Academic english iii Class 11 April 12, 2013

Today Introduction to argumentative writing and logic

Source: www.thepoke.co.uk

Argument One of the keystones of university learning - Expressing a point of view & supporting it w/evidence - Involves use of research, critical thinking, & logic A good piece of argumentative writing: - Demonstrates your understanding of material - Demonstrates ability to use or apply the material i.e.) critique, apply it to something else, explain it in a different way.

Argument vs. “Fact” Example: Bloodletting For 2000 years, it was an accepted FACT that bloodletting was the most effective treatment for many illnesses. This fact was not questioned until the 19th century. We now accept different facts now because someone argued provided convincing evidence against bloodletting’s properties Source: commons.wikimedia.org

Argument It is something you do on a daily basis - Academic - Non-academic The more you improve your skill in argument, the better you are at: - critical thinking - reasoning - making choices - negotiating - weighing evidence

Argument is NOT - a statement of fact (i.e., 26.7% of Australians prefer dark chocolate). - an assertion or claim (i.e., Wearing a seatbelt reduce risk of injury). - a prescriptive statement (i.e., The Government should spend more money on healthcare). - a conditional statement (i.e., If you drink too much, you will damage your brain). - a series of statements about the same thing.

Argument – a group of statements An argument consists of: - Claim (i.e., thesis statement) - Support (i.e., evidence and reasoning throughout an essay) Example: Drinking water daily is good for your health as it cleans out your liver and reduces the level of toxins in your Blood.

Argument - Claim (i.e., thesis statement) Simple: Rats need water to live Support: Because experiments have demonstrated this.

Argument - Claim (i.e., thesis statement) Complex: The end of the South African system of apartheid was inevitable. Support: Every successful revolution in the modern era has come about after the government in power has given and then removed small concessions to the uprising group.

Argument - Support Different fields prefer certain types of support: i.e.) logical development of points statistics experimental results

Logic Not the only aspect of argument, BUT, a clear understanding of logic can help improve your argumentative abilities.

Logic – What is it? “A formal system of analysis that helps writers invent, demonstrate, and prove arguments.” (O.W.L.: Para 2) In logic: - Test propositions against each other to determine accuracy. Logic is not simply the absence of emotion in an argument, or “common sense”.

Logic - Syllogism Most famous type of logical sequence. - Developed by Aristotle. Aristotle’s most famous syllogism: Premise 1: All men are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Premise 2 tested against Premise 1 to reach conclusion. Since both premises are valid, there is no other logical conclusion.

Logic In logic: Argument = The assertion of a conclusion based on logical premises. Premise = Proposition used as evidence in an argument. Conclusion = Logical result of the relationship between the premises

Reaching Logical Conclusions To reach a logical conclusion requires proper analysis pf the premises. - In a syllogism, arrange the premises so only one true conclusion is possible.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 1 Premise 1: Non-renewable resources do not exist in infinite supply. Premise 2: Coal is a non-renewable resource. Conclusion: ? - Coal does not exist in infinite supply.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 2: It can often take several premises to reach a conclusion. Premise 1: All monkeys are primates. Premise 2: All primates are mammals. Premise 3: All mammals are vertebrate animals. Conclusion: Monkeys are vertebrate animals.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 3: Logic can be used to make specific conclusions from general premises Premise 1: All squares are rectangles. Premise 2: Figure 1 is a square. Conclusion: ? - Figure 1 is also a rectangle.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 4: Logic requires decisive statements. Premise 1: Some quadrilaterals are squares. Premise 2: Figure 1 is a quadrilateral. Conclusion: Figure 1 is a square. This syllogism is false. - There is not enough information to give a true conclusion. Figure 1 could also be a rectangle.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 5: The premises must be reasonably acceptable to the audience. Premise 1: People with blonde hair are not good at chess. Premise 2: Dave has blonde hair. Conclusion: Dave is not good at chess. While logically, this is valid, Premise 1 is unlikely to be accepted by any reasonable audience.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 6: Logical conclusions also depend on what factors are actively recognized and what factors are being ignored by the premises. Different premises can lead to different conclusions on the same subject.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 6: Different premises can lead to different conclusions on the same subject. Topic: Platypus Source: troghead.blogspot.com

Reaching Logical Conclusions Example 6: Different premises can lead to different conclusions on the same subject. Premise 1: All birds lay eggs. Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs. Conclusion: Platypuses are birds. Premise 1: All mammals have fur. Premise 2: Platypuses have fur. Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.

Reaching Logical Conclusions Logic is a great tool for argument, but it does have limitations (like the previous example). - i.e., it does not always persuade people. Some people may be more influenced by values or emotions. - pathos & ethos There is also the matter of making the syllogism into proper writing (more on that later).

Logical Fallacies Common errors in reasoning that weaken (or destroy) you’re the logic supporting a conclusion. We will examine 12 types of fallacies.

Logical Fallacies Slippery Slope Problem: based on the premise that is A happens a series will follow: B, C…X, Y, Z. Basically saying A = Z. Topic: banning SUVs. If we ban SUVs because they are bad for the environment, eventually the government will ban all cars; therefore, we should not ban SUVs.

Logical Fallacies Hasty Generalization Problem: The conclusion is based on insifficient or biased evidence. Basically: Rushing to the conclusion. Even though this is only the first episode, this TV show is clearly going to be terrible.

Logical Fallacies Post hoc ergo propter hoc Problem: Conclusions that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’, then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A’. Basically: Assuming that if one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. I ate some pizza and got sick. Thus, the pizza must have made me sick.

Logical Fallacies Genetic Fallacy Problem: Conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of an idea, person, theory, etc. determine its value. Basically: Drawing a conclusion based on premises that are not inherently related. Volkswagen cars are evil because they were used by Hitler’s army.

Logical Fallacies Begging the Claim Problem: The conclusion that needs to be proven is already validated in the claim. Filthy and polluting oil should be banned.

Logical Fallacies Circular Argument Problem: Instead of proving the argument, the writer re-states the argument. Basically A is B because B. Barack Obama is a great communicator because he speaks effectively.

Logical Fallacies Either/Or Problem: The conclusion over simplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

Logical Fallacies Ad hominem Problem: An attack on the character of a person (or organization, etc.) rather than on opinions or arguments of that person. Basically: Because you’re bad, your argument is invalid. Green Peace’s strategies are not effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

Logical Fallacies Red Herring Problem: A diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often avoiding opposing arguments instead of addressing them. The level of mercury in seafood may be dangerous, but what will fishermen do to support their families.

Logical Fallacies Moral Equivalence Problem: Comparing a minor misdeed with a major atrocity. The parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

References This class’s information was adapted from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/ This is a fantastic resource for learning academic writing.