Argumentative Essay: QuickStudy Reference Guide to Planning, Researching, and Writing [2 ed.]

Citation preview

Argumentative Essay WORLD’S #1 ACADEMIC OUTLINE

Essential guide to planning, researching, and writing

UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENT & THE WRITING PROCESS What Is an Argumentative Essay? Product of an investigation: ●● Prior to writing, the investigator collects, generates, and evaluates evidence. ●● The investigator comes to a tentative conclusion based on the evidence. ●● An argumentative essay thus begins at the end of the process, after the investigation and evaluation are complete. The writer: ––States his or her position. ––Marshals the evidence collected. Here it is proper to: ◊ Identify and explain common misunderstandings, particularly those readers are likely to hold.

Logic in Argument ●● Logic is a way of reasoning devised to establish what can or cannot be proved true. ●● Logic offers basic rules for coming to correct conclusions in an argument. ●● Logic offers correctives to faulty thinking. ●● Classical logic: The three basic laws of reason ––Law of Identity (LI): All things possess their own unique features. This is true of both universal and individual objects and is expressed mathematically as A = A. Each object is thus identical to itself. ––Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC): Contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner. Thus “A is B” and “A is not B” are contradictions. ––Law of Excluded Middle (LEM): For any claim, either that claim or its opposite must be true; “Either A or not-A.” If something is true, it must exclude something (namely falsity).

Syllogistic Logic

●● Deductive logic (top-down logic) ––General to particular: A deductive argument claims that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. EX: All cherries are fruits. A Utah Gold is a cherry, therefore a Utah Gold is a fruit. ––Cause to effect: Here a general cause leads to a particular effect. EX: Jerry is allergic to nuts. Jerry ate a chocolate bar with nuts in it and became sick. He was allergic to the nuts in the bar. ––Necessary conclusions: In a well-constructed deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily (inevitably) from the general. Note: Not all true statements lead to necessary conclusions. ◊ Alternate effect: Alcohol need not always cause drunkenness; the conclusion is not necessary. ◊ Alternate causes: When drunkenness occurs, it is always caused by alcohol, by definition. There is no alternate cause, so the conclusion is necessary. ––Arguments by Cause: Whether making or assessing an argument by cause, ask yourself: ◊ How certain is the relationship between the cause and the effect? ◊ Is the relationship overly simplistic or too complex? ◊ Are there other effects or causes?

◊ Acknowledge any facts that seems to contradict your conclusion and explain how they fit in. ◊ Demonstrate how the evidence (properly understood) leads to the conclusion. Purpose: Attempts to convince an audience to: ●● Agree with facts. ●● Share values. ●● Accept arguments and conclusions. ●● Undermine prejudices and preconceptions. ●● Adopt a way of thinking. Arguments are generally built around a specific statement (a claim or thesis). When writing or evaluating such claims, be sure to ask yourself: ●● Is the claim debatable within the field of study?

●● Is the claim susceptible of proof? If so, ––What sort of evidence could support the claim? ––What sort of evidence (if any) has been omitted, and why? Most arguments contain debatable statements (e.g., arguments, assertions, propositions, and premises). Other people may or may not agree with these statements.

––Advantages and disadvantages of deductive logic: ◊ Deductive arguments involve a high degree of certainty; valid deductive arguments are absolutely true. ◊ The main disadvantage of a deductive argument is its limited, circular nature: no new information is acquired. ●● Inductive logic (bottom-up logic) ––Particular to general: Inductive arguments proceed from the particular to the general. Because human experience is limited, however, even the best inductive arguments are only probable. ––Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid; there is no middle ground. Inductive arguments may be strong, weak, or in-between, depending on the relevance and number of particulars that lead to the general conclusion. ––Effect to cause: A particular observation leads to a general cause:

––Conditional statements: Rules of inference and their fallacies ◊ Conditional statements are known as “if-then” clauses (if P, then Q).

EX: Deaths by alcohol poisoning are up by over 20%, so alcohol consumption is probably rising. Note: While the argument is probable, it is not necessary; society may simply be keeping better track of alcohol poisoning deaths. ––“Scientific” reasoning: Science proceeds from observation to hypothesis, and then looks for proof. As such, it is inherently inductive. For this reason, scientific discoveries must be “reproducible” to win general conviction. ––Probable conclusions: Inductive arguments may be highly probable, but they are not absolutely verifiable. EX: Cows come in a variety of colors, but no example of a purple cow has ever been forthcoming. Therefore, there are no purple cows. Note: The evidence is sufficient to show that purple cows must be highly unusual—but it would only take one example to disprove the statement. ––Advantages and disadvantages of inductive logic: ◊ Inductive logic is much more likely to produce new ideas. ◊ Inductive arguments cannot be proved absolutely. ●● Types of syllogisms that form arguments and their fallacies: Modus Ponens (MP)

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

If P, then Q

If P, then Q

P

Q

Therefore, Q

Therefore, P 1

EX: Damage to the ozone layer is probably irreversible. Most arguments contain non-debatable statements (also known as facts). These are statements that no reasonable person would challenge. EX: Inflation is not good for the economy.

