Parts of an argument. . .

Ways authors appeal to their audience: Emotionally Ethically/morally Logically

Emotional appeal (pathos) Benefits: “Hooks” the audience and typically makes them care Drawbacks: If overused, can seem like arguer is manipulative and/or not knowledgeable about issue

Appeal to emotions How does the arguer try to evoke emotion? What emotions specifically? Does he or she overly rely on playing to the audience’s emotions?

Ethical/Moral Appeal Benefits: Trust is part of ethos, and if the audience trusts the author, they are more likely to agree with him/her. Drawbacks: If authors don’t establish a strong ethos, the audience will not give the argument as much consideration

Appeal of ethic/morality/character/credibility (ethos) Ethos: The arguer and publication’s credibility How trustworthy is the arguer and the place of publication? What credentials or experience does the arguer have regarding this issue? Is the arguer well-known?

Appeal to logic Benefits: If the author’s logic is reasonable, he/she will have a sound argument even if the audience is not persuaded Drawbacks: Even if the arguer has a lot of reasons and evidence, if they don’t appeal to his/her audience, they’re not persuasive Example Audience: Non-Christians / secular Argument: Marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. Reason: The Bible states this.

Logos: Appeal to logic Logos: The use of facts, reasons, logical evidence (examples, statistics, numbers, authorities statements, analogies) Are the arguer’s reasons ones which would be persuasive to the arguer’s target audience? Are the arguer’s reasons backed by enough evidence? Is the arguer’s evidence credible? Does the arguer’s reasons clearly connect to the arguer’s claim? Or, in other words, are the arguer’s reasons based in beliefs the arguer’s target audience would accept? Does the arguer avoid illogical thinking/fallacies? Example: Logical—You should vote for John Smith for president because he has a lot of experience with foreign and domestic policy. Illogical—You should vote for John Smith for president because he is very tall.

Identifying parts of logos How these parts connect deals with logic Claim: the primary argument; what the arguer wants her audience to think or do; an opinion Reasons: the “because” part; why the audience should believe or act on the claim; often sub-claims Evidence: numbers, facts, authorities’ statements, personal experience, stories, examples, hypothetical situations Assumptions: the beliefs and values (often unstated) that the argument is grounded in

Assumptions Often the most difficult to identify, especially when implied To identify assumption(s), ask yourself, what must the arguer believe to be true for the argument to be true? Example: Clermont’s new club The Vue is great because it plays techno music until 3 a.m., so you can dance all night! Assumptions: Clubs that play techno music are great. Dancing all night is something people would enjoy. (Blek!) Other examples: Taxing the wealthier a larger percentage than other classes and stem cell research and ensoulment

More examples. . . Simon Cowell is a jerk because he tells the contestants when their performances are bad. Islands of Adventure is the park to go to since it has a lot of roller coasters. She’s very intelligent for a woman. She was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it. Teenagers today don’t know what hard work is. They have their own cars and cells phones.

See handout for practice identifying claims, support, and assumptions The amazing thing is, the “assumption” part of our decision-making process is usually the part that gets the least examination. . .It’s the part we take for granted.” ~ Christian Overman “Never assume the obvious is true.” ~ William Safire Go over handout

Review What is appeal to emotion? What is appeal to ethics/credibility? What is appeal to logic? What is a claim? What is a reason? What is evidence? What are assumptions? What is tone?

Practice evaluating an argument First, find out a little about the issue, such as What communities are involved in the argument? What are their claims? What are their reasons? What are their assumptions? Frontline video on embryonic stem cell research: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/parkinsons/view/4.html Chris Matthews Show clip: http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=1e051335-59f7-455e-8949-ecaad27d246f Meet the Press clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbGlZmr--as Obama ends ban on federal money for stem cell research clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Uqp9VcCq4&feature=related Handouts

Practice Discuss and take notes on the sample argument in groups Does the author appeal to emotion? What emotions specifically? Do you think he uses the right amount of emotion and uses it in the right ways? Explain. What do you think of the author’s credibility? What about where it was originally published (if known)? What do you think of the author’s appeal to the audience’s ethics/morality? Do you think he uses the right amount of ethical appeal and uses it in the right ways? How would you describe the author’s tone (attitude towards subject and audience)? Do you think it’s appropriate? Explain why or why not. What is the author’s claim? What are some reasons the author offers in support of her/his claim? What evidence does the author offer in support of her/his claim? What are some of this author’s assumptions (values and beliefs about the topic and towards the audience)? Do you find him persuasive? Explain.