THE ALLYN & BACON GUIDE TO WRITING SEVENTH EDITION JOHN D. RAMAGE, JOHN C. BEAN, AND JUNE JOHNSON PART 2: WRITING PROJECTS CHAPTER 13 WRITING A CLASSICAL ARGUMENT
Chapter 13 Learning Objectives In this chapter, you will learn how to: 13.1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments 13.2 Write a classical argument that offers reasons and evidence in support of your position while also summarizing and responding to opposing views
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments Arguments are not fights, but rather rhetorical processes that Seek the truth: they look for the best solution or best course of action, taking into account good quality information Persuade: they try to convince audiences of the rightness of the main claim
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments A developmental model of argument Stage 1: argument as personal opinion Stage 2: argument as a claim supported by reason(s) Stage 3: increased attention to truth seeking Stage 4: ability to articulate unstated assumptions underlying one s own argument Stage 5: ability to link an argument to the values and beliefs of the audience
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments Identify your issue A question with more than one reasonable answer A question that involves disputes over more than personal taste State a claim A claim is your position Articulate reasons Reasons are the subclaims that support the claim Reasons are supported by evidence (e.g., facts, quotations, statistics, observations)
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments Underlying assumptions Assumptions link claims and reasons If audiences don t share your assumptions, they will reject your argument Consider these examples (next slide)
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments What evidence counts? Factual data, such as survey results or census data Examples from personal experience Examples from sources you have read Summaries of others research Experts opinions
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments Evaluating evidence like a STAR Sufficiency: is there enough evidence for the claim? Typicality: is the evidence chosen a good example, a typical example? Accuracy: is the evidence chosen up-to-date? Relevance: is the evidence chosen relevant to the claim?
13. 1 Explain the theory and rhetorical principles underlying effective arguments Consider your claims from all sides Respect counterarguments, and include them in your work Qualify your claim as needed Terms such as generally or perhaps or mostly let you limit your claims as appropriate to your evidence Seek connections with your audience Craft arguments that your audience is likely to accept Create good ethos as you write Be informed Be fair to all sides in an argument Handle evidence responsibly
13. 2 Write a classical argument that offers reasons and evidence in support of your position Take a stand on a controversial issue Present some background State your claim Summarize and respond to opposing views Provide reasons and evidence to support your position
13. 2 Write a classical argument that offers reasons and evidence in support of your position Don t forget to wallow! Consider your issue before you draft Research as needed Shape and draft Let your claim emerge from the thoughtful consideration of evidence
Review Questions 1. What is an argument? 2. Why do writers of argument consider counterarguments? 3. How can we evaluate evidence?
Review Questions 1. What is an argument? An argument is a claim supported by reasons; the reasons are based in evidence. 2. Why do writers of argument consider counterarguments? Writers consider counterarguments in the process of writing an argument in order to make sure they fully understand the issue. Writers include counterarguments in their own texts in order to show readers that they are fair and ethical in their approach to the issue. And they include counter arguments in order to test the limits of their own claims. 3. How can we evaluate evidence? Evaluate evidence using the STAR criteria. Is there sufficient evidence? Is the evidence used typical of the evidence uncovered in research? Is the evidence accurate? And is the evidence relevant?