EX: If you are in New Delhi (P), then you are in India (Q). ––Affirming the “if” clause (affirming the antecedent or “modus ponens”) ◊ As long as the conditional is true, the “then” clause is always true when the “if” clause is (P, therefore, Q). EX: I am in New Delhi (P); therefore, I must be in India (Q). ––Fallacy of affirming the consequent ◊ The opposite is not true, however; it is not valid to say, “I am in India (Q); therefore, I am in New Delhi (P),” since most people in India do not live in the capital city (fallacy of Q, therefore, P). ◊ In this case, New Delhi is a “subset” within the larger “set” called India. Modus Tollens (MT)

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

If P, then Q

If P, then Q

Not Q

Not P

Therefore, not P

Therefore, not Q

––Negating the “if” clause (“modus tollens”) ◊ This law is basically just the negative version of the proceeding one. As long as the conditional is true, negating the “then” clause also negates the “if” clause (not Q; therefore, not P). EX: I am not in India (Q), and therefore I cannot be in New Delhi (P). ––Fallacy of denying the antecedent ◊ Here, too, the opposite is not true (fallacy of not P; therefore, not Q). EX: “I am not in New Delhi (P); therefore, I cannot be in India (Q).” This is not valid since India has many cities.

Sufficient & Necessary Conditions Sufficient Condition

Necessary Condition

P ensures or is adequate for Q

P is essential to Q (without P, Q can’t happen)

Terms used: If, in case, Terms used: Only if, entails given that that, implies that

Logic in Argument (continued) EX: If something is EX: Only if space and time directly observable, exist can movement take then science is being place. practiced. To refute the claim that something is a sufficient condition, give an example in which P is true and Q is false.

To refute the claim that something is a necessary condition, give an example in which Q can be true without P.

●● Necessary and sufficient conditionals are valid in both directions. It does not matter whether you say:

––If you combine heat, oxygen, and fuel, the fuel will burn. OR ––To burn fuel, you must add heat and oxygen. ●● Both statements above are true. Heat and fuel alone, however, are necessary but not sufficient, since without oxygen, they will not burn. ●● Similarly, it is necessary to turn in a paper to get an A on it, but it is not sufficient.

Refutation of Necessary & Sufficient Conditions

●● A counter-argument is all that is necessary to prove something not necessary or not sufficient.

EX: Everyone who works hard and turns in the essay will earn an A. ●● You could prove this example insufficient by denying the second clause (the consequent). EX: I worked hard and turned in the essay but earned a B. ●● Likewise, if I argue: “It takes hard work, research skills, and lucid writing to earn an A,” you could prove this unnecessary by denying any part of the first clause (the antecedent).

Six Evidences of a Good Argument

What an Argument Requires

A good argument: 1. Has a strong foundation in correspondence and factual support. 2. Has a high degree of coherence, or internal consistency; a logically contradictory system cannot be true. 3. Has explanatory power. 4. Avoids extremes; is neither too simple nor too complex. 5. Is established not only by one line of evidence, or by one knockout argument, but by the cumulative evidence of converging lines from several sources of data. 6. Is not complete in and of itself until it is implicitly, or explicitly, able to refute contrary arguments.

●● Arguable issue ––Central focus on an issue not yet settled. To determine this, find out if: ◊ A consensus has already been established by secondary sources, or ◊ Informed experts can disagree on conclusions ––There is potential for at least two or more views. Potential does not exist if: ◊ No reasonable person could disagree, or ◊ The writer could not argue intelligently for both sides ●● Arguer ––Takes a position on an issue meaningful to the targeted audience ––States and defends claim ––States counter-claim(s) familiar to audience and rebuts them ––Summarizes conclusion and restates claim ●● Audience ––Open to arguer’s claim and defense

Types of Arguments Debate

●● Two sides argue an issue ●● The best presented argument is judged the winner ●● Venue: Public meetings, clubs, and legislative assemblies ●● Traditionally delivered orally, with notes

Trial

●● Defense and prosecution present an argument to the judge/jury ●● Judge/Jury decides who wins the argument with a verdict ●● Venue: Courtrooms, hearings, and legal tribunals ●● Traditionally delivered orally

Dialectic

●● Opposing views are considered in an issue ●● Two or more people argue an issue ●● Questions are raised to test the strength of the opposing views ●● Attempt to establish common ground in argument ●● Attempt to discover new ground by both sides ●● Venue: Formal or informal discussions ●● Similar to debates, but without the emotional component; joint effort to arrive at the truth ●● Written or oral EX: Plato’s Dialogues

Single Arguer

●● Single arguer attempts to convince an audience ●● Claim is presented; opposing views are confronted ●● Outcome is uncertain, but an attempt is made to convince or persuade ●● Venue: Written essays or lectures; prescriptive in nature

One-on-One

●● Single arguer attempts to convince another person ●● Arguer looks for common ground with person ●● There is one winner and one loser ●● Venue: Most common in politics; was made famous by the Lincoln-Douglas debates ●● At its best it is focused and formal, following pre-set rules which may or may not be enforced by a mediator

Academic Investigation

●● A complex issue is examined ●● Search for undiscovered knowledge and truth ●● Venue: Chiefly universities ●● Typically open-ended, narrowing in to hypotheses as they uncover evidence ●● The process leading up to an argumentative essay

Negotiation

●● Two or more people argue to reach a consensus ●● Venue: Business contracts, collective bargaining, political treaties, legal settlements, etc.

