60 likes | 180 Views
Proposal Arguments. “We should/ should not do X”. Practical vs. Policy Proposals. Practical: “narrow, local, and concrete” proposals ( W.A. 308). Policy: “concerned with the broad outline and shape of a course of action” (308). Three-Part Structure.
E N D
Proposal Arguments “We should/ should not do X”
Practical vs. Policy Proposals • Practical: “narrow, local, and concrete” proposals (W.A. 308). • Policy: “concerned with the broad outline and shape of a course of action” (308).
Three-Part Structure • 1) describe the problem: must convince audience that a problem really exists • 2) propose a solution: must elaborate on specifics • 3) justify your solution: must convince audience that your proposal should be enacted
Concerns • Proposals require pathos. • People are naturally conservative. • Future consequences are unpredictable. • Consequences are hard to calculate: cost-benefit analysis may be necessary.
Proposal Strategies • Claim-type strategy: • employ causal, resemblance, and categorical claims to generate reasons for implementing your proposal: • “we should (not) do X because it will cause Y” • “we should (not) do X because doing X is the same as doing Y” • “we should (not) do X because X is a Y”
Proposal Strategies, cont. • “Stock issues”: • Is there really a problem to be solved? • Will the proposed solution really solve the problem? • Can the problem be solved more simply? • Is the proposed solution practical? Can it be implemented? • What might the unforeseen consequences be?