ENG 101 / 2 .12 .14

Crafting an Argument

Be Assertive

Too aggressive: Of course only registered organ donors should be

eligible for organ transplants. It’s selfish and shortsighted to think otherwise.

Too passive: I might be wrong, but I think that maybe people

should have to register as organ donors if they want to be considered for a transplant.

Assertive: If only registered organ donors are eligible for

transplants, more people will register as donors.

Social and Intellectual Contexts

“Scholarly debates play out in the intellectual contexts, but they have a social dimension as well” (79)

Research: be aware of the social and intellectual contexts of your argument/topic

Audience

Don’t assume audience’s familiarity or that they’ll automatically agree with you

Imagine audience as skeptical

Introduction

Introduce topicEstablish credibility

Show that you are knowledgeable and fair-mindedThesisStudent example on p. 81

Support

Claims: persuasive parts of your line of argument

Evidence Facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, etc. Make sure source is expert

Counterarguments

Look at checklist p. 85Location of counterargument? What comes

after counterargument? Importance?Devil’s advocate

Subjects for Argument

Good subject: Concerns matter of opinion: a conclusion draw from

evidence Can be disputed: others might take a different

position Is something you care about Narrow enough to argue in space and time available

Bad subject: Cannot be disputed

Fact Personal preference or belief Few if any disagree over the topic

Parts of an Argument

Thesis Issue + position + reasons = thesis

Language Style Tone

Counter argument/rebuttal Acknowledgment and addressing of opposition

AssumptionsEvidenceClaims

Arguments that help support thesis

Evidence for an Argument

Facts Verifiable statements

Statistics Facts expressed in numbers

Examples Specific cases

Expert opinionsAppeals

Ethos Pathos Logos

Evaluating Evidence

Accurate? Trustworthy, exact, undistorted?

Relevant? Authoritative, pertinent, current?

Representative? True to context? Accurate representation?

Adequate? Plentiful, specific?

Logic

1. If x, then y. 2. X. Therefore, Y.

3. All X’s are Z.4. A is an X.Therefore, A is Z.

All bachelors are single. John is a bachelor. Therefore, John is single.

Avoiding Fallacies

Begging the question Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were

already proved or disprovedNon sequitar

“it does not follow” – drawing conclusion from irrelevant evidence

Red herring Introducing an irrelevant issue that distracts readers

False authority Citing as expert opinion the views of someone who is

not an expertInappropriate appeals

Fallacies cont’d

Hasty generalization Too little evidence

Sweeping generalization Asserting that an opinion applies to all instances when it may only

apply to some (stereotypes)Reductive fallacy

Oversimplification of cause and effect Post hoc fallacy

Assuming that X caused Y because X came before YEither/or fallacy

Reducing a complicated question to only two alternativesFalse analogy

Exaggerating similarities or ignoring key differencesSlippery slope

Counter Argument

Must include counter argument Why?

Counter argument must include a brief summary of a significant point the opposition might bring up. Should be followed with a rebuttal (the turn back to your argument)

Use signal phrases Some critics might disagree, contending that _____,

but… The opposition may claim _____; however… It is true that many would disagree because…

Organizing Arguments

The traditional scheme The problem-solution schemeClaim 1 and evidence The problem: claims and evidenceClaim 2 and evidence The solution: claims and evidenceClaim X and evidence Response to opposing viewsResponse to opposing views

Variations on the traditional schemeUse a variation if you believe your readers will reject your argument without an early or intermittent response to opposing views.

Response to opposing views Claim 1 and evidenceClaim 1 and evidence Response to opposing viewsClaim 2 and evidence Claim 2 and evidenceClaim X and evidence Response to opposing views

Claim X and evidenceResponse to opposing views

Using Research

Avoid “information dump”Prove that you have found good information

and understand itDemonstrate your ability to apply the

materialTake it to the next level

Critique Connect Interpret

Checklist for Revising an Argument

ThesisWhat is your thesis? Where is it stated? In what ways is your thesis statement an arguable

claim? Reasoning

If your thesis derives from induction, where have you related the evidence to your generalization?

If your thesis derives from deduction, is your syllogism both true and valid?

Have you avoided fallacies in reasoning? Evidence

Where have you provided the evidence readers need?Where might your evidence not be accurate, relevant,

representative, or adequate?

Checklist cont’d

AppealsWhere have you considered readers’ probable beliefs

and values?How are your rational appeals and emotional appeals

appropriate for your readers?What is your ethical appeal? How can you improve it?

Opposing viewsWhat opposing views have you answered?How successfully have you refuted opposing views?

OrganizationHow clearly does your argument move from one point to

the next?How appropriate is your organization given your

readers’ likely views?

Effective Conclusions

Intro and conc are frameworkConclusion is chance to have the last word –

audience’s last impression of your workSignificance

So what? Who cares?Return to things from introPropose course of action, solution to issue, or

questions for further studyPoint to broader implications

Strategies to Avoid

“In conclusion,” “in summary,” “to wrap up,” “all in all,” “in closing,” etc.

Introducing new topic or subtopicIncluding new evidence that should be in

bodyRestatement of thesisBig emotional appealsDirect address to the audience

“The choice is yours…” “Think about _____ next time…”