Remember Argumentation? You do remember, right?

Argument Structure Claim (a.k.a. thesis) Reasons / Grounds (a.k.a. supporting claims or sub- claims) Evidence/data Warrant Qualifier Concession/counterargument Refutation/rebuttal

CLAIM /thesis The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept. The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?”

Reasons / sub-claims / GROUNDS Assertions or statements made to support the claim, dividing it into smaller issues. In a brief argument, these are “because” statements that follow the claim. In an essay, these are the topics of your paragraphs. Do not confuse reasons/grounds with evidence— reasons/grounds are still ideas.

EVIDENCE/DATA Evidence can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning. Evidence is the support the arguer offers on behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer questions such as: "What is your proof?“ "How do you know?“ "Why?”

More about evidence Evidence can be based on: facts: statistics, reports, or physical proof source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so precedent—what’s been done before Definitions Examples and anecdotes premises already held by the audience

Please discuss…. Sketch a diagram that shows how claims, subclaims and evidence work together.

Logical appeal Emotional Appeal Ethical Appeal What about appeals? Evidence should be based on one or more of the 3 appeals. Ideally, any claim or sub-claim/ground is developed using all 3 appeals. Logical appeal Emotional Appeal Ethical Appeal

Emotional appeals PATHOS More about appeals Logical appeals LOGOS Emotional appeals PATHOS Ethical appeals ETHOS to convince an audience by use of logic or reason To make the audience feel what the author wants them to feel to convince an audience of the author’s credibility or character Facts Examples Definitions Precedent Analogy Syllogisms (deductive arguments) Connotative language Rhetorical devices Imagery Figurative language Anecdotes Humor Citing trustworthy sources Appropriate diction for the audience and topic fair and unbiased tone expertise or reputation correct grammar and mechanics.

Please discuss In your best teacher voice, explain to the person next to you the 3 kinds of appeals

Warrants (THIS IS THE TOUGH ONE!) The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the evidence. The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the audience to recognize the connection between the claim and evidence. Weak warrants can lead to bad logic!

More about warrants example: “Muffin is running a temperature (evidence). I’ll bet she has an infection (claim).” Warrant: sign reasoning—a fever is a reliable sign of a fever example: "That dog is probably friendly (claim). It is a Golden Retriever (evidence).” Warrant: generalization—most Golden Retrievers are known to be friendly

sample argument 1 The Cougars are likely to win the ballgame tonight They are playing at home Grounds Claim Warrant (unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in baseball

sample argument 2 It is nominated for 12 Academy Awards Lincoln is a wonderful movie. Claim Grounds Warrant (unstated) Sign: a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

Please discuss… Add warrant to the sketch you did for claim and evidence

qualifier A statement about how strong the claim is. Words such as “most”, “usually”, “always” or “sometimes”. “Muffin is running a temperature. I’ll bet she has an infection.” "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.”

Concession and refutation aka counterargument and rebuttal acknowledging a point made by the opposition (concession) before proving it wrong (refutation). serves as a defense against opposing arguments. indicates an understanding of exactly what causes the controversy demonstrates maturity in thinking by considering the issue from other angles.

Try it out Claim = My parents should allow me to go to my friend’s party on Friday night. Data = The parents of nearly all of the seniors at SCHS have given their children permission to attend this party. Warrant = My parents should act in accordance with the other parents of seniors at SCHS.

Uh-oh, a potential snag… What if my parents don’t “buy” my warrant? What if they don’t think they should necessarily do what other parents are doing? How can I still get permission to attend the party? Or at least have a better chance of getting permission?

Try new data and a new warrant. What might be more convincing data for an audience of parents? What might be a warrant that most parents will share?