Arguable Issues ●● Could reasonable people come to different conclusions? If not, the issue needs no argument. ●● Is the issue susceptible of proof? EX: We might wonder how many women were in Shakespeare’s audience, but without video cameras or time machines, the issue is not susceptible of proof. ●● Are the issues compelling? ––Is the arguer enthusiastic? ––Is the audience enthusiastic? ––Is the issue timely? ●● Issues ripped from the headlines

Reading Argumentative Material Before Reading 1. Scan the title, first paragraph, and conclusion. 2. Summarize the material in one paragraph. 3. What is your immediate opinion regarding the material? 4. Write the paper’s claim and counter-claim.

Begin Reading 1. Read through the material once. 2. Read through the material again and make marginal notes. 3. Identify key words and phrases. 4. What is the common ground?

Writing Your Own Argument Before You Write

●● Get organized. ●● Create a timeline and a schedule for writing. ●● What is your argument going to be? Explore the material. ●● Analyze the rhetorical situation. ●● Focus and freewrite. ●● Brainstorm, make lists, and map ideas. ●● Talk it through. 2

EX: “I did not work hard, but I still earned an A.” ––Willing to listen ––Willing to withhold judgment until arguer finishes ––Willing to participate respectfully if required ––Willing to ask questions ●● Common ground ––What do audience and arguer have in common? ––What do opposing views have in common? ––How can common ground serve as the foundation for opposing viewpoints? ●● Forum ––Safe environment in which to argue ––Arguer and audience feel comfortable to contribute ––Often a judge, moderator, or mediator controls or contributes ●● Audience outcomes ––Feedback from audience ◊ Complete agreement—no argument ◊ Total disagreement—no common ground and no argument ◊ Common ground—argument possible –– Delayed feedback from audience (i.e., survey, poll, etc.) ––No audience participation Examples: Was there prison abuse in Iraq? What caused the shuttle accident? Should the press secretary resign? ●● Issues related to historical or ongoing topics Examples: Were Lewis and Clark really all that successful? What should we do about deforestation? ●● Hidden issues uncovered and exposed Examples: Who should rescue Argentina’s children of the street? Are casinos rigged for profit? ●● Issues argued to conclusion, present claims untested Examples: Who are pro-choice advocates today? Will legalizing marijuana prevent its abuse?

For Complex Reading

1. Read it through without complete comprehension once. 2. Read it through again, recording complex terms/ phrases. 3. Use a dictionary to define and understand terms/phrases. 4. Read through it again and attempt to summarize the material.

When Reading Is Complete

1. Do you understand? If not, perhaps more background is necessary. 2. How is the argument constructed? 3. Write your position on the material. 4. Compare your position to others̕ positions. 5. Gather additional material. ●● Keep a journal, notebook, or folder of ideas. ●● Mentally visualize major concepts. ●● Do some directed reading and thinking. ●● Use argumentative strategies. ●● Use reading strategies. ●● Use critical thinking prompts. ●● Search a library database for relevant, peer-reviewed articles. ●● Gather your own data via interviews, questionnaires, or polls, if relevant. ●● Make an expanded list or outline.

Writing Strategies

●● Write the first draft. ●● Get ideas on paper. ●● Use an outline and notes to guide you. ●● Write and rewrite as you go. ●● Write the draft quickly and rewrite later.

Critical Thinking Prompts ●● Associate it ––Consider other related issues. –– Associate your issue with familiar subjects. ●● Describe it ––Use detail. ––Make the description visual. ●● Compare it ––Compare it with things you know well. ––Compare what you once thought about the issue to what you think now. ––Give reasons for a change of mind. ●● Apply it

●● Talk about your ideas with someone else. ●● Lower your expectations for your first draft.

Strategies When Stuck

●● Read more and take more notes. ●● Read your outline, rearrange parts, and add more information to it. ●● Freewrite on the issue, read some more, and freewrite some more.

1. Read your draft critically. 2. Have someone else read your draft.

3. Put the draft aside for 24 hours for a fresh perspective. 4. Rewrite and revise. 5. Check your paper. 6. Write the final title. 7. Type or print the paper.

●● Consider it over time ––What about your issue yesterday? ––What about your issue tomorrow? ––Does it change? How? Why? ●● Decide what it is a part of ––Put it in a larger category. ––Consider the insights you gain as a result. ●● Analyze it ––Break it into parts. ––Get insight into each of its parts. ●● Evaluate it ––Is it good or bad? ––Is it valuable or not valuable? ––Is it moral or immoral?

––Give evidence to support your evaluation. ●● Elaborate on it ––Add an explanation for better understanding. ––Give examples to provide further elaboration. ●● Project and predict ––Answer the question, “What would happen if…?” ––Think about further possibilities. ●● Ask why ––Examine every aspect of your issue. ––Answer the “why” with “because…”

Postwriting Strategies

––Show practical uses or applications. ––Show how it can be used in a specific setting. ●● Divide it ––Divide your issue into a related issue. ––Divide your issue into parts of an issue. ●● Agree and disagree with it ––Identify extreme pro and con positions. ––List other approaches and perspectives. ––Consider why each position is plausible. ●● Think about your issue in contemporary time ––What is its nature? ––What are its special characteristics?

