limited facts to a general conviction. The reliability

More information

Presuppositional Apologetics

Presuppositional Apologetics by John M. Frame [, for IVP Dictionary of Apologetics.] 1. Presupposing God in Apologetic Argument Presuppositional apologetics may be understood in the light of a distinction common in epistemology, or

More information

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker. Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.

More information

(i) Morality is a system; and (ii) It is a system comprised of moral rules and principles.

(i) Morality is a system; and (ii) It is a system comprised of moral rules and principles. Ethics and Morality Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms having to do with custom, habit, and behavior. Ethics is the study of morality. This definition raises two questions: (a) What is morality?

More information

MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic

MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic Making and Refuting Arguments Steps of an Argument You make a claim The conclusion of your

More information

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

More information

Martha C. Nussbaum (4) Outline:

Martha C. Nussbaum (4) Outline: Another problem with people who fail to examine themselves is that they often prove all too easily influenced. When a talented demagogue addressed the Athenians with moving rhetoric but bad arguments,

More information

Three Kinds of Arguments

Three Kinds of Arguments Chapter 27 Three Kinds of Arguments Arguments in general We ve been focusing on Moleculan-analyzable arguments for several chapters, but now we want to take a step back and look at the big picture, at

More information

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion

More information

Argument Writing. Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job

Argument Writing. Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job Argument Writing Whooohoo!! Argument instruction is necessary * Argument comprehension is required in school assignments, standardized testing, job promotion as well as political and personal decision-making

More information

Charles Saunders Peirce ( )

Charles Saunders Peirce ( ) Charles Saunders Peirce (1839-1914) Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is

More information

9.1 Conditional agreement: Negotiation Strategies for Overcoming Objections

9.1 Conditional agreement: Negotiation Strategies for Overcoming Objections Page 1 of 5 9. PROPER MANAGEMENT OF OBJECTIONS 9.1 Conditional agreement: Negotiation Strategies for Overcoming Objections Sometimes when negotiating, there are objections. But an objection isn t necessarily

More information

Introduction Questions to Ask in Judging Whether A Really Causes B

Introduction Questions to Ask in Judging Whether A Really Causes B 1 Introduction We live in an age when the boundaries between science and science fiction are becoming increasingly blurred. It sometimes seems that nothing is too strange to be true. How can we decide

More information

HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13

HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13 1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the

More information

Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential election because he failed to campaign vigorously after the Democratic National Convention.

Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential election because he failed to campaign vigorously after the Democratic National Convention. 2/21/13 10:11 AM Developing A Thesis Think of yourself as a member of a jury, listening to a lawyer who is presenting an opening argument. You'll want to know very soon whether the lawyer believes the

More information

OTTAWA ONLINE PHL Basic Issues in Philosophy

OTTAWA ONLINE PHL Basic Issues in Philosophy OTTAWA ONLINE PHL-11023 Basic Issues in Philosophy Course Description Introduces nature and purpose of philosophical reflection. Emphasis on questions concerning metaphysics, epistemology, religion, ethics,

More information

How persuasive is this argument? 1 (not at all). 7 (very)

How persuasive is this argument? 1 (not at all). 7 (very) How persuasive is this argument? 1 (not at all). 7 (very) NIU should require all students to pass a comprehensive exam in order to graduate because such exams have been shown to be effective for improving

More information

Overview: Application: What to Avoid:

Overview: Application: What to Avoid: UNIT 3: BUILDING A BASIC ARGUMENT While "argument" has a number of different meanings, college-level arguments typically involve a few fundamental pieces that work together to construct an intelligent,

More information

The Philosopher s World Cup

The Philosopher s World Cup The Philosopher s World Cup Monty Python & the Flying Circus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vv3qgagck&feature=related What is an argument? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqfkti6gn9y What is an argument?

More information

Persuasive Argument Relies heavily on appeals to emotion, to the subconscious, even to bias and prejudice. Characterized by figurative language,

Persuasive Argument Relies heavily on appeals to emotion, to the subconscious, even to bias and prejudice. Characterized by figurative language, Persuasive Argument Relies heavily on appeals to emotion, to the subconscious, even to bias and prejudice. Characterized by figurative language, rhythmic patterns of speech, etc. Logical Argument Appeals

More information

PHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen.

PHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen. Introduction PHI 244 Welcome to PHI 244, About Stephen Texts Course Requirements Syllabus Points of Interest Website http://seschmid.org, http://seschmid.org/teaching Email Policy 1 2 Argument Worksheet

More information

Critical Thinking Questions

Critical Thinking Questions Critical Thinking Questions (partially adapted from the questions listed in The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking by Richard Paul and Linda Elder) The following questions can be used in two ways: to

More information

In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006

In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006 In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

More information

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

More information

ARGUMENT ESSAY WRITING

ARGUMENT ESSAY WRITING ARGUMENT ESSAY WRITING THESIS STATEMENTS A thesis statement manages to encapsulate an essay s main argument in a one-sentence succinct statement. Writers often find it useful to create a road map thesis,

More information

The Rise and Fall of Iran in Arab and Muslim Public Opinion. by James Zogby

The Rise and Fall of Iran in Arab and Muslim Public Opinion. by James Zogby The Rise and Fall of Iran in Arab and Muslim Public Opinion by James Zogby Policy discussions here in the U.S. about Iran and its nuclear program most often focus exclusively on Israeli concerns. Ignored

More information

Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe.

Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe. Overview Philosophy & logic 1.2 What is philosophy? 1.3 nature of philosophy Why philosophy Rules of engagement Punctuality and regularity is of the essence You should be active in class It is good to

More information

I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please.

I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please. I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please. A solid argument can be built just like a solid house: walls first, then the roof. Here s a building plan, plus three ways arguments collapse. July/August 2002 I want

More information

Structuring and Analyzing Argument: Toulmin and Rogerian Models. English 106

Structuring and Analyzing Argument: Toulmin and Rogerian Models. English 106 Structuring and Analyzing Argument: Toulmin and Rogerian Models English 106 The Toulmin Model Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950 s Emphasizes that logic often based on probability

More information

Arguments. 1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),

Arguments. 1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand), Doc Holley s Logical Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise

More information

The Great Debate Assignment World War II. Date Assigned: Thursday, June 11 Date Due: Wednesday, June 17 / 32 marks

The Great Debate Assignment World War II. Date Assigned: Thursday, June 11 Date Due: Wednesday, June 17 / 32 marks The Great Debate Assignment World War II Date Assigned: Thursday, June 11 Date Due: Wednesday, June 17 / 32 marks For this task, you will be divided into groups to prepare to debate on an aspect of World

More information

Islam and Terrorism. Nov. 28, 2016 Clarity in defining the enemy is essential to waging war.

Islam and Terrorism. Nov. 28, 2016 Clarity in defining the enemy is essential to waging war. Islam and Terrorism Nov. 28, 2016 Clarity in defining the enemy is essential to waging war. Originally produced on Nov. 21, 2016 for Mauldin Economics, LLC George Friedman The United States has been at

More information

Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments

Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments 1 Agenda 1. Reductio Ad Absurdum 2. Burden of Proof 3. Argument by Analogy 4. Bad Forms of Arguments 1. Begging the Question

More information

Moral Argumentation from a Rhetorical Point of View

Moral Argumentation from a Rhetorical Point of View Chapter 98 Moral Argumentation from a Rhetorical Point of View Lars Leeten Universität Hildesheim Practical thinking is a tricky business. Its aim will never be fulfilled unless influence on practical

More information

1. LEADER PREPARATION

1. LEADER PREPARATION apologetics: An Overview Lesson 1: You and Your Worldview This includes: 1. Leader Preparation 2. Lesson Guide 1. LEADER PREPARATION LESSON OVERVIEW Each of us has a lens through which we see the world.

More information

Chapter 1 Foundations

Chapter 1 Foundations Chapter 1 Foundations Imagine this scenario: You have just passed your driver s test, and you are now the proud owner of a license. You are excited about your new freedom and can t wait to go out on the

More information

Grab an Everything s an Argument book off the shelf by the flags. INTRO TO RHETORIC

Grab an Everything s an Argument book off the shelf by the flags. INTRO TO RHETORIC Grab an Everything s an Argument book off the shelf by the flags. INTRO TO RHETORIC Everything is an Argument You are bombarded with them all the time! The average American sees over 3000 advertisements

More information

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for

More information

Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments

Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous

More information

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7 Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments

More information

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BATTLEGROUND POLL

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BATTLEGROUND POLL THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BATTLEGROUND POLL A national survey of 1,000 Registered Voters Do you feel things in the country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong

More information

III. RULES OF POLICY (TEAM) DEBATE. A. General

III. RULES OF POLICY (TEAM) DEBATE. A. General III. RULES OF POLICY (TEAM) DEBATE A. General 1. All debates must be based on the current National High School Debate resolution chosen under the auspices of the National Topic Selection Committee of the

More information

PHI 1700: Global Ethics

PHI 1700: Global Ethics PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 3 February 11th, 2016 Harman, Ethics and Observation 1 (finishing up our All About Arguments discussion) A common theme linking many of the fallacies we covered is that

More information

Al-Arabiya Television Interview With Hisham Melhem. delivered 26 January 2009

Al-Arabiya Television Interview With Hisham Melhem. delivered 26 January 2009 Barack Obama Al-Arabiya Television Interview With Hisham Melhem delivered 26 January 2009 AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio Mr. Melhem: Mr. President, thank you

More information

SCAMMED! Assignment: Identify main claim (conclusion) in three different scams and outline argument.

