1. Argumentation

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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