1 / 13

Argument Brainstorming

Argument Brainstorming. Take a few minutes with your group to brainstorm answers to the following questions: Which modern fire codes would have been physically possible to require in 1871 in Chicago?

dympna
Download Presentation

Argument Brainstorming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Argument Brainstorming • Take a few minutes with your group to brainstorm answers to the following questions: • Which modern fire codes would have been physically possible to require in 1871 in Chicago? • How would laws about buildings and what materials builders were allowed to use affect people with different income levels in 1871 Chicago? Think especially about poor people like the O’Learys.

  2. Argument Format • This argument on “The Great Fire” is an argument of policy. • Arguments of policy make a case to create or revise rules/laws that affect people’s lives. • Our task is to decide on 2 laws that could prevent another Chicago Great Fire. These laws must be appropriate for the time period.

  3. Argument Format • Here is our format: I. Introduction: Describe the problem and related questions II. Research: Explain the problem, using textual evidence and rules. III. Results/Findings: Explain your specific claim. Support your claim with evidence & rules. {Which modern fire codes would have been physically possible to require in 1871 in Chicago?} IV. Results/Findings: Address the counterclaim {How would laws about buildings and what materials builders were allowed to use affect people with different income levels in 1871 Chicago? Think especially about poor people like the O’Learys. } Conclusions/Recommendations: Explain what might reasonably be done as a result of the findings.

  4. Codes in existence in the 1870s A fire bucket is NOT fancy at all: it is simply a container that can be filled with water to put out fires. Stove pipes need an iron shield to prevent heat from getting to the wooden roof.

  5. Existing Codes • Are these codes effective? • Why or why not?

  6. Cause of the Fire? • A kerosene oil lantern. • Perhaps this caused the fire, if the flames landed on timothy hay…hay is very flammable!

  7. Argument of Policy: Paragraph 3 • Results/Findings: • Explain your specific claim. • Support your claim with evidence & rules. • Paragraph format: 1) Topic sentence=Your Claim (the 2 new fire laws) 2) Support claim with evidence (grounds), rule (warrant), and conclusion 3) Explain why the new laws are more effective than the existing laws 4) Support with evidence/rule/conclusion about existing laws EXAMPLE

  8. Paragraph 3 • Start by creating our evidence/rule/conclusion chart • Evidence= • For new fire codes: what evidence about the new fire codes proves that they are effective? • For existing fire codes: what evidence about the existing fire codes proves that they are ineffective? • Rule=write a general, overall rule for the evidence, using a subordinating conjunction. • Conclusion=draw a logical conclusion from the evidence & rule

  9. Chart • 2 columns for new fire codes, 2 columns for existing fire codes. As a rule, when kerosene oil lamps are used, the risk of a fire is very high, so fire risk decreases if kerosene oil lamps are not used. New law= Kerosene oil lamps are banned. Evidence= There are no kerosene oil lamps. Banning kerosene oil lamps would probably decrease fire risk in Chicago. Current law=fire bucket Evidence= Current law=stove pipe with iron shield Evidence=

  10. Paragraph 4 • Results/Findings: Address the counterclaim • 2 counterclaims (for your 2 laws) • Some may believe that… • Others still feel that… • Chicago citizens may argue that… • Think of a possible issue/problem with your fire codes or laws.

  11. Paragraph 4 • What is an issue/problem with my law? • Law & claim=Kerosene oil lamps are banned. Banning kerosene oil lamps would probably decrease fire risk in Chicago.

  12. Paragraph 5 • Conclusions/Recommendations: Explain what might reasonably be done as a result of the findings. • Include a strong rebuttal for each counterclaim. • Format: • Strong rebuttals • A recommendation to the Mayor • End with: “Sincerely…”

  13. Revision • Tonight: finish writing out rough draft and begin revision with revision checklist. • Tomorrow: revisions and typing!  Also, time for any research you need to do about your fire codes/laws.

More Related