Argument Brainstorming

13
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.

description

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? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Argument Brainstorming

Page 1: Argument Brainstorming

Argument BrainstormingTake 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.

Page 2: Argument Brainstorming

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.

Page 3: Argument Brainstorming

Argument FormatHere is our format:

I. Introduction: Describe the problem and related questionsII. 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.

Page 4: Argument Brainstorming

Codes in existence in the 1870s

Stove pipes need an iron shield to prevent heat from getting to the wooden roof.

A fire bucket is NOT fancy at all: it is simply a container that can be filled with water to put out fires.

Page 5: Argument Brainstorming

Existing CodesAre these codes effective?

Why or why not?

Page 6: Argument Brainstorming

Cause of the Fire?A kerosene oil lantern. Perhaps this caused the fire, if the flames

landed on timothy hay…hay is very flammable!

Page 7: Argument Brainstorming

Argument of Policy: Paragraph 3Results/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 conclusion3) Explain why the new laws are more effective than the existing laws4) Support with evidence/rule/conclusion about existing laws

EXAMPLE

Page 8: Argument Brainstorming

Paragraph 3Start by creating our evidence/rule/conclusion

chartEvidence=

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

Page 9: Argument Brainstorming

Chart2 columns for new fire codes, 2 columns for

existing fire codes.EVIDENCE (GROUNDS)

RULE (WARRANT) CONCLUSION (CLAIM)

New law= Kerosene oil lamps are banned.Evidence= There are no kerosene oil lamps.

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.

Banning kerosene oil lamps would probably decrease fire risk in Chicago.

Current law=stove pipe with iron shieldEvidence=

Current law=fire bucketEvidence=

Page 10: Argument Brainstorming

Paragraph 4Results/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.

Page 11: Argument Brainstorming

Paragraph 4What 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.

Page 12: Argument Brainstorming

Paragraph 5Conclusions/Recommendations: Explain what

might reasonably be done as a result of the findings.

Include a strong rebuttal for each counterclaim.

Format:Strong rebuttalsA recommendation to the Mayor

End with: “Sincerely…”

Page 13: Argument Brainstorming

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.