Transcript Rhetoric of Argument - english1010information

Rhetoric of Argument
Rhetorical Situation
Exigence
Purpose
Image from http://www-as.phy.ohiou.edu/~rouzie/fall151/analysis.html
Reasons for Argument
 Win
 Inform
 Convince/persuade
 Decide
 Meditate
 Understand (invitational rhetoric)
 Argument (discover a truth)=leads to belief
 Persuasion (know a truth)=leads to action
What is your Argument?
Determining Your Stance on a Topic:
Using Stasis Theory
Fact (Does X exist?)
Definition (What is X?)
Quality (What is the value of X? What are
the causes or consequences of X?)
Procedure (What should we do about X?
Evidence (What is the evidence for my
claims about X?)
What is the evidence for your
Argument?
Considering Kinds of Evidence
Facts
Statistics
Large sample size
Representative
Random sample (non-biased)
Examples
Testimony
Evidence must be accurate,
representative, sufficient
Using Lines of Argument
 Ethos—arguments based on character
Good will, good sense, and good character
Common sense, credibility
 Pathos—arguments based on:
Values
Argument from the heart
 Logos—arguments based on facts and reason
Artistic
inartistic
Logical Analysis
Inductive Arguments
Using observations to draw a specific
conclusion
Deductive Arguments
Applying a generalized belief to specific case
Toulmin’s model
Alternative to induction and deduction
Enumerative induction
“Every crow I have seen is black.
Therefore all crows are black.”
What’s good about this
argument?
What problems could there be
with it?
Enumerative Argument concerns
Greater sample size yields greater
probability.
More representative sample yields higher
probabilities.
One definite counterexample shoots down
an enumerative induction.
Argument by analogy
“The tissues of the eye are very
similar to the tissues of the
digestive system. Would you
want to pour whiskey in your
eye?”
Advantages? Problems?
Problem: Only relevant
resemblances count in
drawing correct analogies.
Deductive Reasoning: Syllogisms
Major premise
Generalized belief assumed to be true
All men are mortal
Minor premise
Applied to a specific case
Socrates was a man
Conclusion
Socrates was mortal
Advantages? Problems?
Enthymeme
Syllogism with at least one premise left unstated.
Example
We cannot trust this man, for he has perjured himself in
the past.
In this enthymeme, the major premise of the complete
syllogism is missing:
 Those who perjure themselves cannot be trusted. (Major
premise - omitted)
 This man has perjured himself in the past. (Minor
premise - stated)
 This man is not to be trusted. (Conclusion - stated)
Example from http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/E/enthymeme.htm
Deductive reasoning: more examples


























Peasant 1: A witch! We have found a witch! Can we burn her?
Belvedere: How do you know that she is a witch?
Peasant 2: Because she looks like one!
Witch: I am not a witch! I am not a witch! They dressed me up like this, and this is not my nose it is
a false one!
[Belvedere pulls off the false nose and opens his helmet]
Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose, and the hat. . . .
Belvedere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. Tell me, what do you do with witches?
Peasants: Burn them!
Belvedere: Now, what do burn besides witches?
Peasant 3: More witches! [receives a punch from Peasant 1; silence]
Peasant 2: Wood?
Belvedere: So, why do witches burn? [more silence]
Peasant 2: Because there made of wood?
Belvedere: So, how do you tell if she is made of wood?
Peasant 3: Build a bridge out of her!
Belvedere: Ah, but cant you also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 3: Oh, right.
Belvedere: Tell me, does wood sink?
Peasant 1: No, it floats.
Belvedere: What also floats in water?
[lots of yelling and many wrong and random answers including very small rocks]
King Arthur: A duck!
Belvedere: Exactly!
Peasant 2: So if she weighs as much as a duck she is made of wood.
Belvedere: And therefore?
Peasants: A witch!
A Witch?
She looks like one
Major premise: Witches look a certain way
Minor premise: She looks a certain way
Conclusion: She is a witch
She is made of wood
Major premise: Things made of wood burn
Minor premise: Witches burn
Conclusion: Witches are made of wood
Toulmin’s model
 Claim (controversial statement)
 That tutor is probably intelligent.
 Data (evidence that supports the claim)
 She is a Writing Fellow.
 Warrant (underlying assumption linking the claim and
data.
 All Writing Fellows are intelligent.
http://owlet.letu.edu/contenthtml/research/toulmin.html
Who is Your Audience?
Consider Audience
Who are my readers?
What do they believe?
What common ground do they share?
What do I want my readers to believe?
What do they need to know?
Why should they care?

From Barnet and Bedau, “Developing an Argument of Your Own.” From Critical Thinking to Argument, p. 123.
How will you present your
Argument?
Classical Arrangement
(for undecided audience)
 Introduction
State problem
Get readers’ attention
Outline structure
 Narration/Background
Definitions
History of situation
 Proposition
Claim
Basic reasons for belief
 Proof or Confirmation
Evidence
 Refutation
Disprove
counterarguments
 Concession
Concede any good
points of opposition
 Conclusion
Rogerian Arrangement
(for opposing audience)
Introduction
Concessions
Thesis
Support
Conclusion
Sources
 Travis T. Anderson, A Primer to Critical Reading and
Writing. Philosophy 105 Student Manual. Brigham Young
University, 1995
 Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. From Critical Thinking
to Argument: A Portable Guide. Boston: Bedfords/St.
Martin’s, 2005.
 Cheryl Glenn and Loretta Gray. The Writer’s Harbrace
Handbook. 3rd edition. Boston: Thompson/Wadsworth,
2007.
 Howard Kahane and Nancy Cavender. Logic and
Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday
Life. 8th edition. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998.