The Argumentative Essay but what is the difference between an argument and a quarrel? Academic argumentation is based on logical, structured evidence that attempts the reader to accept an opinion, take some action, or do both. This does not always involve conflicts. It may be a matter of supporting a previously established decision or to establish common ground. A well structured argument is one that is clearly thought through, and not simply a matter of prefabricated views. avr. 20 14:01 1
Successful arguments rest on a firm foundation of logical support, in addition to emotion (important to sway readers) and ethical appeal, or the image projected by the arguer. What follows is a closer look at all three contributing factors The presentation will end with a look at common fallacies employed in weaker argumentation avr. 20 14:05 2
The Rational Appeal (or commonly called the logical appeal) Assuming that your reader is reasonable, your reasons or arguments could be agreed upon or at least be viewed as plausible. This type of appeal requires reasons for your conclusion and evidence which supports your reasons Evidence falls into the following categories: Established Truths Opinions of Authorities Primary Source Information Statistical Findings Personal Experience cannot be argued, yet offer strong support (ex: historical, scientific, geographic) only use experts in the field, and cite their credentials if possible people directly involved with an issue or a conclusion from a reliable source (Stats Can), recent, appropriate sample size, credible reinforces, but does not replace other evidence Reasoning strategies are as follow: Induction moves from seperate bits of evidence to a general observation (ex: potato chips) great value for the conduct of human affairs Deduction reverse of induction: start with accepted observation, then draw conclusions from (ex: profitable career) reductio ad absurdum: used to attack opponent's position (child discipline) usually built around a categorical syllogism (set of three statements that follow a fixed pattern = sound reasoning major premise/minor premise/conclusion (ex: all persons are mortal/no dogs have feathers) Analogy compares two unlike situations or things = weakest form of rational appeal, but help explain and show probability, so quite persuasive (lab testing, success school/work) effective analogies share significant similarites or differences weakest form of appeal = prove nothing (more akin to probability) avr. 20 14:15 3
The Emotional Appeal Often used to win the hearts and help of people Transition those who would passively accept logical argument to taking action Used to play upon hopes, fears, vanities Ask yourself: do the facts warrant the emotion avr. 21 10:33 4
The Ethical Appeal (or image that the writer projects) Audience must be willing to consider the argument Writer's tone is key (offensive or fair minded?) In order to be successful: commitment to the truth concern for your topic sincere respect for others avr. 21 10:39 5
Identifying and eliminating fallacies lapses in logic which reflect upon your ability to think clearly = weaken your argument Most common fallacies: Hasty Generalization based on too little evidence Non Sequitur (it does not follow) Stereotyping unwarranted conclusion based on ample evidence maliciously attaching one or more supposed characteristics to a group of one of its members = offensive to fair minded readers Card Stacking only presenting part of available evidence on a topic = done deliberately, omitting essential information Either/Or asserts that only two choices exist = boxing in not all are false, as in issuing a realistic warning Begging the Question asserts the truth of some unproven statement = lack of suitable evidence Circular Argument supporting a position merely by restating it = something is because something is Arguing off the Point often referred to as 'ignoring the question' by introducing irrelevant information The Argument Ad Hominem (to the man) attacks the individual, not the opinion or qualifications of Appeal to the Crowd Guilt by Association arousal of an emotional response playing on irrational fears and prejudices of the audience (usually with terms such as communist, bleeding heart, law and order) pointing out some similarity or connection between one person or group to another, placing on the first the sins, real or imagined, of the second Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore because of this) falsely assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the second (black cat) Faulty Analogy incorrectly assuming that two circumstances or things are similar in all importan respects, when in fact they are not (minor league coach) avr. 21 11:48 6
Consolidating activity: Using the reflection brought up in class, run each of the statements through the list of identifiable fallacies to see whether or not they could actually be used in an argumentative paper. avr. 26 13:24 7
mai 4 11:20 8