WweK&wreg trffiffiwere wre&we ffi&xffi*mr&c w&ek ffimmd$ffiffis

ffir*e$ ffid$*$mr*

Eighth Edition

John D. RamageArizona State UniversitY

John C. BeanSeattle UniversitY

June JohnsonSeattle UniversitY

Longman

New York San FranciscoLondon Toronto SYdneY TokYo

N{exico City Munich Paris Cape Totrt

BostonSingapore Madrid

Hong Kong Montrcal

ffiwffiw# ffimwruKmmffiru

Part $n*1

2

Pa nrys

34567

Pirt ThreeII

hrt Four10I112131415

Fa Five

1617

Detailed Contents xiPreface xxvSupplements xxxvAcknowledgments xxxvii

$wsrvie*n of Argnm*nt 1Argument:Anlntroduction 2Argument as lnquiry: Reading and Exploring 24S$riting am Argum*nt fiSThe Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reasons 60The Logical Structure of Arguments 73Using Evidence EffectivelY 89Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos 109Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 124Ana$rzimg Argum*nts f 45AnalyzingArgumentsRhetorically 146Analyzing Visual Arguments 165Argum*mts in l!*pth: Five Type* *f {lmims 1g$An lntroduction to the Types of Claims 200DefinitionalArguments 210CausalArguments 237Resemblance Arguments 264EvaluationandEthicalArguments 284ProposalArguments 310

The Researched Argu*m*nt 348Finding and Evaluating Sources 344Using, Citing, and Documenting Sources 368

tx

Brief Contents

1

2

Appendix* 4tlllnformal Fallacies 401Small Group Strategies for Practicing Argument Skills

Credits 423lndex 426

i,!jj.-+,:,,.:::::::

t:,;:,::l:+:::,:i:ii!:i;::i'i;n::r:.i:liir,i l"'.rf

,,!!t..1';::t:|1.-a:::,.rr-1.1n:i:

ffiwmffiffiwffi ffitereffiffi%

Fart $me

1

Preface xxvSupplements xxxvAcknowledgments xxxvii

&rrertrtew nf &ngument 1Argument: An lntroduction 2What Do We Mean by Argument? 2

Argument Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel 2Argument Is Not Pro-Con Debate 3Argr-rments Can Be Explicit or Implicit 3

touts w. sutllvAN, M.D., "Let the Facts Decide, Not fear: Ean AB 1108" 6A fotmer secretary of health and human seruices opposes a ban on a chemical thatmakes togs soft and Jlexible.

The Defining Features of Argr-rment 10Argrment Requires Justification of Its Claims 10Argu.ment Is Both a Process and a Product 12Argument Combines Truth Seeking and Persuasion 13

Argument and the Problem of Truth 15A Successful Process of Argumentation: The Well-Functioning

Committee 18GORDON AOAMS {STUDENT), "Petition to waive the university Mathematics

Requirement" 19A stud.ent accepted, to law school but delaged by a remaining math requirement arguesto be exemPted.

Conclusion 23

Argument as lnquiry: Reading and Exploring 24Finding Issues to ExPlore 25

Do Some Initial Brainstorming 25Be Open to the Issues All around You 25Explore Ideas by Freewriting 29Explore Ideas bY Idea MaPPing 29Explore Ideas by Playing the Believing and Doubting Game 30

2

xt

tffit letailed Contents

Fart Tvrc

3

Placing Texts in a Rhetorical Context 32Genres ofArgument 32Cultural Contexts: \Vho Writes Argumenh and Why? 32Analyzing Rhetorical Context and Genre 37

Reading to Believe an Argument's Claims 38JOHNKAVANAUCH,'Amnesty" 39

A Roman Cathokc priest and philosophy professor asks anti-immigratian groups to seethe human face of undocumented immigrants and to support a palh to amestg.

Summary Writing as a Way of Reading to Believe 40Practicing Belieng: Willing your Own Belief in the Writer,s Views 43

Reading to Doubt 44Thinking Dialectically 45

Questions to Stimulate Dialectic Thinking 46FRED REED, "Why Blame Mexitol', 47

A conseruatiue freelance journalist uses irong to attack illegal immgration, calling ita "self-inflicted" crisis brought on bg Americans' loue o;f chiap tabol.

Three Ways to Foster Dialectic Thinking 48Conclusion 50Writing Assignment: An Argument Summary or a Formal

Exploratory Essay 50Reading 52MICHAEI BANKS (STUDEtrlT), "Should the United States Grant Legal Status to

Undorumentedlmmigran{Wcrkers?,, SzExamining articles and films, a student naTTates the chronological deuelopment of hisidms as he searches for his own position on illegal mmigration.

Wrltlng trn *rg&merut FEThe Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reasons 60The Classical Strucfure of Argument 60Classical Appeals and the Rhetorical Tiiangle 62Issue Questions as the Origrns of Argument 64

Difference between an Issue Question and an InformationQuestion 61

How to Identify an Issue Question 61Difference between a Genuine Argument ad a pseuclo--\.gument 66

Pseudo-Arguments: Fanatical Believers and Faarical Skepocs 66Another Source of Pseudo-Arguments: Lack of Shaerl ,\sumptions 66

Detailed Contents xiii

Frame of an Argument: A Claim Supported by Reasons 67\Ahat Is a Reason? 68Expressing Reasons in Because Clauses Og

Conclusion 70Writing Assignment: An lssue Question and Working

Thesis Statements 7'l

4 The logical Structure of Arguments ljAn Overwiew of Logos:\A4rat Do We Mean by the "Logical Shucture,,

of an Argument? 73Formal Logic versus Real-World Logic 73The Role of Assumptions 74The Core of an Argument: The Enthymeme 74

Adopting a Language for Describing Arguments: TheToulmin System 76

Using Toulmin s Schema to Determine a Strategy of Support 80The Power ofAudience-Based Reasons 84

Difference between Writer-Based and Audience-Based Reasons 84Conclusion 87Writing Assignment: Plan of an Argument's Details g7

7) Using Evidence Effectively 89The Persuasive Use of Edence 89

Apply the STAR Criteria to Evidence 89Use Sources That Your Reader Tiusts 91

Rhetorical Understanding of Evidence 91Kinds of Evidence 91Angle of Vision and the Selection and Framing of Evidence 94

Examining Visual Argumefits: Angle of Vision 95Rhetorical Strategies for Framing Evidence 98Special Strategies for Framing Statistical Evidence gg

Gathering Evidence 101Creating a Plan for Gathering Edence 101Gathering Data lom Interviews 1OzGathering Data from Surveys or Questionnaires 103

Conclusion 103

xirInt Detailed Contents

6

Writing Assignment: A Microtheme or a Supporting-ReasonsArgument 104

Reading 105CARMEN TIEU (STUDENT), "Why Violent Video Games Are

Good for Girls" 106A student argues that playng uiolent uideo games helps girls gain insi.ght intomale calture.

Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathas,and Kairos I0gEthos and Pathos as Persuasive Appeals: An Overview 109How to Create an Effective Ethos:The Appeal to Credibility 111How to Creafe Pathos,,The Appeal to Beliefs and Emotions 7lZ

Use Concrete Language 113Use Specific Examples and Illustrations 113Use Narratives Il4Use Words, Metaphors, and Analogies with Appropriate Connotations 115

Using Images for Emotional Appeal 115Kairos:The Timeliness and Fitness of Arguments 116Examining Visual Arguments: Lagos, Ethos, pathos, and Kairos I l rHow Audience-Based Reasons Enhance Logos, Ethos, and pathos 119Conclusion 122writing Assignment: Revising a Draft for Ethos, pathos,and Audience-Based

Reasons 123

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views lZ4One-Sided, Multisided, and Dialogic Arguments 124Determining Your Audience's Resistance to Your Views IZsAppealing to a Supportive Audience: One-Sided Argument 127Appealing to a Neutral or Undecided Audience: Classical Argument

Summarizing Opposing Views 128Refuting Opposing Views 129Strategies for Rebutting Edence 131Conceding to Opposing Views 132Example of a Student Essay Using Refutation Strategy 132

MARYBETH HAMtITON (STUDENT), From "First Pface: A Healing School for HomelessChildren" 133A student who does uolunteer work in an alternati"*e school

.for honteless chldrenrefutes the arguments of those who uant to shut o/f the schoo! :.nding.

7

128

P*rt Xt*ree

I

Detailed Contents

Appealing to a Resistant Audience: Dialogic Argument 135Delayed-ThesisArgument 135

ELtFFI cDMAN, "Miilne8pa{is F*rnography *rdi*ance" I3*A nationallg syndicatid columnist reluctantlg disagrees with an antipornographgordinance ProPosed bY femnists

Rogerian Argument 138Conclusion 139writing Assignment: A Classical Argument or a Dialogic Argument Aimed at

Conciliation 140Reading r40

tlAvlB LNGtrY f$TtlflENT!, "'Flslf-{r!*inals' sr [,lrb** thie{esl A FIec for FairTreatment of Skctebearders" {A el*sscnl &rg*nne*t} 141using the classical argument form, a shateboar,der argues that he and his friends aretreaid unfairlg by potice, ciuic offlcials, and the general public

REBEKAH TAyLrlR {sTunENTi, 'R letter t* Jim" {A Rogerian Arg*r*ent} 143using the strategtes of Rogerian argument,,a uegan and animal rights actiuist suggests a

smal step her meatmtinlfriend mtght take towardfair treatment of animals'

&remffi*xng&rg*mem$x 1S$

AnalyzingArgumentsRhetorically 14'6Thinking Rhetorically about a Text 146Questions for Rhetorical Analysis I48An Illustration of Rhetorical Analysis 148KATHRY JffT\i IOPE , ,,Egg FiCAdS" T 5"I

Writinginlgg|fortheconsensatiuemagazineNal|onalReview,KathtynJeanLopezargues"against th emerging practice of egg donation enabled bg new reproductiue

technolog.

A Rhetorical Analysis of "Egg Heads" 154Conclusion I57

Writing Assignment: A Rhetorical Analysis 158Generating Ideas for Your Rhetorical Anaiysis 158Organizing Your Rhetoricai Analysis 160

Reading 160EttEFt 60$DMAN, "Wc$lb f*r Rent*t*r * Sr*ee" 'Sf;

Writing ten llmrs after Lopez' liberal columnist Ellen Goodman explores the ethicalItn*ot o*nct uhenfiist-worlcl couples "outsource" motherhood to third world

xaT Detailed Contents

I

ZACHARY sTUMPS (sTU0ENT}, ,A Rhetori(al Analysis of Ellen Goodman,s ,Womb

For Rent-tor a Price"' |62Astud'entanalgzesEllenGoodman'srhetoricalstrategiesin',Wombfor'Rent''''r*pnttril

nl* delaged thesis stluchffe and her use of language with doublemeanings.

Analyzing Visual Arguments 165Understanding Design Elements in Visual Argument 166

Use of T),?e 166Use ofspace or LaYout 167An Analysis of a Visual Argument Using Type and

Spatial Elements 168Use of Color I7l

Use of Images and GraPhics l7lAn Analysis of a Visual Argument Using All the Design

ComPonents 172The Compositional Features of Photographs and Drawings 174

An Analysis of a Visual Argument Using Images t77The Genres of Visual Argument 183

Posters and Fliers 184Public Affairs Advocacy Advertisements 184Carloons 186Web Pages 187

Constr-ucting Your Own Visual Argument 189Using Information Graphics in Arguments 191

How Tables Contain a Variety of Stories 191Using a Graph to Tell a Story 194Incorporating Graphics into Your Argr'rment 196

Conclusion 198WritingAssignment:AVisualArgumentRhetoricalAnalysis,aPoster

rgutlnt, or a Microtheme Using Quantitative Data 198

*rgaw*nts im S*Sh: Fiwe T$p*s rf lairus t$$

An lntroduction to the Types of Claims 200An Overview of the Types of Claims 20OUsing Claim Types to Focus an Argument and Generate

Ideas: An ExamPle 2OzMaking the LASIK Argument to Parents 2O3Making the LASIK Argument to Insurance Companies 2O4

Fsnt Fsllr

10

Detailed Contents

Hybrid Arguments: How Claim Types Work Together in Arguments 2O5Some Examples of Hybrid Arguments 2O5An Extended Example of a Hybrid Argument 2O7

AAR0N FRIEDMAN, ?ll That Noise for Nothing" 208AmemberofaNewYorkCitgalternatiuetransportationaduocacygrouparguesinthisop-ed piece"that the city shoild ban car alnrms and explore other methods forpreuenting auto theft

DefinitionalArguments 210An Overview of Arguments About Definition 2I7

The Rule of Justice: Things in the Same Category Should Be teated theSame Way 2I2

Types of Definitional Arguments 213Examining Visuatr Arguments: A Definitisnal Claim 215The Criteria-Match Structure of Definitional Arguments 216

DevelopingtheCriteria-MatchStructureforaDefinitionalArgument2T6Toulmin Framework for a Definitional Argument 217

Kinds of Definitions 21'8Aristotelian Definitions 218Operational Definitions ?,20

Conducting the Criteria Part of a Definitional Argument 221Approach 1: Research How Others Have Defined the Term 221Approach 2'. CreaIe Your Own Extended Definition 222

Conducting the Match Part of a Definitional Argument 224Writing Assignment: A Definitional Argument 225

Exploring Ideas 225Identilying Your Audience and Determining \4rafs at Stake 226Organizing a Deflnitional Argument 227Questioning and Critiquing a Definitional Argument 227

Readings 229JNEFER BoMlNGo (STUDENT), "Proteting Our Homes Can Lead to

Animal (rueltY" 229Astud'entdeuelopsad'efinitionofwhatconstih.ttesanimaloueltgandappliesittoaninuasion of starlings

KAIHY SUtLtvAN (STUDENI), "oncore, obsceni$, and the Liquor control Board" 231A student inuestigating a public control)ersg ouer photographs in a gag bar argues thattheY are not PornograPhic.

