RWS 100:Evaluating An Argument (And Writing Your Paper)

In your first paper, you are asked to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Thompson’s argument…

One of the ways that you can do that is by analyzing the evidence that Thompson provides. As we have discussed, there’s lots of types of evidence (and Thompson uses quite a few), including:

Historical evidence Statistical or numerical evidence Research studies Anecdotal evidence Personal anecdotes Expert testimony

When you analyze evidence, there are three major questions that you want to ask of the evidence:

Is the evidence SUFFICIENT?

(btw, what type of evidence is this?) You should eat pizza because I ate a pizza once and it was delicious! (btw, what type of evidence is this?)

(btw, what type of evidence is this?) I am a pizza chef and I personally have eaten at over 3,729 restaurants in my life, and I promise you, you should eat pizza, it’s delicious! (btw, what type of evidence is this?)

Is the evidence CREDIBLE?

Things to think about: Where was it published? Who wrote it? Do they have any biases? Is this an objective source…? (Keep in mind, some sources might be biased, that doesn’t always mean they’re wrong, but you need to consider that when evaluating any evidence they provide) How was it presented?

…but it’s not always that obvious:

Holy @(*!, there’s actually a Ramones reference on the front page of the National Review!

So how do you know if you can trust a source? What are some ways to find out?

Finally, you need to ask: Is the evidence RELEVANT?

By relevant, we mean: does it directly support the claim we are analyzing?

(btw, what type of evidence is this?) I think you should listen to The Ramones because Rock critic Robert Christgau believes popular music is atrocious. (btw, what type of evidence is this?)

I think you should listen to The Ramones because the University of Toronto conducted a peer-reviewed study in 2008 which demonstrated that 98% of people who listen to the NYC rock group became significantly groovier.

Let’s take a quick look at ways you can examine evidence from the major types we have reviewed in this class (all of this is in your Course Reader):

Historical Evidence: How is this historical example relevant to the current situation? Are there significant difference between the two situations that would suggest another possible claim? Is the evidence sufficient? That is, if there is one specific historical example of something happening, is that enough to support the claim? Does the historical evidence seem to come from a credible source? Does the historical evidence seem to have been interpreted correctly?

Statistical Evidence: Were the numbers specific? Does this information come from a credible source? Does the information appear to have been gathered in a way that’s appropriate? Why are these numbers relevant to the claim being made? Are the numbers significant? (Keep in mind that this depends on a number of factors; a 3% decrease in heart disease may not seem like much, but if it is 3% in a nation of 150 million people, that’s a very significant number.) Is the information recent relative to the time the argument was written?

Research Studies: Is the source of the study credible, meaning both are they experts in this field and are they unbiased? Was the study well-designed? How is the study relevant to the claim it supports? Are there other ways to interpret the research findings that have been ignored and that contradict or fail to support the author’s claim? Is the research recent relative to the time the argument was written?

Expert Testimony: Is the source credible, that is, are they experts in a relevant field and do they seem to be unbiased? Dose the expert’s opinion appear to be itself founded on strong evidence?

Anecdotal Evidence and Personal Anecdotes: Is the anecdote detailed enough to persuade a reader that it actually occurred? Does the anecdote appear to be representative of the experiences of a significant number of other people? How is the anecdote relevant to the claim being supported?

Your Paper Needs to include:

Introduction Context Project/Purpose Argument YOUR THESIS Metadiscourse (what’s that?)

The Body Claim Evidence (Evaluation) Strategy (Evaluation)

Conclusion The “So What?” Part of the Argument Has it convinced you? Do you think it would convince Thompson’s Intended Audience? What’s your final opinion on how good Thompson did his job?

Works Cited What’s included on it? How can you find out how to format it? What happens if I format it incorrectly?

Errata Extra Credit: Visit the Writing Center Instructor Conferences: When/Where/Why? (on the wiki) Peer Review Session Thursday: What’s Expected