Argument Analysis

In the case of this article, the conclusion is represented in the title: “The new Star Trek movie does not need a villain”

We can then start with: The new Star Trek movie does not need a villain.

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing.

[1]: purpose is introductory, no reasons are given that support other claims.

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [1]: purpose is introductory, no reasons are given that support other claims. [2]: explicitly labels “Trek TV is classier and more thoughtful than many Trek films” as premise; uses “Insurrection” as example

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [1]: purpose is introductory, no reasons are given that support other claims. [2]: explicitly labels “Trek TV is classier and more thoughtful than many Trek films” as premise; uses “Insurrection” as example [3]: provides support for the claim expressed in [2] by asserting that many Trek films (including most recent) had the same plot as “GoldenEye”

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [4]: Asserts that plots like those in “GoldenEye” and many Trek films are uninteresting plots. This, along with [3], partially support the claim in [2]. Namely, it asserts that Trek film is uninteresting (remember that the claim in [2] is that “Trek TV is classier and more thoughtful than many Trek films”).

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [5]: appeals to “The Voyange Home” and “The Wrath of Khan” as supporting examples of the premise in [2] due to their being more in keeping with the spirit of Trek TV, unlike examples discussed in [3] and [4].

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [5]: appeals to “The Voyange Home” and “The Wrath of Khan” as supporting examples of the premise in [2] due to their being more in keeping with the spirit of Trek TV, unlike examples discussed in [3] and [4]. [6]: helps to flesh out what the author means by “classy” and “thoughtful” with respect to TV/film science fiction. (more on this later)

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [7]: appeals to examples of much-beloved Trek TV episodes that all lacked villains in order to support the premise in [2] (the author has denigrated Trek film, but has to celebrate Trek TV to support his comparison)

It is best to do this paragraph-by-paragraph for any reasonably well-organized writing. [7]: appeals to examples of much-beloved Trek TV episodes that all lacked villains in order to support the premise in [2] (the author has denigrated Trek film, but has to celebrate Trek TV to support his comparison) [8]: makes somewhat more explicit that what was labeled as a premise in [2] really implies a normative component. The author means to say: “The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film.”

Then this gives us: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. The new Star Trek movie does not need a villain.

Then this gives us: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. The new Star Trek movie does not need a villain. …but that doesn’t get us a whole argument; there seems to be something left unsaid…

We need some connection between the comparison in the premise and the statement about a villain in the conclusion: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. The new Star Trek movie does not need a villain.

Now we have a reasonably complete argument expressed in standard form: 1. Having a villain makes a Trek film more like other Trek film and less like Trek TV. 2. The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. C. The new Star Trek movie does not need a villain.

Having an argument in standard form is the first part of the assignment.

Now we must focus on how the argument is supported, and that means distinguishing support for premises from premises.

Let us start with P1: Having a villain makes a Trek film more like other Trek film and less like Trek TV.

This is a comparison, and the author supplies some notable examples of Trek TV sans villain to contrast the majority of Trek film, which is villain-centric (see chiefly paragraphs [3], [4], and [7]).

Let us move on to P2: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film.

This is much more complicated…

Let us move on to P2: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. The heart of this premise is the term “should”.

Let us move on to P2: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. The heart of this premise is the term “should”. The author seems to intend that the reason that the new film should be more like the TV series is that the TV series was generally more “classy and interesting”.

Let us move on to P2: The new Star Trek film should be more like Trek TV and less like other Trek film. The heart of this premise is the term “should”. The author seems to intend that the reason that the new film should be more like the TV series is that the TV series was generally more “classy and interesting”. This takes for granted that classy and interesting is a good thing (generally safe) So now the goal has to be to support the claim that Trek TV was more classy and interesting than Trek film.

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”.

This is what I mean when I indicate that you must identify any crucial evaluative terms.

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [2]: “meeting interesting aliens and solving ethical dilemmas without pointing a gun at somebody”

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [2]: “…meeting interesting aliens and solving ethical dilemmas without pointing a gun at somebody.” [3]: “…fairly uninteresting baddie with a doomsday device that’s going to destroy Earth…usually two to three guys fighting on some kind of raised platform…they jump around a lot.”

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [2]: “…meeting interesting aliens and solving ethical dilemmas without pointing a gun at somebody.” [3]: “…fairly uninteresting baddie with a doomsday device that’s going to destroy Earth…usually two to three guys fighting on some kind of raised platform…they jump around a lot.” [4]: “…a remotely complex metaphor or plot concept…”

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [2]: “…meeting interesting aliens and solving ethical dilemmas without pointing a gun at somebody.” [3]: “…fairly uninteresting baddie with a doomsday device that’s going to destroy Earth…usually two to three guys fighting on some kind of raised platform…they jump around a lot.” [4]: “…a remotely complex metaphor or plot concept…” [5]: “‘The Voyage Home’…has a fun science fiction premise and…[t]here’s no bad guy.”