DAVID ANDRIE5EN, "What Defines a Sport?" 233A spotfs writer debates whether actiuities such as stacking cups are sports and asks,what are the cYiteria for a sPort?

xvil

11

Detailed Contents

12 CausalArguments 237An Overview of Causal Arguments 238

Kinds of Causal Arguments 239Toulmin Framework for a Causal Argument 241

Two Methods for Arguing That One Event Causes Another 243First Method: Explain the Causal Mechanism Directly 243

Examining Visual Arguments: A Causal flaim 244Second Method: Infer Causa] Links Using Inductive Reasoning 246

Glossary of Terms Encountered in Causal Arguments 247

Writing Assignment: A Causal Argument 249Exploring Ideas 249Identifying Your Audience and Determining \44rat's at Stake 251

Orgarrizing a Causal Argu.ment 251Questioning and Critiquing a Causal Argument 257

Readings 254JUIEE CHRST|ANS0N (STUDENT], "Why lawrence Summers

Was Wrong: (ullure Rather Than Biology Explains theUnderrepresentation of Women in Science and Mathematics,, 254A student uriter d.isagrees with Haruard president La-rence Summers's claim thatwomen haue less innate talent for math and science than men'

oLlvlA JUDS0N, "Different but (Probably) Equal" 258An euolutionary bologistlooks at gender differences it the anmol kingdom to explorewhether gendedffirlncu n humns-espeaallg the capaaty ra evel in math andscience-can be attributed to nafure or nurture'

CARLOS MACIAS (STUDENT), "'The credit (ard company Made Me Do ltl'-The (reditCard lndustry's Role in Causing Student Debt" 260A stud.ent uriier examines the causes of college sttietts cred cartj debr and puts theblame on the exploitiue practices of the credit card indtL'ir1

13 Resemblance Arguments 264An Overview of Resemblance Arguments 265

Toulmin Framework for a Resemblance '\rgument 2 'i 5Arguments bY AnalogY 267

Using UndeveloPed Analogies 267Using Extended Analogies 268

Arguments bY Precedent 269

Examining Visual Arguments: A Resemblance Oaim 270WritingAssignment:AResemblanceArgument 171

Detailed Contents

Exploring Ideas Z7IIdentifuing Your Audience and Determining \\{hat,s at Stake 272Organizing a Resemblance Argument Z7ZQuestioning and Critiquing a Resemblance Argument Z7Z

Readings 274MEGAN MATTHFWS (STUDENT), ,,Whales Need Silence" 274

In this letter to the editor, a student uses an openng analog to motiuate concern forwhales hatmed by Naug sonar.

Ct Ay BENNETT, 'ilust Emancipated" (editorial cartoon) 275A cartoonist uses an analog to make a point about gag marriage.

BETH REIS, "Toon Offensive'. 276A rmder riticizes the anarog used bg ctay Bennett in'lust Emancipated."

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSIW PROFESSORS, "FOOIbAII COACh SAIATiCS, 276In an excerpt from its annual reporf, the AAUP argues that coach salaries are too high.

SUSAN BRoWNM|LIER, "Fram Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape', 2g0A feminist writer argues that pornographg is "antifemale propaganda" analogous toNazi propaganda aganstJeus or blacks.

14 Evaluation and EthicalArguments 2g4An Overview of Evaluaon Arguments Zgs

Criteria-Match Structure of Caiegorical Evaluations ZgsToulmin Framework for an Evaluation Argument 296

Constructing a Categorical Evaluation Argument 2g6Developing Your Criteria ZBoMaking Your Match Argument 288

Examining Visual Argaments: An Evaluation Claim 2A9An Overview of Ethical Arguments 291Major Ethical Systems 292

Consequences as the Base ofEthics 292Principles as the Base of Ethics 293

Constructing an Ethical Argument 293Constructing a Principles-Based Argument 293ConstructingaConsequences-BasedArgument 294

Common Problems in Making Evaluation Arguments 255Writing Assignment: An Evaluation or EthGl Argument 296

Exploring Ideas 296Identifuing Your Audience and Deterrnining \Ahat's at Stake 297Organizing an Evaluation Argument 297

xtx

15

Questioning and Critiquing a Categorical Argument 297Critiquing m Ethical Argument 299

Readings 301sAM |SAA(5ON {STUDENT}, "would Legalization of cay Marriage Be cood fof

ihe GaY CommunitY?" 301Writing to a g(tY ouirr,, rather than the general publc' a student eualuatesthe poentiallripact upon the gag communitg of legalizing same-sex marriage

Tiffany Anderson {student), ? Woman's View of Hip-Hop" 304Ayoungmiddle.classwhitewomanexplainshergrowingattractiontohip-hopmusicp*n lA fU u*ale atlists such as Lauryn Hill and Eue'

Dauid HolcberS, "Human Organs for Salel" 308A media research specalist for the Agn Rand Institute eualuates and approues a freemarket approach to the selling and buying of human organs

ProposalArguments 310An Overview of Proposal Arguments 311The Shucture of Proposal Arguments 3I2

Toulmin Framework for a Proposal Argument 312Special Concerns for Proposal Arguments 3I2

Developing a Proposal Argument 374Convincing Your Readers That a Problem ExisLs 3I4Showing the Specifics ofYour Proposal 315TheJustif,cation:ConvincingYourReadersThatYourProposalShouldBe

Enacted 316Proposal Arguments as Advocacy Posters or Advertisements 316

Using the Claim-'Iypes Strategl to Develop a Proposal Argument 318Using the "Stock Issues" Strategy to Develop a Proposal Argument 320

Examining Visuat Arguments: A Propasal Clairn 3ZlWriting Assignment: A Proposal Argument 323

Exploring Ideas 324Identifuing Your Audience and Determining \Ahat's at Stake 325Organizing a Proposal Argument 325Desigmng a One-Page Advocacy Advertisement 325Questioning and Critiquing a Proposal Argument 327

Readings 328tAUREt WlLsoN isTuDENT),'A Proposal to Prsvlde Tips for Hosts at

Stone's End" 128Afotmerhostessatapopularbrewpubdetailstheunfairpagreceit.edbghostsincimparison with setaers- and proposes a more just ray to handle rips.

