WRITING EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS THE ART OF ARGUMENT

THE PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT Claim: the statement of the position you are arguing; your thesis Warrant: Your evidence to prove your claim is true Impact: Why your argument matters and how it impacts those affected by the argument

IDENTIFY THE CLAIM, WARRANT, AND IMPACT IN THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT : “The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men.” President George W. Bush, State of the Union address 2003

TYPES OF WARRANTS TO USE:  Aristotle believed there were three forms of proof or warrants:  Pathos : appeals to personal feelings such as fear, pity, and anger  Ethos : audiences respond to the speaker’s competence, character, goodwill, and dynamism and the credibility of the evidence  Logos : appeals to reason and logic using statistics, facts, and scientific evidence  Scholars today believe that there is one final element to the proof:  Mythos: appeals to the traditions and values of your culture, legends, and folktales

PATHOS  This kind of appeal can be very effective if it’s not over-done, especially if your topic is an emotional one. Because your audience has emotions as well as intellect, your argument must seek to engage the audience emotionally. However, using emotional appeal alone is not as effective as when it is used in conjunction with logical and/or ethical appeals  Think pathos=passion

A SUCCESSFUL PATHOS WARRANT INCLUDES:  The BEST way to incorporate pathos (or emotional) appeals is by using words that carry appropriate connotations.  Denotation refers to the dictionary definition of a word. Connotation on the other hand refers to words that carry secondary meanings, undertones, and implications.  For example, if you were to ask a woman how she'd like to be described from the following list of words, what do you think her answer would be? skinny thin scrawny malnourished

ETHOS  This appeal involves convincing your audience that you are intelligent and can be trusted. Writers cannot simply say to their audience "I can be trusted because I'm smart and a good person." This appeal is perhaps the most difficult to establish; you have to prove yourself by demonstrating that you understand what you are arguing.  Think ethos=ethics

A SUCCESSFUL ETHOS WARRANT INCLUDES: personal experience or know someone else who has personal experience, you are using support when applicable, back up with research you are using appropriate writing style by means of professional and strong words that carry appropriate connotations (ex. thin vs. skinny, uninformed vs. stupic, etc) AND you are treating your audience with respect by acknowledging other sides to the argument (but still staying strong to yours)

LOGOS You appeal to logic when you rely on your audience’s intelligence and when you offer credible evidence to support your argument. Think logos=logic

A SUCCESSFUL LOGOS WARRANT INCLUDES: FACTS - These are valuable because they are not debatable; they represent the truth EXAMPLES - These include events or circumstances that your audience can relate to their life PRECEDENTS - These are specific examples (historical and personal) from the past AUTHORITY - The authority must be timely (not out- dated), and it must be qualified to judge the topic REASONING - when you pick apart evidence or add pieces to the evidence to reach conclusions

IDENTIFY THE TYPES OF WARRANTS USED IN THIS EXAMPLE : “The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men.” President George W. Bush, State of the Union address 2003

SHAKESPEARE ANTI-SEMITIC RESPONSE Answer the questions on the following slides on a separate sheet of paper. On your response, do the following: Underline your CLAIM Circle your WARRANT Bracket your IMPACT If you are missing one or more of these pieces, make a note on your paper.

EVALUATE YOUR CLAIM Is the position you are arguing clear? What could make it more clear? Where is it positioned in your paper – towards the beginning, middle or end of the paper? Do you mention your criteria for your warrant? Does your claim align with the rest of your paper (is it the same as what you end up writing about towards the end)? Do you stay consistent?

EVALUATE YOUR WARRANT How much evidence do you provide? Just one example? Many? Do you cite the text? Or do you simply mention/reference back to something that happened in the story? Do you reference other information for support (time period, author, etc)? How is your warrant structured? Do you just list your examples or do you weave them in throughout your writing? Do your examples support your argument or are they irrelevant?

EVALUATE YOUR WARRANT What type of warrant do you utilize (pathos, ethos, logos, or mythos)? How? What evidence in your paper supports this distinction? Is this the best type of warrant to rely on for communicating your argument? Why or why not? How could you strengthen your warrant?

EVALUATE YOUR IMPACT Is the purpose of your writing clear? What makes your argument matter? What is creative about your perspective that might hold your reader’s attention?

NOW, FIND YOUR PARTNER Josh & Leeza Justin & Lauren Paige Sydney & Tony Nick & Desmond Abbie & Morgan Marina & Jacob Cheyenne & Matt Darion & Graeme & Malik Becca & Hannah Babs & Haley Michael & Samantha Holden & Shelbi Jack & Alex

NOW, FIND YOUR PARTNER Bria & Matthew Rosie & Preston Underdal & Emily Sydney & Erin Sarah & Cierra Coby & Daelon Malachi & Rudmary Julia & Emma Maddie & Zariyah Amari & Brandon Rosenberger & Ani Chanel & Buchmeier Asia & Kasey Katherine & Brianna

EVALUATE YOUR PARTNER Answer the same questions you did for yourself, but this time for your partner! Put your answers on a new sheet of paper, and write Reviewer: “YOUR NAME” Author: “YOUR PARTNER’S NAME WHOSE PAPER YOU ARE ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT” Keep in mind our peer review rules: Be respectful and helpful. Treat how you would want to be treated and offer constructive advice they can USE!

EVALUATE THEIR CLAIM Is the position they’re arguing clear? What could make it more clear? Where is it positioned in the paper – towards the beginning, middle or end of the paper? Do they mention the criteria for the warrant? Does the claim align with the rest of your paper (is it the same as what they end up writing about towards the end)? Do they stay consistent?

EVALUATE THEIR WARRANT How much evidence do they provide? Just one example? Many? Do they cite the text? Or do they simply mention/reference back to something that happened in the story? Do they reference other information for support (time period, author, etc)? How is their warrant structured? Do they just list their examples or do they weave them in throughout their writing? Do their examples support their argument or are they irrelevant?

EVALUATE THEIR WARRANT What type of warrant do they utilize (pathos, ethos, logos, or mythos)? How? What evidence in the paper supports this distinction? Is this the best type of warrant to rely on for communicating this argument? Why or why not? How could they strengthen their warrant?

EVALUATE THEIR IMPACT Is the purpose of their writing clear? What makes their argument matter? What is creative about their perspective that might hold a reader’s attention? What other advice or feedback do you have for your partner that might benefit them about their writing?

TURNING IN Give your partner the sheet of questions YOU answered about THEIR paper. Staple together (IN THIS ORDER): your Anti-Semitism response (just that second page, you keep the front page) Your answers to the questions Your partners review of your response Make sure you put your name on your papers, especially your Anti-Semitism response