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [5]: “The Wrath of Khan…has an interesting science fiction premise with the Genesis Device [that] drives this movie.”

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [5]: “The Wrath of Khan…has an interesting science fiction premise with the Genesis Device [that] drives this movie.” [6]: “what has made Star Trek great in the past is good science fiction writing…these writers had good ideas, and weren’t necessarily looking to make a crowd pleaser; they were looking to tell a story.”

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [5]: “The Wrath of Khan…has an interesting science fiction premise with the Genesis Device [that] drives this movie.” [6]: “what has made Star Trek great in the past is good science fiction writing…these writers had good ideas, and weren’t necessarily looking to make a crowd pleaser; they were looking to tell a story.” [7]: examples of villainless, well-known Trek TV episodes

The support for Premise 2 boils down to the evaluative terms “classy” and “interesting”. Implied or stated standards for these terms: [5]: “The Wrath of Khan…has an interesting science fiction premise with the Genesis Device [that] drives this movie.” [6]: “what has made Star Trek great in the past is good science fiction writing…these writers had good ideas, and weren’t necessarily looking to make a crowd pleaser; they were looking to tell a story.” [7]: examples of villainless, well-known Trek TV episodes [8]: more evaluative terms “awesome” and “original”

Taken as a whole, the author seems to regard “classy” and “interesting” to mean plot devices that are not melodramatic (concerned with obvious conflicts between obviously good and obviously evil characters).

The suggestion seems to be that a good way to avoid melodrama is to avoid having a villain.

You are also to be on the lookout for strategies that authors use to shorten and focus the argument (assuring, guarding, or discounting).

“Trek TV is more classy and thoughtful than many Trek films.”

The claim is not that all Trek TV was classy and thoughtful (see, e.g. TNG “Skin of Evil”) but just that it was more often classy and thoughtful than the films

“Trek TV is more classy and thoughtful than many Trek films.” The claim is not that all Trek TV was classy and thoughtful (see, e.g. TNG “Skin of Evil”) but just that it was more often classy and thoughtful than the films Also, not ALL of the films lacked class and thoughtfulness, just many of them (all but two or three, really).

“Trek TV is more classy and thoughtful than many Trek films.” The claim is not that all Trek TV was classy and thoughtful (see, e.g. TNG “Skin of Evil”) but just that it was more often classy and thoughtful than the films Also, not ALL of the films lacked class and thoughtfulness, just many of them (all but two or three, really). The function of these terms is to allow the main line of argument to go forward without bogging down in tedious detail.

[5]: “I’m guessing most Star Trek fans are with me when I say that the Star Trek movie that is most in the spirit of ALL the TV shows is The Voyage Home.”

In putting it this way, the author avoids going on a tangent and listing explicit similarities, and instead relies on some familiarity with Trek TV to supply that evidence that is not explicitly stated. After all, anyone taking the time to read this article is probably in the category of “Star Trek fans” and can judge the claim for themselves without further elaboration.

[5] “…everyone agrees Star Trek was a solid action movie. This is probably true. But honestly, who cares? As a kid I didn’t get into Star Trek for all the badass action.”

Is a discounting term: Asserts that Star Trek (‘09) was a solid action movie. Asserts that Star Trek is not about action. Implies that the second claim is more important than the first

[5] “…everyone agrees Star Trek was a solid action movie. This is probably true. But honestly, who cares? As a kid I didn’t get into Star Trek for all the badass action.” This allows the author to compactly address an objection to his view. It may be objected that Star Trek ‘09 was well received by audiences in general. The author wishes to distinguishes its being acceptable as an action film versus its being acceptable as Star Trek specifically, or as good science fiction in general.

[5] “…everyone agrees Star Trek was a solid action movie. This is probably true. But honestly, who cares? As a kid I didn’t get into Star Trek for all the badass action.” This allows the author to compactly address an objection to his view. It may be objected that Star Trek ‘09 was well received by audiences in general. The author wishes to distinguishes its being acceptable as an action film versus its being acceptable as Star Trek specifically, or as good science fiction in general. The same presumably applies to some other Trek films.

What is left is to collect this information into a succinct and well-organized analysis of the argument in question. Remember to accomplish all stated goals of the assignment Remember that the word maximum means that you cannot waste words on anything non-essential.