Detailed Contents xxi

JUAN vAzQuEz (STUDENT), "ltllhy the United States Should Adopt trluclear Power"{MlA-format research paper) 332:";Y:H;:ffithat

nuctear Power should be part of the nation's approach to

DONATD SHOUe "Gone Parkin"' 340A professor of urban planning argues that cities should charge for anrb parking.

h$ Fiue The Rrseardred Argumeffi 3431 6 Finding and Evaluating Source s 344

Formulating a Research Question 345Understanding Differences in the Kinds of Sources 346

Books versus Periodicals versus Web Sites 349Scholarly Books versus Trade Books 350Scholarly Journals versus Magazines 350Print Sources versus Cyberspace Sources 350

Finding Books: Searching Your Library's Online Catalog 351Finding Afticles: Searching a Licensed Database 351

What Is a Licensed Database? 352Key'word Searching 353Illustration of a Database Search 353

Finding Cyberspace Sources: Searching the World Wide Web 355The Logic of the Internet 355Using Web Search Engines 356Determining Where You Are on the Web 357

Reading Your Sources Rhetorically 357Reading with Your Own Goals in Mind 357Reading with Rhetorical Awareness 358

Ti*ing Effective Notes 359Evaluating Sources 360

Angle of Vision 360Degree ofAdvocacy 361Reliability 363Credibility 363

Understanding the Rhetoric of Web Sites 363The Web as a Unique Rhetorical Enronment 363Analyzrng the Purpose of a Site and Your Own Research Purpose 363Sorting Sites by Domain Type 364Criteria for Evaluating a Web Site 365

Conclusion 367

XXI Detailed Contents

17 Using, Citing, and Documenting SourcesUsing Sources for Your Ovm Purposes 368Creating Rhetorically Effective Aributive Tags 37O

Using Atiributive Tgs to Separate Your Ideas from your Source,s S7OCreating Atfibutive Tgs to Shape Reader Response 371

Working Sources into Your Own Prose 371Summarizing 372Paraphrasing 372Quoting 373

AvoidingPlagiarism 375understandingParenthetical citationsystemswithBibliographies 376Understanding MLA Style 377

The MLA Method of In:fbxt Citation 377MLA Format for the "Works Cited" List 379MLA "Works Cited" Citations 379Student Example of an MLA-Sfyle Research paper 386

Understanding APA Sffle 387The APA Method of In-Text Citation 387APA Fomat for the "References" List 388APA "References" Citations 389

Conclusion 393Student Example of an APA-Style Research paper 393

MrcAN MATTHEWS iSTUDENT), "Scunding the.Alarm; Navy scnar a*d the suruiva!af Whales" iAPA-format research paperi 394A-student argues that preseruing marine mammals and ocean ecologl outweighs theNaug's need for a new sonar fltstem.

&ppemdixes 4fiN

lnformal Fallacies 401The Problem of Conclusiveness in an ArgumentAn Overview of Informal Fallacies 4Oz

Failacies of Pathos 403Fallacies of Ethos 404Fallacies of Logos 4O5

101

Detailed Contents

Small Group strategies for Practicing Argument skills 409From conflict to consensus: How to Get the Most Out of the writing

Commr.rrutY 4OgAvoiding Bad Habits of Group Behavior 4OgThe Value of Group Work for Writers 4lO

Forming Writing Communities: Skills and Roles 4llWorking in Groups of Five to Seven People 471Working in Pairs 413

Group Project: Holding a "Norr,ring session" to Define "Good ArgumentativeWriting" 415

"Bloody lce" 417"RSS Should Not Provide Dorm Room Carpets" 4'18"Sterling Hall Dorm food" 419"ROTC (ourses Should Not Get College Credit" 424"LegalizationofProstitution" 422

Credits 423Index 426

xxllt

2

irS,"-,-",.-- ,'*,. -* r.':'

*io:"S -":**", .4 * Sy g.i.{ .,q ':.., 1 "s.d {r 'i. i

ThroughitslirstSeveneditions,WritingArgumentshasls]lb.lisheditselfasthelead-ing college rci""k; argom"ntutlon. y fo'cusing on aTgument as

dialogue in search

of solutions ,o ffi, iistead "f * p;J-;;-;b;" wit winners and losers' Writlng

Argumentstreats argument as a p'ot"" of inqurry as well as a means of persuasron'

Users and ,"ri"iJ.!*rut" consisiently pttt" ,n" look f,or teaching the critical think-

ing skills needed for writingargumentsihow to analyze the- occasion for an argument;

how to ground an argument ln th" ,rutt""r'* Ualft of the targeted audience; how

to develop and elaborate an argume;i1irg* t l:'^tl,:* seniitivelv to objections

andalterrativeviews.Thetextisavailableinthreeversions_aregularedition,whichincludes an anrhology of readings; "

;iJt *, which offers ttre complete rhetoricwithouttheanthology;andaconciseeditionwithfewerrearlinssandexamples-tosupport-""vi"""iionalapproath;;Jcoursedesigns'"uttpleasedthatin this eighrh ;;;;;" harr made ,nu.ry l*provements while

retaining the text's

signature strengths'

TheBigPicture:What'sNewintheH'ighthHdition?Based on our continuing research into argumentation

theory and pedagogy' as well as

on the advice of users,-we have made si'gnincant improvements in the eighth edition

that increase the text,s flexibility f"r";;;?;* lo upp"ul to students' we have made

'Ttfiiilil?r-H';l.'ffirandincreas"d.ro"T"'T-":1::r*:T:"f f;ry,["*the text. The interest level and ,"'J"r+i."tiness

of the text has been greatly rt-

creased by the new full-colo, o9ri* and by lhe Tany new photographs, ads' car-

toons, drawings, and other suaLa:rgum",.t, thut deepen strrents, encounters with

p"""*i""'il:;;;'' E'ach clarmffi;;;;!'* po"' opens with a visualcase illusrraring the claim q,pe, ari;;i;"t an Examining visual

Arguments

feature that asks students ,o *afrJ "r""v "s, political ufioottt, posters, and

,- fn;:,}'fl'ilY;"f; the rh eto ri"'r, i*' Y:-'r', o r ^writte n *ffre*5 i; re

Sponsetouserrequests.t'".*"""-p""atheLxt,sl:.1,*"",ofrhetoricalanaly-sisofarguments,thenewChapte'rSprovides.detailedinstr-uctiononhowtowrite a hetorical analysis or I*"ti.i text. This chapLer leaches

students to

identifv';;;;' 't'ui"gi"' f;;;;'il;

a targeted udience' to analvze the

writer,sangleofvision,andtoevaluatetheargument'soveralleffectivenessforboth insider and outsider u.,ai"t""r. New wiiting Assignment

options and a

student example increase ttr" t"*tt l"xibrlity for instructors in planning maJor

assignments'

