ANALYZING DOCUMENTARIES …CONTINUED

MORE CONVENTIONS OF ARGUMENTS: “CHAPTER 16 –WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE?” EVIDENCE & ARGUMENTS PRECEDENCE – EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS AND DECISIONS THAT ARE SIMILAR DATA – GATHERING AND PRESENTING STATISTICS – STATS, NUMBERS, TABLES, CHARTS, GRAPHS DEFINITIONS, ANALOGIES, ANALYSES SOURCES – FIRSTHAND VS. SECONDHAND EXPERIENCE – PERSONAL VS. EXPERT QUOTES IMAGES – INTEGRATED OR ALONE

DOING YOUR RESEARCH… FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE OBSERVATIONS FIRST DECIDE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND ANTICIPATE WHAT YOU WILL SEE THINK FIRST! INTERVIEWS CHOOSE WISELY HAVE A PURPOSE AND RECORD ALL INFORMATION SURVEYS / QUESTIONNAIRES HAVE PURPOSE, TEST QUESTIONS, BE CLEAR EXPERIMENTS CONTROLLED AND EXPLAIN PROCESS SECONDHAND EXPERIENCE LIBRARY SOURCES DATABASES WHICH ARE CREDIBLE IN THE FIELD? HOW RECENT SHOULD THEY BE? HOW DO I ACCURATELY ‘SEARCH’ / ‘ADVANCED SEARCH?’ INTERNET WHICH CAN I USE? WHICH ARE CREDIBLE? HOW CAN I USE A SEARCH ENGINE?

CHAPTER 17: FALLACIES OF ARGUMENT FALLACIES ARE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FLAWED – STRUCTURALLY – SO THEY TRULY LESSEN THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ETHICS OF AN ARGUMENT, PARTICULARLY IF IT’S FAIR OR ACCURATE

EMOTIONAL FALLACIES SCARE TACTICS EITHER – OR CHOICES SLIPPERY SLOPE (TINY MISTAKE TODAY WILL CAUSE HUGE DISASTER TOMORROW) SENTIMENTAL APPEAL –GUILT-RIDDEN, KEEP AUDIENCE FROM THINKING CLEARLY BANDWAGON – ‘EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT’ APPROACH

ETHICAL FALLACIES FALSE AUTHORITY – EXPERT ON ONE THING MAKES ME AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING DOGMATISM – “NO RATIONAL PERSON WOULD DISAGREE…” “IT’S CLEAR TO ANYONE…” MORAL EQUIVALENCE – SERIOUS WRONGDOING IS SAME AS MINOR OFFENSE AD HOMINEM – ATTACKING THE PERSON’S CHARACTER

LOGICAL FALLACIES HASTY GENERALIZATION – INFERENCE DRAWN FROM INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FAULTY CAUSALITY – FROM LATIN PHRASE ‘POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC’ – AFTER THIS, THEREFORE BECAUSE OF THIS (BECAUSE ONE EVENT FOLLOWED ANOTHER, THE FIRST ONE ACTUALLY CAUSED THE SECOND ONE) BEGGING THE QUESTION – CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE BECAUSE THE GROUNDS ARE IN DOUBT (YOU CAN’T GIVE ME A “C” – I’M AN “A” STUDENT)

MORE LOGICAL FALLACIES EQUIVOCATION – TRICK OF LANGUAGE – DOUBLE-MEANING NON SEQUITUR – CLAIMS, REASONS AND WARRANTS FAIL TO CONNECT LOGICALLY; ONE POINT DOESN’T FOLLOW ANOTHER STRAW MAN – ATTACK AN ARGUMENT THAT ISN’T THERE FAULTY ANALOGY – COMPARISON TAKEN TOO FAR SO THAT IT CAN’T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH YOUR ASSIGNMENT: WRITE A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENTARY FILM. ANALYZE THE PURPOSE, THE AUDIENCE, AND THE STRATEGIES USED. ANALYSIS CAN SUPPORT OR DEFEND THE FILM ANALYSIS CAN CHALLENGE OR OPPOSE THE FILM