Purpose & Parts of an Argument

Types of Evidence

Do the following steps to develop an understanding of the argument as a whole.

●● There are two types of evidence ––Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence may be strong or weak. Cumulative circumstantial evidence is much stronger than a single connection. ◊ Weak: He bought the gun that killed her, so he probably did it (but it could have been stolen). ◊ Strong: He bought the gun that killed her, he was seen with it the day before, and he threatened to kill her on Facebook. Here the accumulation of circumstantial evidence makes it strong. ––Direct evidence is sufficient by itself to convince anyone beyond a reasonable doubt; it therefore needs no corroboration.

Survey

1. Read the title and focus on the information in it. 2. Read the introduction and look for the claim. 3. Read the last paragraph and look for the claim. 4. Read the headings and subheadings to understand ideas. 5. Read the first sentence of each paragraph to understand ideas. 6. Study the visuals, such as pictures, charts, and graphs; read captions. 7. Identify the key words that represent the main concepts.

Divide the Argument into Parts

1. Draw a line across the page each time the subject changes. 2. Consider chunking—the physical division of an argument into its parts.

Ask Why the Parts Are in a Particular Order

1. Attempt to determine the logical order of the argument. 2. How did the author think about and organize the parts? 3. How will I think and organize the parts of my argument?

Analyze the Relationship among Parts

1. What is the relationship among the parts of this argument? 2. Do all parts contribute to a central idea?

Types of Claims Identify each argument type by identifying the questions the argument answers. ●● Claims of fact: Did it happen? Is it true? EX: Fast food is a global phenomenon. ●● Claims of definition: What is it? How should we interpret it? EX: We need to define what constitutes a family before we talk about family values. ●● Claims of cause: What caused it? Or, what are the effects? EX: The United States champions human rights in foreign countries to further its own economic selfinterests. ●● Claims of value: Is it good or bad? What criteria do we use to decide? EX: Computers are a valuable addition to modern society. ●● Claims of policy: What should we do about it? What should be our future course of action? EX: The criminal should be sent to prison rather than to a mental institution.

EX: He leapt onto the stage and shot the candidate before hundreds of people during a televised speech. ●● Evidence vs. proof: Real world evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, rarely approaches the certainty of classical logic or mathematical proof; even direct evidence is only sufficient “beyond a reasonable doubt.” ●● Argument from deduction: Draws a conclusion from a general principle. EX: All men are prone to prideful boasting. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is prone to prideful boasting. ––Weakness: It’s easy to attack a general principle. ●● Argument from definition: Arguer proposes meaning of term to audience for approval, and then says claim should be accepted “by definition.” EX: Willful taking of human life is murder. Suicide is willful taking of human life. Suicide is murder. ––Weakness: The audience can always reject your definition. ●● Argument from cause: Places the subject in a causeeffect relationship to show it is either the cause of an effect or the effect of a cause. EX: Children of single-parent families are prone to drug abuse. (Arguer offers example of children who abuse drugs who are from single-parent families). Lack of a mother or father caused this drug abuse problem. ––Weakness: It might just be a correlation—either two symptoms of a common cause or a coincidence. ●● Argument from sign: A specific, visible sign is sometimes used to prove a claim.

EX: When there is no rain the grass withers. When there is rain the grass grows. Therefore, rain causes the grass to grow. ––Weakness: Over-simplified: rain isn’t enough to make grass grow, and other things (i.e., the sun) also “cause” growth. ●● Argument from statistics: Describes relationships among data, people, occurrences, and events. EX: Illegal drugs entering into this country cause a rise in crime. Last year illegal drug flow into the U.S. rose 25%. Last year the crime rate nationwide rose 28%. ––Weakness: Over-simplification leading to a false inference: many things cause crime to rise. ●● Argument from analogy: Perceived similarities are used to infer a similarity not yet observed. ––Literal analogy: A comparison of two closely related things. EX: This drug prevention program worked in New York, so it should also work in Chicago. ◊ Weakness: Drugs may differ from city to city; in other words, not all cities are alike. ––Historical analogy: A forecasting technique based on what has happened in the past. EX: Historically; 85% of consumer purchases were made by women; therefore, our advertisements should target women. ◊ Weakness: The future may not resemble the past (i.e., because now most women work). ––Figurative analogies compare things not obviously comparable in most respects. ◊ Metaphors and similes are figurative analogies. EX: Graduates of our martial arts course wear their skills like a suit of armor; they walk protected at all times. ◊ Weakness: While vivid, this simile adds nothing to our knowledge of martial arts; it is an appeal to our emotions only (pathos). ●● Argument from authority: Arguer relies on a widely accepted authority. EX: People should let the Bible be their guide.

EX: That person has mud on her boots. Gardeners have mud on their boots. That person is a gardener.

––Weakness: Appeals to authority are only as strong as the authority cited, so those who don’t accept biblical authority won’t be persuaded. ●● Motivational evidence appeals to an audience’s needs, wants, desires, and better judgment.

––Weakness: There may be multiple causes for a sign (i.e., other things may cause muddy boots besides gardening). ●● Argument from induction: Provides a number of examples and draws a claim from them in the form of a conclusion.

