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

Transcription

1

2 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 primarily to the mind Characterized by reasoned movement from assertion to evidence to conclusion.

3 When you speak and write, there is no law that says you have to use big words. Short words are as good as long ones, and short, old words like sun and grass and home are best of all. A lot of small words, more than you might think, can meet your needs with a strength, grace, and charm that large words do not have. Big words can make the way dark for those who read what you write and hear what you say. Small words cast their clear light on big things night and day, love and hate, war and peace, and life and death. Big words at times seem strange to the eye and the ear and the mind and the heart. Small words are the ones we seem to have known from the time we were born, like the hearth fire that warms the home. from The Case for Short Words (Richard Lederer)

4 Informational, or Explanatory Argument Explore the various facets of an issue; doesn t take a position Focused Argument One objective: To change the audience s mind about a controversial issue Action-Oriented Argument Emotionally charged and attempts to accomplish a specific task Quiet, or Subtle, Argument Appears to be informational, but information is slanted to favor a particular position Reconciliation Argument Explores all facets of an issue to find common ground or areas of agreement.

5 Inductive reasoning The most common of the argumentative strategies To induce is to assert based on the observation of facts. Moves from a set of specific examples to a general statement or principle. As long as the evidence is accurate, pertinent, complete, and sufficient, then the conclusion can be regarded as valid. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Read: Who Was This LeBron James?

6 Deductive reasoning To deduce is to derive a conclusion from something known. From the evidence the detective was able to deduce that the gardener had done it. More formal and complex than inductive Moves from an overall premise, rule, or generalization to a more specific conclusion. Follows a syllogism a three-part pattern consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. If A = C and B = A, then B = C. a) All humans are mortal. (major premise) b) LeBron James is a human. (minor premise) c) LeBron James is mortal. (conclusion)

7 Deductive reasoning The previous conclusion (LeBron James) is true because both premises are true and the logic is valid. The syllogism will fail to work if either of the premises is untrue. A. All living creatures are mammals. (major premise) B. A lobster is a living creature. (minor premise) C. A lobster is a mammal. (conclusion) Other syllogisms can fail, even if both premises are true. A. All college students read books. (major premise) B. Larry reads books. (minor premise) C. Larry is a college student. (conclusion) Read The Draft: Why the Country Needs It

8 ETHOS Also known as the ethical appeal Credibility: Convincing by the character of the author PATHOS Also known as the emotional appeal Pathetic affecting or moving the feelings Appeals to emotion, subconscious, prejudice LOGOS Also known as the logical appeal Appeals to intellect, understanding, knowledge

9 Objective: Determine your ability to analyze accurately evidence that is presented to you. 1. You will read a brief story. Assume that all of the information presented in the story is definitely accurate and true. Read the story carefully. You may refer back to the story whenever you wish. 2. You will then read statements about the story. You will decide if these statements are TRUE or FALSE. Do not go back to fill in answers or to change answers, as this will distort your test score.

10 Begin by determining a topic that interests you and about which there is some significant difference of opinion. As you begin researching, consider what assertion or assertions you can make about your topic. The more specific the thesis, the more directed your research can become and the more focused your ultimate argument will be. Don t hesitate to modify or even reject an initial thesis as continued research warrants it.

11 1. Taking Account of Your Audience In no other type of writing is the question of audience more important. Your audience will determine: The tone you establish The type of diction you choose The evidence that you present Whether you use inductive or deductive reasoning Somewhere near the beginning, identify for your audience Identify the topic to be discussed Explain its importance Show your reader that you share a common concern or interest in this issue

12 2. Organization Will often depend on your method of reasoning: Inductive: Most of your evidence will come before your primary assertion Deductive: Your assertion will precede the evidence In presenting primary points: Move from least important points to most important Move from most familiar to least familiar

13 3. Presenting Evidence Have some. Don t overwhelm your reader, but don t skimp either. Demonstrate your command of the subject by choosing carefully among all the evidence. For each point you are making, be sure to provide appropriate and sufficient supporting evidence: Verifiable facts and statistics Illustrative examples and narratives Quotations from experts / authorities on the topic

14 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies OVERSIMPLIFICATION: A foolishly simple solution to what is clearly a complex problem. The reason we have inflation today is that OPEC has unreasonably raised the price of oil.

15 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies HASTY GENERALIZATION: In inductive reasoning, a generalization that is based on too little evidence or on evidence that is not representative. It was the best movie I saw, and so it should get an Academy Award.

16 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC ( After this, therefore because of this. ): Confusing chance or coincidence with causation. The fact that one event comes after another does not necessarily mean that the first event caused the second. After I went to the hockey game, I caught a cold.

17 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies BEGGING THE QUESTION: Assuming in a premise something that needs to be proven. Conservation is the only means of meeting the energy crisis; therefore, we should seek out methods to conserve energy.

18 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies FALSE ANALOGY: Making a misleading analogy between logically connected ideas. Of course he ll make an excellent coach. He was an all-star basketball player.

19 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies EITHER/OR THINKING: Seeing only two alternatives when there may in fact be other possibilities. After twenty-five years as a teacher, either you love your job or you hate it.

20 4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies NON SEQUITUR - It does not follow. : An inference or conclusion that is not clearly related to the established premises or evidence. She is a sincere speaker; she must know what she is talking about.

21 5. Concluding Forcefully Be sure to restate your position. Encourage some specific course of action. NEVER introduce new information in your conclusion. Don t overstate your case. Don t qualify your conclusion with phrases like I think, in my opinion, maybe, sometimes, and probably. Should follow naturally, seamlessly, from the series of points you have made.