USING SOAPSTONE AND RHETORICAL APPEALS Persuasion and Argument

Argument Addresses a specific PURPOSE Directed at a specific AUDIENCE Key issues Anticipated objections Gathered support Logical reasoning THESIS, THESIS, THESIS supported by premises

Organization Order of importance Chain of reasoning Cause and effect Rebuttal Concession/refutation Process analysis

Modes of Discourse Description Narration Exposition  Comparison  Contrast  Cause/effect  Classification  Division  Definition

Persuasive Appeals Logos: appeal to logic  Inductive reasoning  Deductive reasoning  Syllogism  Cite evidence  Quote sources  Argue from precedent

Persuasive Appeals Pathos: appeal to emotion  Sensory details  Include bias or prejudice  Anecdote  Connotative language  Euphemisms  Description or other figurative language  Tone

Persuasive Appeals Ethos: appeal to ethics—writer is a good person who knows and cares about the topic.  Voice  Persona of writer as trustworthy  Demonstrate research time  Support reasons with logical evidence  Carefully crafted argument  Demonstrate audience respect  Concern about communicating with audience  Writer is reliable and knowledgeable

Classical Argument Structure Intro  Catch interest  Present issue with concrete image or anecdote  Provide relevant background info  Define terms  State claim (THESIS, THESIS,THESIS)

Classical Argument Structure Concession and refutation  Recognize and argue against OPPOSING VIEWPOINT  Find and point out weaknesses esp. in logical development  “Yes…but…”  Demonstrates author’s view as more valid while granting validity or acknowledging opposing views

Classical Argument Structure Confirmation  Body of the essay that supports the claim with logical reasons and evidence  Develops the argument  Appeals

Classical Argument Structure Wrap up Restate claim New appeal to pathos Enrichment Final plea for call to action or change in thought DO NOT REPEAT INFORMATION

Common Logical Fallacies Ad hominem “to the individual”—attack a target’s characteristics, not the argument Ad populum “to the crowd” assumption that widespread occurrence makes idea true or right Either/or reasoning seeing an issue as only having two sides Begging the Question taking for granted something that actually needs proving Hasty generalization general or premature conclusion based on insufficient evidence—only one or two cases Non sequitur “it does not follow” An inference or conclusion that does not follow established premises or evidence

References College Board.(2002). Rhetoric. In The AP vertical teams guide for English (2 nd ed.) ( ).

Common Logical Fallacies Circular Reasoning attempt to prove one idea with an idea to similar to the first idea Propaganda writing or images that seek to persuade through emotional appeal not logical proof—using highly connotative words or images without justification Post hoc, ergo propter hoc “after this therefore because of this” Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident.

Rhetorical Structure—All parts must be included, but organization is writer’s choice. Introduction Issue and Image Background Information Definition of Terms Claim THESIS STATEMENT Reasons & EvidenceReason 1-Type of Evidence Reason 2—Type of Evidence Reason 3—Type of Evidence Emotional AppealsNeed or Value 1 Need or Value 2 Need or Value 3 Opposing Viewpoints Opposing View 1 Concede/Refute Opposing View 2 Concede/Refute Opposing View 3 Concede/Refute ConclusionRestatement of Claim Revisit Image Urge Leader to Action