Transcript Important Things to Know About Processing an Argumentative Essay

Important Things to Know About
Processing an Argumentative Essay
There are three steps that every AP student should do
every time he or she reads an argumentative essay
or prompt.
1. Identify the claim or premise. Restate it in your
own words.
2. Determine his or her own reaction. Is this premise
true? Do you agree, disagree, or are you
ambivalent towards this premise?
3. Ask what evidence has the author used to support
his or her premise. Is the evidence relevant and
reasonable? Are there sufficient examples of the
evidence to support the premise?
Premise
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or
"propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative
sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Aristotle held that
any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a
conclusion.
Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called
missing premises, e.g. in
Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal.
It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The
fully expressed reasoning is thus:
Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it
follows that Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma
(namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the
premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.
(This example is also a syllogism!)
The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the
premises and the validity of the argument.
A fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect
reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design,
fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the
listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or
take advantage of social relationships between
people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious
arguments are often structured using rhetorical
patterns that obscure the logical argument, making
fallacies more difficult to diagnose. The bottom line
is that using fallacies intentionally is like lying. You
use fallacies only when you know your argument is
indefensible.
10 Most Common Informal
Fallacies
There are thousands of fallacies! Check out The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy or Wikipedia for an extensive list.
1. Generalization—a speaker picks one example and
generalizes.This is the fallacy most often relied upon
by racists.
Teenagers are disrespectful and bad. I saw a
teenager in the hallway this morning cursing at Mrs.
Adkins.
2. Statistical Fallacy—the statistics offered are irrelevant,
incomplete, or manipulated. Also you should ask who
gathered the statistics, where, when and for what
purpose.
3. Ad Hominem—an attack on an individual that often
appeals to the prejudice of the audience. Seen often
in political campaigns the “character” of an opponent
because the subject of the debate rather than their
voting record or proposals
4. Begging the Question– A true premise is offered that
includes terms that need to be further defined.
Violence has become an increasing problem in our society,
therefore guns should be tightly controlled.
5. Slippery Slope—often based on fear this fallacy diverts the
audience into a series of hypothetical situations.
If marijuana is legalized in this society then drug usage will
become socially acceptable and this will lead to greater
usage of other drugs including crack cocaine.
6. Bandwagon—everybody is doing it and so should you!
Sometimes this appears by the speaker citing someone
people admire such as Abraham Lincoln, or a popular
sports figure. The implication is that if Lincoln would agree
with this, then you should too.
7. Either/Or—the speaker breaks a complex issue into black and
white opposites.
If you are against the death penalty, you are for murder!
8. Straw man—the speaker announces his or her opponents
argument without the opponent being there to defend it. This
allows the speaker to characterize their opponent’s argument in
any way they wish.
9. Poisoning the Well—the speaker points out all the bad things
about his/her opponent before letting them speak. Related to
the Red Herring fallacy; the speaker attempts to switch the
issue before an argument can be presented.
"I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for
students. I recommend that you support this because we are in
a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."
10. Arguing from the Negative—Just because no one has ever
seen this happen doesn’t mean it can’t happen. The speaker
gives doom’s day predictions without offering relevant and
adequate evidence that these scenarios are likely to occur.