XXVi Preface

w Many concepts are now,displayed graphicalty, particurarry in the ToulminAnalysis charts, which help stualnts iee-the concptua fra-e,"o.k of an argu_ment, and the organization plans for various typs of *g.o-"rrt , which helpstudenls outline heir own arguments.w simpler, shorter, and more accessibre craim-tpe chapters (part Four) throughelimination of the.yyz temprates, through

""." **pr"{ * tLo.,g.l, substantivetightening In the first s"rr"r, dido.r, of tr*ng,rrgu.,)ro, *" "aX and y as prace_holders in temprates to exprain a stasis: k this a i? or Does x cause yz ermough thisapproach worked for some studen!. Tany complained that certain passages in thesechapters seemed like a math text. In tne qrrtn'eaiuon, we t uu"

"ti-irrut"d this fea-ture by adopting a simpler, more skaightfoTo *a a"*". uffroach for explainingeach claim tpe. we have also mad these chapters snorte.'J crisper and haveused many new examples and new student essays.w An increased emphasis on rhetoricar anarysis within a new part rhree.our new chapter,B on analyzing written arguments is paired with an updatedchapter 9 on anaryzing visual aiguments to create u rr* part Three explicitlydevoted to rhetorical nalysis. Te backgrorrra r.rro.'r"g."-riua""rs need forrhetorical analysis is provided in part T\,io, where stuaenis learn about /ogos,ethos, and pathos, about audience-based reasons, u.ra uo.rt analysis of evi_dence, identification of assumptions, and methods of treatrng-atternative views.In Part Three, students bring these anaryticar toors to tr"u. oi verbar and visualarguments.

w A significantly revised chapter 2, which prace.s the reading of argumentswithin a context of inquiry and exproration. our newry revise d Chapter z,'lp"T"tl as Inquiry: T-gg ana nxptoring," combines fearures of the sevenrhedition's chapters 2 a! s rtre chapter.orhl.,", to focus * r""ai"g arguments(summary writing, reading to believe *J m doubt), but praces greater emphasison argument as inquiry and truth seeking. A nel writing.ri-igr-"rt, an ex_ploratory essay, is illustrated with a student example, incre'usirrg the instructor,soptions for course pranning and providing students with ; friauctive toor forreading arguments and generating id"ur.m An improved emphalis on writing throughout part rwo with newwriting Assignments. The new titre o? ea.rt Two, "writing an Argument,,, re-flects the absorption of the seventh edition,s chapter s r,,riti"g Arguments,,)into Part Two, where a series of new examples illustrates a student writer,sprocess in producing an argument on women and video games. writingAssignments.rrow appea. in eLn chapter in part Two, ailowingoteachers to co_ordinate students' reading of part Trno with th" a"rr"top-"? u" writing oftheir own arguments. in addition, part Two introd.,"", u new writingAssignment-a "supporting-reasons" argument-that focuses on reasons in sup-port of the writer's.claim without re{uiring students to summarize artd, re_spond to opposing views.

xxvll

mUpdatedMlAdocumentationbasedonthenew'$ildeditionoft]rleMAststp Man;I';;;;1"

'o t"^ffi"i'"il"ing-12008)" and updated APA

documentationbasedontheir.i;W;";;:ii-t|1::'nicReferences(2oo7IInChapterlTweexplainal$showtti"f",-,*g-gchangesinihecitingofbothprintand#;;;;:;*qn5i;:[f"'1"X#:'1x;$ili;1"J!i"1:'m:*:'*f'#*"J:ffi 3'Tffi J'iffi;:-::*{y*m'ff H:tril"'electronic sources. Three new r"*;;;pl"t trt".,i' sfu{ents where

to find informa-

don for their citations of *"U o",]ii"nt ,'onlit. schoJarly ioutnals' and blogs'

g: 10 new pLfessional '"uai,'g,..uiib-;Itr studeni L.,uy, throughout the

t"*t, "t

or"lir"iir.* ilorgti#'j"-9" ""a stujet interest' High-interesttopi., tt uti".rriirrr""grr"* rtr" ,o, include immigration,

women in math and sci-

ence, deo games' and alternative energy'

TheDetails:Vt'rhatHasChangedintheEighthEdition?ourparttitlesnowsignalaclearprogressjonlromargumentasinquiry(Partone),to,nriting

"rg""r""lr"tr"",.iwo)rto *")i" *ments"Patt{hree)' to a deeper under-

sranding of claim types (Part.F""1, ,Jltiig t;t"utch(Patt Five)' This revised arrange-

ment provid",.*,i-p,o*a p"augofr.J"t'u*"*o'k for the teaching of argument

while giving ;#";"ililnirirf-i" use what thev need' In the context of this

framework, #;;;;j" **y "hg", to the content of each chaprer.part one, c)verview of Argument part one (chapters 1-and

2) has been refocused

toemphasiz";;;;u'ittn't""t.;g;Ji;q"ityandtoencouragestudentstoenter a a*p*J".""""rrutior h ;;;";rninlt"itnng for

the best solution to a

Problem'

wChapterl,.Argument:Anlntroduction,,,hasanimprovedandexpandedexpla-nation of impli-cit versus *!f;;;g"ments illustrated by

the controversy over

onrn"r"rir"*ur"o, r*ffiri.1ulr,rr arguments opposing phthalates (pictures of

a baby wirh a -ioison bib" and. "i " lr't,rtir"*9, q.gt.,'t *uiti"t) are jtxtaposed wrth

an explicit argumenr ,uppon,ii lri .r]"*ltul industry's position' In addibron'

Chapt"er I n"J" new clais acti"itty *"fyrtng implicit visual argumen[s and a new

'ort-pr uy itg l*;;;

""'"g'r "iiJg l'""t ielf-presenLati ons on Facebook'

* chupt"r",ffi;;; tr-":;;;.* -a e*pro'"'"g," combine-q elements of

Chaprer z'urra-cnapt", 3 ftom'/h"';;; "Lio"io be#er exptain how to evalu-

ate rhetorical context, r"ua *g.ini"ru,"*a "^ptot" issues' The chapter's focus on

inquiry 'J-"*pto,ution l, ,uppl.t"J.r,y n"* readings. pholos. and cartoons about

undocumenred^ workers * rrl?gi" rJtiil;;: Tt:;'chapter offers fwo writing

Assignmentoptions-an."u'gt'-"tsummaryoranewexpioratoryessay'whichisdescribed in detail and illustrated with a

new student essay'

pffiii Preface

Part Two, Writing an Argument Palt TWo, which has absorbed the material onwriting arguments foom the seventh edition's Chapter 3, places increased attention onthe lrtrng process. Part TWo introduces the classical argument and leads studentsthrough u- t"ti"t of brief o*itittg assignments that help them plan and draft anargument. Each of the chapters in Pal-t TWo includes changes as follows:

w Chapter 3, "The Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reasons," introduces thestruiture of classical argument and the classical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathosat the outset to frame the discussion of the principles of argument. A new WritingAssignment option asks students to frame an issue question and produce a work-ing thesis statement.