SCAMMED! Assignment: Identify main claim (conclusion) in three different scams and outline argument. SCAMMED! Assignment: Identify main claim (conclusion) in three different scams and outline argument. To identify conclusion, should ask yourself, what is the main issue the victim is facing. Almost all

More information

Kevin Liu 21W.747 Prof. Aden Evens A1D. Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness

Kevin Liu 21W.747 Prof. Aden Evens A1D. Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness Kevin Liu 21W.747 Prof. Aden Evens A1D Truth and Rhetorical Effectiveness A speaker has two fundamental objectives. The first is to get an intended message across to an audience. Using the art of rhetoric,

More information

The Changing North Korean Security Paradigm: Regional Alliance Structures and Approaches to Engagement

The Changing North Korean Security Paradigm: Regional Alliance Structures and Approaches to Engagement The Changing North Korean Security Paradigm: Regional Alliance Structures and Approaches to Engagement An Interview with Victor Cha and David Kang An ever more antagonistic and unpredictable North Korea

More information

The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy

The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy Overview Taking an argument-centered approach to preparing for and to writing the SAT Essay may seem like a no-brainer. After all, the prompt, which is always

More information

Intelligence Squared U.S. Special Release: How to Debate Yourself

Intelligence Squared U.S. Special Release: How to Debate Yourself Intelligence Squared: Peter Schuck - 1-8/30/2017 August 30, 2017 Ray Padgett raypadgett@shorefire.com Mark Satlof msatlof@shorefire.com T: 718.522.7171 Intelligence Squared U.S. Special Release: How to

More information

Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Russell Marcus Hamilton College, Fall 2013 Class 1 - Introduction to Introduction to Philosophy My name is Russell. My office is 202 College Hill Road, Room 210.

More information

Logical Fallacies. Define the following logical fallacies and provide an example for each.

Logical Fallacies. Define the following logical fallacies and provide an example for each. Logical Fallacies An argument is a chain of reasons that a person uses to support a claim or a conclusion. To use argument well, you need to know 1) how to draw logical conclusions from sound evidence

More information

Resolved: The United States should adopt a no first strike policy for cyber warfare.

Resolved: The United States should adopt a no first strike policy for cyber warfare. A Coach s Notes 1 Everett Rutan Xavier High School ejrutan3@ctdebate.org or ejrutan3@acm.org Connecticut Debate Association Amity High School and New Canaan High School November 17, 2012 Resolved: The

More information

Argumentative Writing. 9th Grade - English Language Arts Ms. Weaver - Qrtr 3/4

Argumentative Writing. 9th Grade - English Language Arts Ms. Weaver - Qrtr 3/4 Argumentative Writing 9th Grade - English Language Arts Ms. Weaver - Qrtr 3/4 Unit Objectives IWBAT - Write an argumentative essay that supports claims in an analysis of a topic and uses valid reasoning,

More information

AICE Thinking Skills Review. How to Master Paper 2

AICE Thinking Skills Review. How to Master Paper 2 AICE Thinking kills Review How to Master Paper 2 Important Things to Remember You are given 1 hour and 45 minutes for Paper 2 You should spend approximately 30 minutes on each question Write neatly! Read

More information

Persuasive/ Argumentative writing

Persuasive/ Argumentative writing Persuasive/ Argumentative writing Learning targets I can write arguments to support claims using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. I can introduce precise claims, distinguish the claim

More information

II Plenary discussion of Expertise and the Global Warming debate.

II Plenary discussion of Expertise and the Global Warming debate. Thinking Straight Critical Reasoning WS 9-1 May 27, 2008 I. A. (Individually ) review and mark the answers for the assignment given on the last pages: (two points each for reconstruction and evaluation,

More information

Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion.

Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion. ACADEMIC SKILLS THINKING CRITICALLY In the everyday sense of the word, critical has negative connotations. But at University, Critical Thinking is a positive process of understanding different points of

More information