––Weakness: Argument appeals to pathos rather than logos.

3

EX: Dieting can make you better looking. It is proven that in job interviews the attractive person fares best. Therefore, go on a diet before your big interview arrives.

Types of Fallacies A logical or reasoning error that is not related to the form of the argument; fallacies relate to whether propositions have any bearing on the case at hand. Fallacies Formal

Informal

Ambiguity

Relevance

Causal

Non-causal

Fallacies of Ambiguity

●● Equivocation: A word or phrase used two or more different ways. EX: “If all men are created equal, why are some strong and others weak? And where does that leave women?” ––Analysis: Here the arguer equivocates on several words. “Men” can mean people in general, or males only. Likewise, “created” can mean either made or born, while “strength” and “weakness” refer to a physical state of equality, overlooking the fact that there are moral and legal contexts of the word. ●● Relationship (amphiboly): The words are clear but the sentence construction is unclear. EX: “Last night I shot a burglar in my pajamas.” ––Analysis: It is unclear who is in the pajamas—“I” or the burglar. Amphiboly can be mere error or a device to mislead readers. ●● Accent/Emphasis: An accent is placed on a certain word or phrase in a premise to distort meaning. This is an Aristotelian error rare in English. EX: “You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.” If you love your neighbor, can you hate everyone else? ––Analysis: The emphasis on “neighbor” gives it a global sense.

Fallacies of Relevance

●● Non-causal fallacies of relevance: Deals with arguments unrelated to causes. ––False/Faulty dilemma: A limited number of options are given when more are available. EX: “You’re either a capitalist or a communist.” ◊ Analysis: Imposes a false bifurcation; there are gradations of both, and other choices. ––Appeal to/Argument from ignorance: Assumes one of the following: ◊ Since something has not been disproved, it is true. ◊ Since something has not been proven true, it is false. EX: No evidence can be provided that Shakespeare’s audience wore shoes; therefore, they must have come to the theater barefoot.

Questions for Reading/ Writing an Argument ●● What is the issue? (State as a question.) ●● What is the author’s particular perspective or “take” on the issue? ●● How would you describe the rhetorical situation? ●● Is it part of an ongoing conversation on this issue? What has gone before? ●● Divide the material into its parts and label the subject of each part: What are the subjects? Why are they in this order? How do they relate to each other? ●● What is the claim? (This should be a statement.) What type of claim is it? ●● What are the sub-claims? What types of claims are they? ●● Is the argumentative intention clear, admitted, and straightforward, or is it concealed and presented under the guise of objective reporting? ●● Does the author use logical proofs? (Describe them.) What is the effect on the audience? ●● Does the author use emotional proofs? (Describe them.) What is the effect on the audience?

◊ Analysis: This argument shifts the burden of proof. ––Slippery slope: To show that a proposition is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events follow from that proposition. EX: “If I make an exception for you, then I have to make an exception for everyone.” EX: “If you have one drink, you’ll never stop.” ◊ Analysis: This assumes that progression is inevitable. ––Complex question: Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as one; they must be accepted or rejected together. EX: “Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?” ◊ Analysis: This question presupposes that freedom and the right to bear arms are synonymous. ––Appeal to force: Certain negative consequences will follow if the portrayed action is not followed. EX: “Anyone who does not agree with the new company policy will be terminated.” ◊ Analysis: Force replaces reason. It is now irrelevant whether people agree with the policy; all that is required is silence. ––Appeal to pity: An agreement to a proposition because of the pitiful state of unrelated things. EX: “How can they sentence this man to death? Who will take care of his wife and children?” ◊ Analysis: This avoids the question with an appeal to pathos. ––Appeal to consequences: The disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief are highlighted to show this belief is false. EX: “If we ban abortion-on-demand, the result will be back-alley abortions.” ◊ Analysis: Avoiding the consequence does not require us to embrace what precedes it. ––Character assassination: A person or group is attacked rather than the proposition itself. EX: “She’s just a radical feminist.” ◊ Analysis: This attacks the fallacy by attacking the person who holds it. Whether or not she is a feminist should be irrelevant; the proposition should be analyzed on its merits. ––Prejudicial appeal: A proposition is accepted based on loaded or emotive terms. EX: “Right-thinking people will vote for candidate Jacobs.” ◊ Analysis: This is an appeal to pathos; it assumes we think of ourselves as “right thinking.” ––Appeal to popularity: A proposition is held to be ●● Does the author use proofs that establish credibility? (Describe them.) What is the effect on the audience? ●● What type of language predominates: language that appeals to reason, language that appeals to emotion, or language that establishes credibility? ●● What are the warrants? Do you share them? Do they need backing to make them more convincing to you? ●● Are rebuttal arguments used in the argument to point out how the opposition is wrong or in error on certain points? What are they? Are they effective? ●● Does the author exhibit a personal style of argument? (Describe it.) What in the author’s background has possibly contributed to this style? ●● Are there any fallacies in the argument? Does the author complain of any fallacious thinking on the part of the opposition? (Describe it.) ●● In the final evaluation, should the claim be qualified to make it more convincing to you or to the target audience? Is it acceptable as it is? ●● Are you convinced? Do you think others will be convinced? What do you perceive as the possible outcomes of this argument for yourself or for the target audience? 4