w hi Chapter 4, "The Logrcal Structure of Arguments," the explanation of theToulmin system is clarified th examples in graphic form. A new WritingAssignment option asks students to use the Toulmin schema to plan details for anargument in progress.

m Cliapter 5, "Usmg Evidence Effectively," expands its treatment of sual edenceand includes new exercises on angle of vision and photographs. A new WritingAssignment option asks students to ltrite a "supporting-reasons" argument, whichis illustrated by student writer Carmen Tieu's "\&/hy Violent Video Games AreGood for Girls."

w chapter 6, "Mong Your Audience'. Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos," has an improved,".tion on how audience-based reasons enhance logos, ethos, utd pathos andincludes a new chart of questions for analyzing an audience. It also contains a newExamining Visual Arguments feature that asks students to analyze the appeals of aToyota Prius ad. Its new Writing Assignment option asks studens to revise a draftfor improved focus on ethos, pathos, and audience-based reasons'

w Chaptr 7, "Responding to Objections and Alternative Views," has been tightened.Thg seventh

"dition'r student example of a classical argument ('A Plea for Fair

Tieatment of Skateboarders") has been moved to this chapter, where the WritingAssignment options are to write either a classical argument or a dialogic argumentaimed at conciliation.

Part Three, ,Analyzing Arguments Part Three includes a new chapter 8 onanalyzing written arguments along with Chapter 9 on analyzing suai alguments'

w Chapter 8, "Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically," prodes comprehensive inshrrc-tion to students on hbw to write a rhetorical analysis of an argument using thetheory and principles of argument explained in PaIt Tw'o. As examples for analy-sis, ii presents two arguments about ethical issues in reproductive technology:Kathryn Jean Lopez's 'Egg Heads" and Ellen Goodman's "\vomb for Rent-For aPrice.; The chapter provides our own analysis of Lopez's argument, a studentanalysis of Goodmanb, and a new Writing Assignment. a rhetorical analysis of anargument.

w Chapter t has been updated with new sual argument eramples and provides anew Writing Assignment option: to write a rhetoncal a-nall sis of a visual argument'

Preface

Part Four, Arguments in Depth: Five.Tlpes of Claims f3rt Fo has been

condensed, updated, ; ;"d" simple, * r" accessible by elimination of the XYtemplates. In each

"h"p'";, .d;ht analysis of an argument has been clarified

with a chart to help students pinpoint the.elments of th argument' We have also

added in "a.t''

cta'm-'iJ;;;d;"'1T"s vi'"{A'sol'lP feature and a newsection on identifying audie.rc" and determinurfi what's at

stake. Numerous other local

changes include the following:

wlnChapterl0,..AnlntroductiontotheTypesofClaims,',the'exampleofahybridargument is now *|o.u; to help stunts identiff the various claim-types used

. iltff #11, ,,Definirional ArgumelFi' *" have simplified the vocabulary andeliminated tLr" diJ;;;n .t*""gn definition arguments and what the seventh edi'tion called ,,simple categorical arguments." ThJchapter opens

with a sual argu-

ment case_a co".opriuip, ua-"* has an Examining visual Arguments feature

analyzing "

p"rt";;;il;; f*t'l- The chapter has t-wo new readings: JeneferDomingo trtta""tl,-'t"i"?tt"g OT Homes'Can Lead to Animal Cruelty"

and

Oavi ndriesen, "\&4rat Defines a Sport?"m Chapter 12, ,,CausJ Arguments," pens with a new visual case using

global

warming graphs, has s"everal new cause-and-effect diagrams' and has an

E'xaminingVisualArgumentsfeatureSnalyzinganAdbustersad.Thechapterhasalso been shortened and reorgan ized toi"ptb causal arguing T9t" -crisply' Anew student

"ru*pi" of u cuul argument ii ulee Christianson, "\A4ry Lawrence

Summers Was Wrong'"m Chapter f g, "n"r"*iuoce Arguments"' opens wrth l new^visual case and includes

new examples of resemblanc argumenti 4n American Association of Universityprofessors *g"r";;; ;g;nst the igh salaries of football coaches and a pro-gay-marriage cartoon with a letter to the editor in response'

wChapterf+,"gvuatlonandEthicalArgumentsj'openswithanewsualcase(the ad ro, e nS *tn"i-a Mexrcan) * in.lrd"r a new Examining Visual argu-ments feature on the DailY Show'

w Chapter 15, "Proposal irgumenm''' opens with a visual argument supportingT. Boone pi.t"rrrli *irrd falrm propori and includes two new readings: an ML_4,fomat research pup", uy studintluan vazquez, "\A4ry the united states ShouldJopt Nuclear p."t," and Oonald Shoup' "Gone Parkin''"

PartFive.TheResearchedArgumentPartFivehasbeenupdatedtoreflectnewMLA and APA guidelines for citations. other local changes include the following:

w In Chapter 16i, "Finding and Evaluaiing Sources"' p"ti{St blogs have beenadded to Table 16.6, Argles of Vision i" u.s. Media and Think Tnks. In addi-tion, many of the searchillustrations have been updated, as well as

the evalua-

tion of a Web site'

xxix

Preface

m Chapter 17, "Using, Citing, and Documenting Sources," includes new MLA cita-tions based on the new third edition of the MLA Stgle Manual and Guide toScholarlg Publishing (2008), and updated APA documentation based on the APAStgle Guide to Electronic References (2007).It also includes three source samples-Web article, online database article, and blog posting.

What Hasn't Changed? The Distinguishing Featuresof Writing Arguments

Building on earlier success, we have preserved the signature features of earlier edi-tions praised by students, instructors, and reviewers:

s Focus throughout on rtriting arguments. Grounded in composition theory, thistext combines explanaons of argument with class-tested discussion tasks, ex-ploratory writing tasks, and sequenced writing assignments aimed at developingskills of writing and critical thinking. This text builds students' confidence in theirability to enter the argumentative conversations of our culture, understand diversepoints of view, synthesize ideas, and create their own persuasive texts.

w Equal focus on argument as a rhetorical act, particularly on analyzing audi-ence, on understanding the real-world occasions for argument, and on ap-preciating the rhetorical context and genre of arguments. Focusing on boththe reading and the writing of arguments, the text emphasizes the critical thinkingthat underlies effective arguments, particularly the skills of critical reading, of be-lieving and doubting, of empathic listening, of active queshoning, and of negotiat-ing ambigulb/ and seeking synthesis.

m Integration of four different approaches to argument: The Toulmin sys-tem as a means of invention and analysis of arguments; the enthymeme as alogical structure rooted in the beliefs and values of the audience; the classicalconcepts of logos, pathos, and ethos as persuasive appeals; and stasis theory(called claim-types) as an aid to inventing and structuring arguments throughunderstanding of generic argumentative moves associated with different cate-gories of claims.

ru Copious treatment of the research pnocess? including two student examples of doc-umented research papers-one using the Ml,A system and one using the APA system.

