Upload
naiya
View
34
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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 = opinionSupport = evidenceCounterarguments = opposing
points of viewFocus topic/claim with a thesisDon’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
Logicmakes senseattempt 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 = opinionReason = supportWarrant = 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 reasoningRequires:
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 = Band B = Cthen 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 supportWhere 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