250 likes | 478 Views
ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION. Definitions. Argue —defend a side of an issue; give reasons for and against a claim Persuade —convince someone to accept a viewpoint or take action. Elements/goals of persuasion. Claim = opinion Support = evidence Counterarguments = opposing points of view
E N D
Definitions • Argue—defend a side of an issue; give reasons for and against a claim • Persuade—convince someone to accept a viewpoint or take action
Elements/goals of persuasion • Claim = opinion • Support = evidence • Counterarguments = opposing points of view • Focus topic/claim with a thesis • Don’t offend readers
Persuasive appeals • 3 basic appeals used in argument and persuasion • Emotion—anger, joy, fear, injustice, etc. • Ethics • right vs. wrong • writer credibility • building common ground with reader
Persuasive appeals • Logic • makes sense • attempt to present claim as reasonable and true • facts, statistics, etc.
ABC Test (from RCWW) • Appropriate • Evidence is relevant to claim • Sources are appropriate for topic • Believable • Facts/assertions are true • Consider beliefs that readers share • Sources are credible through experience or authority
ABC Test • Consistent and • Complete • Ideas do not contradict each other • Writer is willing to stand by claim • Support is thorough
Tips for persuasive writing • Avoid “I think” phrases—solid, outright statements are better • Don’t overuse emotional appeals • Use counterarguments fairly and accurately • Select words that make full use of appeals • Establish your credibility—experience or interest you have in the topic. Why do you care, and why should readers listen to you?
Toulmin logic • Claim = opinion • Reason = support • Warrant = justifies the claim, connects reason to claim
Toulmin Poison Ivy Example: • Claim = Don’t touch that plant! • Reason = That plant is poison ivy. • Warrant = Poison ivy causes skin irritation, so the plant shouldn’t be touched.
Toulmin example • Claim = We should restrict the use of cell phones in moving vehicles. • Reason = Scientific studies reveal an increased rate of accidents among drivers who use cell phones while driving. • Warrant = Scientific studies that reveal risks should be considered for making restrictions.
Induction • Induction—specific to general (used to draw a general conclusion after considering specific cases or evidence) • See triangle as visual representation: Specific : A driver talking on a cell phone nearly ran into my car. (specific case) General: Drivers (in general) should not be allowed to be on cell phones.
Deduction • Deduction—general to specific (used to draw a specific conclusion after considering general cases or evidence) General: Drivers (in general) who use cell phones are at greater risk for accidents. Specific: I (specific person) will not use my cell phone when I am driving.
Syllogisms • Used in deductive reasoning • Requires: • Major premise (general) • Minor premise (link, example) • Conclusion (specific)
Syllogism example #1 • All dinosaurs are now extinct. • The T rex was a dinosaur. • The T rex is now extinct.
Using premises • All dinosaurs are now extinct. (major) • The T rex was a dinosaur. (minor) • The T rex is now extinct. (conclusion)
Syllogisms • If A = B • and B = C • then A = C
A = B… A B • All dinosaurs are now extinct. C A • The T rex was a dinosaur. C B • The T rex is now extinct.
Syllogism example #2 • GM makes reliable cars. • The Grand Prix is a GM car. • The Grand Prix is reliable.
Faulty logic in a syllogism • All dinosaurs are now extinct. • The passenger pigeon is extinct. • The passenger pigeon was a dinosaur.(pigeon is not a dinosaur; it’s a bird) *********************** • GM makes reliable cars. • The Prius is a reliable car. • The Prius is a GM (Prius is not a GM; it’s a Toyota)
Is this a strong or weak argument? • An 18-year-old can fight for the U.S. • An 18-year-old is old enough to legally drink alcohol.
Is this a strong or weak argument? • No clear support • Where is the minor premise or warrant to link these ideas? • Where do you draw the line? • The claim itself isn’t the problem—the lack of minor premise or warrant is.
What is the logical flaw here? • “We trust 16-year-old students to drive a 4,000 pound vehicle on the highway, but not to eat a Snickers? They can join the Army and handle an M-16, but they can’t handle a pack of Skittles?” • ~Arizona state Senator Dean Martin, on lawmakers’ efforts to ban junk food from high school vending machines. • Quoted in Newsweek, Oct. 10, 2005