* Numerous "For Class Discussion" exercises, "Examining Visual Argument"features, and sequenced Writing Assignments designed to teach critical think-ing and build argumentative skills. AII "For Class Discussion" exercises can beused either for whole-class discussions or for collaboratir.e group tasks.

"- Numerous student and professional arguments to illustrate argumentativestrategies and stimulate discussion, analysis, ard debate. Ntogether, the eighthedition contains 14 vntten arguments artd 40 visual arguments drawn from thepublic and academic arenas and 16 student essavs and 2 student sual arguments.

Preface Xxxi

Our Approaches to Argumentationour interest in argumentation grows out of our interest in the relationship

between

writingandthinking.whenwiting-alguments,writersareforcedtolaybaretheirthinking p.";;;, L an unpara[1"d-*ay, grappling.wrth the complex interplaybetween irrq"ir' *J p".rrruriorr, between iisue and audience. In an effort to engagestudents in the kinds of critical thinking that argument demands, we draw on

four

major approaches to argumentation:l.TheenthlTnemeasarhetoricalandlogicalstru-cture'Thisconcept'especially

,r.tl rorffi*r;;,;elps studen6 "nutshell" an argument_as a claim withone or

-or.'rrrpp.ting becauie clauses. It also helps them see how real-world

arguments u." .t"d in assumptions granted by the audience rather than in uni-

veisal and unchanging principles'

2. "fhethree classical types of appeal-logos, etho,s, and pathos' These conceptshelp students place their urgo-"ntr in a ihetorical context focusing on audience-U*"a upf"itney utro help students create an effective voice and style.

3. Toulminjs system of analyzing arguments' Toulmin's system helps students seethe complete, implicit structure inat"underlies an enthymeme and develop

appro-

priategrounsanbackingtosupport?na.rg:lment,sleasonsandwarrants.Italsoirlgl-rtight, the rhetorical, scial, and dialectical nature of argument.

4.Stasistheoryconcerningtlpesofclaims.Thisapproachstressestheheunsticvalue of learning different putt"rr'r, of support for diiferent types of claims

and of-

ten leads studerits to make surprisingly rich and full arguments'

Throughoutthetexttheseapproachesareintegratedandsynthesizedintogenerativetools fr both producing and analyzing arguments'

Structure of the TextThetexthasfivemainparlsplustwoappendixes.Partoneglvesgn.overviewofargumentation with an iniiiat fous on *g""t as rnquxy and huth seeking' These firsttwo chapters ;r";;;; ;", philosophy of gument, stro.wng how argument helps

writers

clarify their *-'' m"f.-g and connect .iUt tn" values and beliefs of a questioningaudience.tsyemphasizingargumentasacommunity'ssearchforthebestsolutiontoaproblem,weintestudentstoenteralguments*q*open-mindratherthanWiththeirminds alreadv mua" .,p. chapter Two"teaches students to read alguments

fi1t by sum-marizing *Jr"t*o jiiu"rfgi *d then by systematicalty engaging with the writer'sideas through believing and doubting

Pafi Two teaches students hori, to write argqments by applying.key principles'

chapters 3 through 5 show that the core of a effective argument is a claim with

reasons. These reasons are often stated as enthymemes, the unstated premiseof which must sometimes be brought to the surfce and supported. In effective

arguments, the reasons are audience-based so that the argument proceeds from un-derlying beliefs, values, or assumptions held by the intended audience. Discussion ofTouimin logic shows students how to discover both the stated and unstated premisesof their arguments and how to provide audience-based structures of reasons and ev-idence to iupport them. Chapter 6 focuses on ethos, pathos, and kairos as means ofpersuasion, white Chapter 7 focuses on strategies for summarizing and respondingio opposing views in order to accommodate different kinds of audiences from sym-pathetic to neutral to hostile.

Part Three focuses on analyzing arguments. Chapter 8 teaches students to do arhetoncal analysis of a written argument. Chapter 9 focuses on the theory and practiceof visual arguments-both images and quantitative data-ging students the tools foranalyzing visual arguments and for creating their own.

Part Four discusses five different lypes of argument: definitional arguments, causalarguments, resemblance arguments, evaluation arguments including ethics, and pro-poial arguments. These chapters introduce students to recurring strategies of argu-ment that cut across the different category types:

w Criteria-match arguing, in which the writer establishes criteria for making a judg-ment and argues whether a specific case does or does not meet those criteria

w Causal arguing, in which the r,r,riter shows that one event or phenomenon can beIinked to others in a causal chain

m Resemblance arguing, in which the u,ryiter uses analogy or precedent to shape thewriter's ew of a phenomenon

m Proposal arguing, in which the writer identifies a problem, presents a proposedsolution, and justifies that solution, often using a hybrid of criteria-match, causal,or resemblance strategies.

Part Five shows students how to incorporate research into their arguments, includ-ing the skills of formulating a research question; understanding differences in the kindsof sources; conducting effective searches of online catalogs, eleckonic databases, andthe Web; reading sources rhetorically to understand context and bias; evaluatingsources according to one's pulpose, audience, and genre; understanding the rhetoric ofWeb sites; incorporating sources into the writer's own algument using summary, para-phrase, and judicious quotation; and documenting sources according to MLA or APAionventions. Unlike standard treatments of the research paper, our discussion explainsto students how the writer's meaning and purpose control the selection and shaping ofsource materials.

The appendixes provide important supplementa.l information useful for courses inargument. Appendix 1 gives an overview of informal fallacies, while Appendi-x 2shws students how to get the most out of collaborative groups ir-i an argument class.Appendix 2 also provides a sequence of collaborahve tasks that will help studentslearn to peer-critique their classmates' arguments in progress. The numerous For ClassDiscussion exercises within the text prode addihonal tasks fol group collaboration'

Preface xxxiii

Writing AssignmentsThe text provides a variety of sequenced Writing Assignments.

m In Part One the Writing Assignment options are ur argument summary or an

exploratory essay.m Part Two includes as options a "supporting-reasons" argument (with earlier scaf-

folding assignments), a classical argument, a delayed-thesis or Rogerian argument,and an advocacy ad. It also includes "microthemes" for practicing basic argumen-tative moves (for example, supporting a reason with edence).

w In Part Three the Writing Assignment options are a rhetorical analysis of a writtenargument and a rhetorical analysis of a visual argument.

w Each chapter in Part Four on claim types includes a writing Assignment optionbased on the claim type covered in the chapter. (Chapter 15 includes a practicalproposal assignment, a researched policy proposal assignment, and an advocacyposter.)