GETTING STARTED THESIS = AUTHOR, AUDIENCE, GENERAL PURPOSE AT LEAST 5 SENTENCES = RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND HOW THEY ARE USED CONCLUSION SENTENCE = MUST INDICATE YOUR POSITION (DEFEND OR OPPOSE)

USING VARIOUS TERMINOLOGY DEFEND PRESERVE GUARD SECURE SHIELD LOOK AFTER SUPPORT ENDORSE BACK CHALLENGE OPPOSE CONFRONT DEFY DISPUTE CONTEST OBJECT TO QUESTION ARGUE

DEFEND: EXAMPLE INTRO PARAGRAPH IN AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, AL GORE WANTS TO REACH A LARGE AUDIENCE, PARTICULARLY NONSCIENTISTS, TO STRESS THE URGENCY OF RESPONDING TO GLOBAL WARNING. HE ESTABLISHES HIS AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT WHOSE CONCERN STEMS FROM ETHICAL AND MORAL RATHER THAN POLITICAL MOTIVATION. HE PROVIDES AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A MULTIMEDIA FORMAT. HE APPEALS THE AUDIENCE’S REACTIONS BY JUXTAPOSING WHAT WAS OR IS WITH WHAT MIGHT BE – AND, IN FACT, IS LIKELY TO OCCUR. GORE ACKNOWLEDGES SEVERAL COUNTERPARTS, BUT HE REFUTES THEM WITH HUMOR OR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION. HE USES HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS A FATHER AND BROTHER TO STRESS THE DEEP COMMITMENT THE HAS TO THIS ISSUE. AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH EFFECTIVELY SOUNDS THE ALARM FOR GLOBAL WARNING BY OFFERING AN ACCESSIBLE EXPLANATION THAT BLENDS SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND HUMAN INTEREST.

CHALLENGE: EXAMPLE INTRO PARAGRAPH ALTHOUGH AL GORE CLAIMS THAT ONLY MORAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING PROMPTED HIM TO MAKE THE DOCUMENTARY AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, THE FILM IS A THINLY DISGUISED BID FOR THE PRESIDENCY. THROUGHOUT THE FILM, HE ESTABLISHES THE STANCE OF A SUCCESSFUL POLITICIAN WHO HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN HIS DUE. HE INTERSPERSES HIS SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS WITH CRITICISMS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. HE MANIPULATES HIS AUDIENCE INTO FEELING A SENSE OF URGENCY BY EXAGGERATING THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH BEFORE AND AFTER CONTRASTS. HE MENTIONS COUNTERARGUMENTS BUT DISMISSES THEM WITH SARCASM AND DERISIVE HUMOR. HE USES THE ARTISTIC ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENTARY FILM TO PULL AT HIS AUDIENCES HEARTSTRINGS BY DESCRIBING THE NEAR-DEATH OF HIS SON AND THE CANCER DEATH OF HIS SISTER, NEITHER OF WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HIS SUBJECT. AL GORE MAY HAVE A SINCERE CONCERN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH IS ONLY A MEANS TO FURTHER HIS AMBITIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY BY REACHING A LARGE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL VOTERS.

ASSIGNMENT WRITE 2 SEPARATE INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPHS, ON THAT DEFENDS / SUPPORTS AND ONE THAT CHALLENGES / DISAGREES WITH, THE ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE DOCUMENTARY BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. BE SURE TO INCLUDE AT LEAST 6 SENTENCES THAT EXPLAIN THE LITERARY DEVICES THAT YOU WOULD DISCUSS IN THE PAPER AND END WITH A STRONG THESIS. USE ONE OF THE INTRODUCTION METHODS THAT WE LEARNED EARLIER IN THE YEAR – REFER TO YOUR NOTES! BRING THESE TO CLASS – TYPED OR HAND-WRITTEN - MONDAY / TUESDAY.