Argumentation

Argumentation- is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion Urges people to share the writer’s perspective and insights

What you should be able to identify in the introductory paragraph of an argumentative essay: 1) The main issue is identified 2) Background information presents both sides of the issue. 3) Topic Sentence- take a stand (thesis)

Uses of Argumentation Used to convince others to accept (or at least acknowledge the validity of) your position Defend your position To question or refute a position you believe to be misguided, untrue, dangerous, or evil

Persuasion vs. Argumentation Persuasion- how a writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or follow a course of action Argumentation- appeals to reason; does not try to move an audience to action; its primary purpose is to demonstrate that certain ideas are valid and others are not Uses appeals most would consider fair

Considering all sides of a question Be willing to change (perception, outlook, opinion) Consider other viewpoints: gives insight to “their” reactions Can’t be open-minded? Well, choose another topic.

Additional criteria: Take a stand to form your thesis Is your topic debatable? It needs to be. Maybe create an antithesis (statement that asserts the opposite position)

Use of Evidence Main criteria to look for in evidence: 1) relevance 2) representative- represents a full range of opinions about your subject, not just one side

Use of Evidence You don’t need to document common knowledge. Opposition- anticipate the objections; address objections in your essay Refute opposing argument by making it seem weaker than it actually is (creating a straw man)

Rogerian Argument Carl Rogers= how to argue without confrontation (proving opponent’s position wrong) Confrontation forces opponent into a defensive position Think of those that disagree with you as colleagues, not adversaries.

Guidelines for Rogerian Argument Begin by summarizing opposing viewpoints Consider positions of those that disagree with you. Present opposing viewpoints accurately and fairly. Concede strength of a compelling opposing argument Acknowledge shared concerns Benefits from the position you are defining

Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning (moving from evidence to conclusion) Deductive reasoning- proceeds from a general premise or assumption to a specific conclusion (logic) Holds that if all statements in the argument are true, the conclusion must be true

Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning- proceeds from individual observations to a more general conclusion and uses no strict form

Using Deductive reasoning Syllogism- consists of a major premise, which is a general statement; a minor premise, which is a related but more specific statement; and a conclusion drawn from those premises Ex. Major premise: All Olympic swimmers are fast. Minor premise: Michael Phelps is an Olympic swimmer. Conclusion: Michael Phelps is fast.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning In order for an argument to be valid, a conclusion has to follow logically from the major and minor premises. To be sound a syllogism must be logical and true. Unlike deduction, induction has no distinctive form, and its conclusions are less definitive than those of syllogism.

Toulmin Logic Toulmin logic: divides arguments into three parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant. Claim- is the main point of the essay Grounds- the material a writer uses to support the claim-can be evidence or appeals to the emotions or values of the audience Warrant- is the inference that connects the claim to the grounds

Toulmin Logic Ex. Claim: Yale should be elected class president. Grounds: Yale is an honor student. Warrant: A person who is an honor student would make a good class president.

Recognizing Fallacies Fallacies are illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true, but are actually deceptive and dishonest. Types of Fallacies: 1) Begging the question: This tactic asks the readers to agree that certain points are self-evident (so obvious it needs no proof) when in fact they are not.

Types of Fallacies 2) Argument from analogy: Analogies don’t constitute proof. Often ignores dissimilarities between objects being compared. 3) Personal Attack (argument Ad hominem): tries to divert attention from facts of an argument by attacking motives or character of the person making the argument.

Types of Fallacies (p.568-569) 4) False Dilemma (Either or fallacy): occurs when a writer suggests that only two alternatives exist even though there may be others. 5) Red Herring: occurs when the focus of an argument is shifted to divert the audience from the actual issue. 6) Appeal to doubtful authority: people are cited as evidence who are not experts on the subject

Types of Fallacies 7) Post hoc reasoning: assumes that because two events occur together in time, the first must be the cause of the second 8) Non sequitur: occurs when a statement does not logically follow from a previous statement