true because it is widely held to be true by some sector of the population. EX: “This is the 21st century. No one believes that anymore.” ◊ Analysis: This is an attempt to intimidate those who think popular means true. ––Appeal to authority: Appropriate only when the authority is relevant. EX: “If I played baseball, I’d wear Spotbilt shoes.” (Spoken by a football player) ◊ Analysis: This is unearned authority; he may have no idea what baseball players need. ––False/Faulty analogy EX: “Believing in miracles is like believing in Santa Claus.” ◊ Analysis: This is proposition assassination instead of character assassination. Santa Claus is made up, so miracles must be made up. ––Hasty generalization: The size of the particular sample is too small to form a conclusion. EX: “All Italians are bald; at least the one I saw was.” ◊ Analysis: This is extrapolation from inadequate evidence. ––Begging the question: The conclusion is assumed by the premise (also known as a circular argument). EX: You must save enough money to pay your bills because bills must be paid. ◊ Analysis: This is a lecture, not an argument. ––Straw man: Misrepresents the opponent’s position in order to more easily rebut it. EX: Opponent: “We should clean up the environment, but there’s a point of diminishing return.” Straw man version: “My opponent says the environment is not worth cleaning up.” ◊ Analysis: This takes a piece of the argument for the whole. ––Fallacy of origins: Claims that the source of a belief warrants rejecting that belief. EX: The Nazis were fascinated with Wagner, so we shouldn’t listen to him. ◊ Analysis: Even if the Nazis enjoyed Wagner, he might still be worth listening to. ––Category mistake: Confusing one category of things with another; confusing the whole with the part. EX: “The foundations of buildings are always flat. Therefore the world must is flat.” ◊ Analysis: This is an error of scale. As we measure them, foundations must be flat. On a large scale, however, the globe is curved. ●● Is the argument moral and ethical or immoral and manipulative according to your standards and values? Why do you think so?

Argumentative Sample Sexual harassment has come back once more to haunt Hillary Clinton, that fervent, flawed champion of women. A new report that she refused to fire an adviser accused of sexually harassing a campaign staffer in 2008, against the recommendations of her own campaign manager, recalls her own fraught history with the women who made allegations against her husband. This episode is a poignant reminder that placing women in positions of leadership does not ensure they will always act to protect other women. ●● Claim: Hillary Clinton is female, so women will be better off under her administration. Category mistake: Confuses natural gender with gender politics. ●● Logic: Affirming the if clause (modus ponens). ●● Motivational evidence: Claim appeals to audience's needs, wants, and desires that women will be better off.

WRITING THE ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY Understanding the Audience ●● Identify your audience: Who are they? What do you have in common with them? ●● What are some of the demographics of the group? Consider size, age, gender, nationality, education, professional status, etc. ●● What are some of their organizational affiliations (e.g., political, religious, social, economic)? ●● What are their interests (e.g., outside interests, reading materials)? ●● What is their present position on your issue? What audience outcomes can you anticipate? ●● Will they interpret the issue the same way you have? ●● How significant is your issue to the audience?

Research Now that the Internet is awash with false information, arguments stand or fall on the quality of their research. No one takes a carelessly researched argument seriously.

Primary Sources

●● Primary sources present direct evidence and first-hand accounts such as: ––Historical or legal documents ––Creative writing ––Interviews ––Eye-witness accounts ––Statistical records ––Experimental research

Secondary Sources

●● Secondary sources analyze, interpret, evaluate, and comment on primary sources such as: ––Scholarly articles ––Scholarly books ––Textbooks ––Reviews ––Dictionaries ––Encyclopedias

Peer Review vs. Journalism

●● Newspaper accounts and popular magazines may be either secondary or primary sources depending on their intent, but they are never peer-reviewed. ●● Journalism: Adheres to a standard of truth and relevance when gathering and assessing news. ●● Peer-Review: Truth is insufficient; peer-reviewed articles are refereed by experts in the field, and only those deemed to have contributed to the body of knowledge are accepted for publication.

Peer-Reviewed Sources

●● Peer-reviewed sources are a defining element of all scholarly arguments. To determine if an article is peer-reviewed: ––Use a library database. Some databases allow you to limit your search to peer-reviewed sources only. ––Limit yourself to articles that are included in an academic journal. ––Limit yourself to articles with named authors. ––Check to see if the journal is sponsored by a professional society or academic department.

Will it touch their lives or remain theoretical for them? ●● Are there any obstacles that will prevent your audience from accepting your claim as soon as you state it? ●● At what point is your audience in the ongoing conversation about the issue? Will they require background and definitions? Are they knowledgeable enough to contemplate policy change? ●● What is the attitude of your audience toward you? ●● What beliefs and values do you and your audience share? ●● What motivates your audience? What are their goals and aims? ●● What argument style will work best with your audience?

Employ the use of rhetorical situation and proof system.

Analyze the Rhetorical Situation

●● What is the real-life situation that makes me and others perceive this issue as controversial? ●● Who is the audience who thinks this is a problem? How do they view it? ●● What are the constraints that influence the audience’s perceptions of this issue? ●● What is motivating me, the author, to write about the issue; what makes me qualified? ●● What will be the purpose and strategies of the text I produce?

