H.4.7 Eng101 Argument Techniques

8/18/2019 H.4.7 Eng101 Argument Techniques

1/20

Argument Techniques


2/20

Jerry Springer

Oprah


3/20

Purpose Audience

Reasoning strategies (Organization)

The rational appeal

The emotional appeal

The ethical appeal

Fallacies

Ethical issues


4/20

Demonstrating facts

◦Nursing is hard work, dorms are poor study

places

Defend/oppose a policy, action, or project

◦

Company should drug-test employees

Assert the greater/lesser value of

someone/something

◦Ranking candidates for promotion


5/20

Think like a reader (oh wait, you are...)

Consider reader’s interests expectations and

needs concerning this issue

Identify the evidence most likely to convince

readers

Identify the objections readers will have

Identify the consequences of this argument

Decide how objections should be addressed


6/20


7/20

Deduction

◦Demonstrates how a specific conclusion

follows logically from initial premise

◦Must make clear how conclusions do actually

follow from agreed-upon premises

Politicians assert the benefit to future

generations, then policies to favor that

Analogy


8/20

Analogy

◦Weakest form of rational appeal

◦ Never prove anything, only show

probability and sometimes offer

explanations

Assumption that humans respond to

chemicals as rats do


9/20

Present reasons and evidence in a way that

readers will find as reasonable or plausible

Established truths

Opinions of authorities

Primary source information

Statistical findings

Personal experience


10/20


11/20

Identify stories, scenes, or events of the

topic that arouse the strongest emotions

Can lend powerful reinforcement

Tug heartstrings of readers to take

actions


12/20

Write with genuine concern for topic,

commitment to truth and sincere respect

for others

◦ Tone is paramount

Offensive, arrogant, or mean-spirited

is ineffective

Look for snide comments

◦

Pleasant, fair-minded, decent is

effective


13/20

Lapses in logic that reflect upon ability to think

clearly and weaken argument

Hasty generalization – someone bases a

conclusion on too little evidence

◦ Student tries to reach instructor one time and

declares that the instructor is impossible to reach

Non sequitur – draws unwarranted conclusions

from seemingly ample evidence

◦ Bill is out every night. I wonder who he is dating?

Stereotyping – attaches one or more supposed

characteristics to a group or one of its

members

◦ Teenagers are lousy drivers


14/20



Card Stacking – only part of available evidence

given while deliberately omitting essential info

◦ College students have it easy because they are only in

classes 12 hours per week.

Either/Or Fallacy – only two choices exist when

several are available

◦ Either buy tires or get stuck inside this winter

Begging the Question – asserts truth of an

unproven statement

◦ Vitamin A is harmful to your health, so all bottles

should have a warning label. If enough of us write to

the FDA this could change. But how do we know it’s

harmful when evidence isn’t given?


15/20



Circular Argument – supports position merely

by restating it

◦ That person is overweight because he is fat.

Red Herring – argues off point

◦ American car is superior but abruptly shifts to the

plight of laid off workers

Ad Hominem – argument attacks an individual

rather than opinion

◦ Sam doesn’t deserve a promotion. His divorce was

messy.


16/20



Appeal to the Crowd– plays on irrational fears

and prejudices of audience

◦ The Red Scare, Adolf Hitler

Guilt by Association – some similarity between

one person to another

◦ Similar to poisoning the well

Post Hoc – assuming that because one event

follows another, the first caused the second

◦ Coincidence that a black cat ran across the street

right before the car crashed into the telephone pole


17/20



Faulty Analogy – error of assuming two

circumstances are similar in all respects when

they are not

◦Football coach insists that if he emulates Lombardi’s

techniques that his team will win conference

Doesn’t take players into consideration level of play etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTQi7vVsIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dln3DJEcghY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8LydU2P7Yw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTQi7vVsIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dln3DJEcghYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8LydU2P7Ywhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8LydU2P7Ywhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dln3DJEcghYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTQi7vVsI


18/20

Argument is an attempt to alter attitudes or

spark action

Responsibility for quality of argument and

possible consequences

Carefully consider stance and argument

◦ Is it credible? Is it dependent on certain conditions?

Be fair to other positions

Legitimacy of reasons and evidence

Examine fallacies and other possible reader

manipulations

Explore the consequences of readers adopting

this position


19/20

Apply your assigned argumentative element to each of the following readings.

Be prepared to extensively discuss your findings with the class.

Marissa Brown – “Teacher Natalie Munroe Has a Right to Call Kids Lazy and

Rude”

Jonathan Zimmerman – “When Teachers Talk out of School”

Byron York – “A Carefully Crafted Immigration Law in Arizona”

Conor Friedersdorf – “Immigration Policy Gone Loco”

Purpose Audience

Aziz, Mieah, Ashley C., Cody

The rational appeal

David, Daishawna, Danny, Brittany

The emotional appeal

Ashley B., Cassie, Tony, Summer

The ethical appeal Ethical issues

Naudya, Cambria, Corrine, Zach

Fallacies Reasoning strategies

Robert, Pauline, Kaprielle


20/20

Causal Analysis due

Comparative analysis mulligans due

H.4.7 Eng101 Argument Techniques

Documents

Transcript of H.4.7 Eng101 Argument Techniques