Plan Your Proofs

●● Use of logical proofs ●● Use of proofs that effect credibility ●● Use of emotional proofs

Invention Worksheet

Sources Not Peer Reviewed

●● Most secondary sources are not peerreviewed. The following sources do not count as peer reviewed: ––Dictionaries ––Encyclopedias ––Searches ––The bible, Koran, Talmud, etc. ––Textbooks ––Newspapers ––Popular magazines ––Book reviews

Write your claim; begin to develop it by using some of the following invention strategies; if you cannot generate information and ideas, do some background reading and try again. ●● Freewrite for five minutes. ●● Brainstorm. ●● Make a list. ●● Explain your claim to someone.

●● Write your insights. ●● Mentally visualize your claim. ●● Make a preliminary outline. ●● Think through the rhetorical situation. ●● Decide on some proofs that are relevant to your argument. ●● Apply critical thinking prompts (see Critical Thinking Prompts, p. 3). ●● Establish cause. ●● Describe where you need to add evidence.

Divide Your Argument into “For” & “Against”

When Do You Need Peer-Reviewed Sources?

Develop the argument to be used in the body of text.

Peer-reviewed sources are written for readers with more than common knowledge of a subject. If your argument is directed at informed readers—readers who already know the primary sources— than you must use peer-reviewed sources. Most upper level classes require peerreviewed sources.

Topic: Examinations Should Be Abolished

●● For: They test a limited range of skills. Against: Passing shows effective communication/problem solving. ●● For: Exams favor people who have good memory and techniques. Against: Exams have improved in the past 20 years. They test a greater range of skills. ●● For: They depress students and deaden initiative. Against: The mental effort to prepare is valuable. ●● For: They are set as if everyone has reached the same level at the same time. Against: Exams are rare at points of inequality in development. ●● For: They encourage competition and favor gifted students. Against: The solution is to find better ways to organize classes. ●● For: Different examiners grade student papers differently. Against: Modern examination boards ensure marking is done fairly.

When Is the Standard of Truth Sufficient?

●● The standard of truth is sufficient when: ––You are establishing general knowledge for uninformed readers ––You are establishing background knowledge before going on to new material ––The subject of your argument is widely accessible (and hence, easily checked). For instance: ◊ Popular music ◊ Restaurants ◊ Television, movies, etc. ––You are writing as an equal, rather than from a position of authority

Summary of the Argumentative Essay Introduction

●● Identify and state key ideas or concepts. ●● Provide a background to the argument and thesis. ●● State thesis clearly and unequivocally. ●● Define key terms; describe the approach for your paper.

Bibliographies & Works Cited Pages

Bibliographies and works cited pages are required whenever the author cites sources not in common knowledge—that is, not accessible by everyone in a given community. ●● Bibliography: A list of all sources consulted ●● Annotated bibliography: A bibliography where each item is followed by a descriptive or evaluative paragraph assessing the quality or relevance of the material. This is called the annotation ●● Works cited page: A list of all sources actually cited by name or author. Works cited pages may or may not be annotated

Argument Theory

●● Offer readers a guide for what is to come.

Body

●● Construct arguments. ●● Support arguments with evidence. ●● Confront counter-arguments. ●● Write with a clear sense of audience.

Conclusion

●● Retrace steps. ●● Restate the thesis. ●● Make a powerful closing.

Model Argumentative Essay Outline Topic: Reality TV and Everyday Life

5

Part I (introduction): As most people could tell you, there is very little reality in reality television, despite numerous claims to the contrary—claims constantly reinforced by so-called “reality” channels, featuring shows with titles such as “Real People” and “Real World.” Some of the unreality is inherent in the genre; like most televised entertainment, the so-called reality shows feature set story lines, artificial situations, and (frequently) re-staged scenes or juggled camera-shots. Charges of misleading editing and “coached” participants have also been rife, and occasionally, these charges have clearly been justified. In short, it is easy to criticize the realism of this genre’s vaunted reality, even while we enjoy the entertainment. When you come down to it though, couldn’t much the same thing be said about real life? Take the charges of misleading editing and “coaching”; how many of us have never replayed a conflict in our mind and “edited” what we remember? Our own good lines get better, and the points of our opponent de-emphasized or ridiculed. Moments

Model Argumentative Essay Outline (continued) of dramatic conflict are heightened, while wordiness or stuttering drop out gracefully. How many of us have never honed an entertaining story through many tellings? If reality television is not particularly “real,” are our own lives that different? ●● Part II (claim and counter-claims): ––Claim: Real life is as planned, revised, and scripted as any reality television show—we just don’t like to think of it that way. ––Counter-claim #1: Real life is characterized by spontaneity; it is unplanned, and to some extent, unpredictable. This

––Point 2: There is nothing wrong with any of these activities; in fact, they are an essential part of what distinguishes us from more instinctual animals— something to be applauded, not condemned. ––Point 3: To the degree that something is scripted, coached, or subsequently revised, even in memory, we think of it as less real. Unplanned events tend to feel “more real” to us. In fact, they are not more real—they are only more chaotic. ●● Part IV (summary): Reality television

is a central element of what we mean by the phrase “real life.” ––Counter-claim #2: Our criticisms of reality television have nothing to do with the nature of real life; we simply object to fraudulent claims. ●● Part III (the case): To support the claim, I plan to show that it is not possible for rational thinking creatures to avoid scripting, revising, and coaching—in short, all the things that we claim are “unreal” in reality television. ––Point 1: There is nothing “unreal” about these aspects of reality television.

is almost certainly guilty of everything we say it is, but it is our expectations that are really at fault. We think of life as chaotic and unplanned—and if it is, reality television is manifestly unreal. In fact though, our minds are constantly at work, ordering and selecting from the deluge of events that make up everyday life. In short, what we really object to in reality television is not its unreality, but it’s honesty. What we really want is to rewrite reality as we know it—while pretending otherwise.

Sample Argumentative Paper Opening sentences establish credibility by showing the writer is informed Thesis, at end of introductory paragraph, states the main point Writer addresses the concerns of those who hold opposing views Writer counters opposing arguments

Quotation is cited using MLA

Statistic is cited using MLA Reasonable tone keeps argument from sounding biased

Quotation is cited using MLA Writer uses evidence to support his thesis Transitional topic sentence leads readers to next part of paper Writer builds common ground with readers

Conclusion restates benefits of educating children of illegal immigrants Works cited page is formatted according to MLA style

Why Educate the Children of Illegal Immigrants? Immigration laws have been a subject of debate throughout American history, especially in states such as California and Texas, where immigrant populations are high. Recently, some citizens have been questioning whether we should continue to educate the children of illegal immigrants. While this issue is steeped in emotional controversy, we must not allow divisive “us against them” rhetoric to cloud our thinking. Yes, educating undocumented immigrants costs us. But not educating them would cost us much more. Those who propose barring the children of illegal immigrants from our schools have crowded their school systems. They worry about the crowding itself, given the loss of quality education that comes with large class sizes. They worry that school resources will be deflected from their children because of the linguistic and social problems that many of the newcomers face. And finally, they worry that even more illegal immigrants will cross our borders because of the lure of free education. This last worry is probably unfounded. It is unlikely parents are crossing the borders solely to educate their children. More likely, they are in desperate need of work, economic opportunity, and possibly political asylum. Charles Wheeler of the National Immigration Law Center asserts, “There is no evidence that access acts as a magnet to foreigners or that further restrictions would discourage illegal immigrants” (qtd. in “Exploiting”). The other concerns are more legitimate, but they can be addressed by less drastic measures than barring children from schools. Currently the responsibility of educating about 75% of undocumented children is borne by just a few states California, New York, Texas, and Florida (Edmondson 1). One way to help these and other states is to have the federal government pick up the cost of educating undocumented children, with enough funds to alleviate the overcrowded classrooms that cause parents such concern. Such cost shifting could have a significant benefit, for if the federal government had to pay, it might work harder to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. So far, attempts to bar undocumented children from public schools have failed. In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. In a 5-4 decision, it overturned a Texas law that allowed schools to deny education to illegal immigrants. Martha McCarthy reports that Texas had justified its law as a means of “preserving financial resources, protecting the state from an influx of illegal immigrants, and maintaining high quality education for resident children” (128). The Court considered these issues but concluded that in the long run the costs of educating immigrant children would pale in comparison to the costs - both to the children and to society - of not educating them. It isn’t hard to figure out what the costs of not educating these children would be. The costs to innocent children are obvious: loss of the opportunity to learn English, to understand American culture and history, to socialize with other children in a structured environment, and to grow up to be successful, responsible adults. The costs to society as a whole are fairly obvious as well. That is why we work so hard to promote literacy and prevent students from dropping out of school. An uneducated populace is dangerous to the fabric of society, contributing to social problems such as vandalism and crime, an underground economy, gang warfare, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, and infectious and transmissible diseases. The health issue alone makes it worth our while to educate the children of undocumented immigrants, for when children are in school, we can make sure they are inoculated properly, and we can teach them the facts about health and disease. Do we really want thousands of uneducated children growing up on the streets, where we have little control over them? Surely not. The lure of the streets is powerful enough already. Only by inviting all children into safe and nurturing and intellectually engaging schools can we combat the power. Our efforts will be well worth the cost. Works Cited Edmondson, Brad. “Life without Illegal Immigrants.” American Demographics May 1996: 1. “Exploiting Fears.” Admissions Decisions: Should Immigration Be Restricted? 7 Oct. 1996. Public Agenda. 10 Feb. 2000 http://www.vote-smart. org/issues/Immigration/chap2/imm2itx.html McCarthy, Martha M. “Immigrants in Public Schools: Legal Issues.” Educational Horizons 71(1993): 128–30. The essay above is written by Andrew Knutson and excerpted from Diana Hacker’s, A Writer’s Reference, 5th edition, 2003. Used by permission of Bedford/St. Martin’s, New York.

U.S. $6.95 Authors: Kathryn Jacobs, PhD

NOTE TO STUDENT: This guide is intended for informational purposes only. Due to its condensed format, this guide cannot cover every aspect of the subject; rather, it is intended for use in conjunction with course work and assigned texts. BarCharts Publishing, Inc., its writers, editors, and design staff are not responsible or liable for the use or misuse of the information contained in this guide. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Made in the USA ©2018 BarCharts Publishing, Inc. 0518

6