%mffiffi$*rcxa1:,The Instructor's Manual

The Instructor's Manual is written by Tim N. Taylor of Eastem Illinois University. Newto the eighth edition are nine detailed sample writing assignments. In addition, theInstructor's Manual has the following features:

m Discussion of plaming decisions a.n insh-uctor must make in designing an argumentcourse: for e*mple, how to use readings; how much to emphasize Tolilmin or claim-type theory; how much time to build into the course for invention, peer review oft*r, **otLrer writing inshrrction; and how to select and sequence assignments'

* Three detailed syllabi-showing how Writing Arguments can suppott a variety ofcourse sh"uctures and emPhases:

syllabus #.f .. This cout"se emphasizes argumentative skills. and strategies, usesrJadings for rhetorical analyiis, and asks students to write on issues draunfrom their own interests and experiences'Sgllabus #2:Thismore rigorous course works intensely with the logical struc-tu-re of argument, the clasiical appeals, the Toulmin schema, ald claim-typetheory. It uses readings for rhetorical analysis and for an introduction to theargumentative controversies that students will address in their papers'sgltabus #3.. This course asks students to experiment with genres of argument(fr exampie, op-ed pieces, sual arguments, white paperc, and researchedfreelance r scholarlyarguments) and focuses on students' choice of issues andclaim types.

s F'or insh-uctors who include Toulmin, an independent, highly teachable introduc-tory lesson on the Toulmin schema, and an additional exercise giving studentspractice using Toulmin to generate argument frames'

*.r For new inshuctors, a helpful discussion of how to sequence writing assignmentsand how to use a variety f collaborative tasks in the classroom to promote activelearning and critical thinking.

x Chaptei-by-chapter responses to the For Class Discussion exercises.w Nuerous teaching tips and suggestions placed strategically throughout the chapter

material, rncludrng sveral ru-pt" qtizzes asking students to explain and applyargumentative concePts.

w poi insuctors who ieach sual arguments, suggestions for encouraging studentsto explore how visual arguments have molded and continue to mold public think-ing about issues and controversies.

r*: Fo"r instructors who like to use student essays in class exercises and discussions, anumber of new student essays showing how students responded to assignments inthe text. Several of these student pieces exemplify stages of revision'

xxxv

xxxvi Supplements

Helpful suggestions for using the exercises on critiquing readings in Part Four,'Arguments in Depth: Five Types of Claims." By focusing on rhetorical contextas rvell as on the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments, our sugges-tions will help students connect their reading of arguments to their writing ofarguments.At the end of each claim-type chapter in Part Four, a list of anthology readingsthat employ the same claim type, either as a major claim or as a substantial por-lion of the argument.

MyCompLab

ffi}p The new MyComplab integrates the market-leading instruction, mul-timedia tutorials, and exercises for writing, grammar, and researchthat users have come to identify with the program with a new online

composing space and new assessment tools. The result is a revolutionary applicationthat offers a seamless and flexible teaching and learning environment built specifi-cally for writers. Created after years of extensive research and in partnership withcomposition faculty and students across the country, the new MyComplab provideshelp for writers in the context of their writing, with instructor and peer commentingfunctionality; proven tutorials and exercises for writing, grammar, and research; ane-portfolio; an assignment builder; a bibliography tool; tutoring services; and agradebook and course management organization created specifically for writingclasses. Visit www.mycomplab.com for more information.

*l:;- i $$-s *'-, ; r:,;$.J:,i e -i;1i '' *'l+1"."..q

we are happy for this opportunity to give public thanks to the scholars, teachers, and

students who have inn rn.e ot up-p.ou.n to composition and argument' lor lnisedition, we owe special thanks to Tarnara Fish of the university of Houston for her*run r.rr and rerrialiring work on the anthology. She brought her expertise as acomposition instructor, h"er knowledge as a long-time user and reviewer of WritingArguments, and her experience as a veteran mentor of graduate student instructors to

hei research, selection of readings' and presentation of the issues'We want to thank our taleited students who contributed their ideas' research'

and time to this edition, especially, Michael Banks for his researching and writingabout illegal immigration in cnapter 2; Mike Bowersox for dialoguing with us onrhetorical"analysis and contributing ideas to chapter 8; carmen,Tieu for her essayon women and violent video gamei; Julee Christianson for her MLA research paperon the nature/nudur"

"ontiou.rsy about women and mathematics; and Juan

Yazqtez for his researched white paper on nuclear power. Additionally' we aregrateful to all our students whom *" harre been privileged to teach in our writingclasses and to our other students who have enabled us to include their arguments in

this text. Their insighis and growth as writers have inspired our ongoing study ofrhetoric and comPosition.

Wethanktoothemanyusersofourtextswhohavegivenusencoulagementabout our successes and offered helpful suggestions for improvements' Particularly we

thank the following scholars and ieachers who reviewed this resion of writinglgu rnt, in its vaous stages: JoAnn Dadisman, West Virginia University; Christinecaver, The university of Te"xas at san Antonio; Josh Gehl, san Jose state university;

J*"ph Jones, The University of Memphis; William B' Matta' Mclennan Community'C"[ig., Ann Spurlock, Mississippi 5s ni,rersity; Elizabeth M-etzger, University ofSouth Florida; pat Tyrr, West'Texas A & M University; Sandy Jordan, University ofHouston; Mary Anne Reiss, Elizabethtown community & Technical college; Jeffreyschneider, st. Louis community college Meramec; Diana Abdo, The university ofTexas at San Antonio; Gary S. Montan, Trrant County College; Shavawn M' Berry'Arizona state universrqr; c"arl Rturyon, owensboro community and Technical college'KentuckyCommunity"andTechnicalCollegeSystem;{o'dTsanderson,Auburnniu"rriiy; Linda Gadden, University of South Florida; Laura Gray-Rosendale'Northern AnzonaUniversity; Amy Toasi, Roger Williams lJniversity; and Brenda S'Martin, Kansas State UniversltY.

xxxvll

Xxxviii Acknowledgrrents

\\e are especially graieful to our editor, Lauren Finn, whose keen understandingof the needs of argument instructors and whose commitment to producrng the mostuselil texts has gurded us with her support and professional expertise. Finally, we oweour deepest thanks to Marion Castellucci, our development editor, without whom wecould not maintain the pace and quality of our textbook resions. Marion's invaluablemastery of both the big picture and specific dimensions of this work and her calmness,encouragement, and wit have shepherded this project at every point.

As always, we want to conclude by thanking our families. John Bean thanks hiswife, Kit, also a professional composition teacher, and his children, Matthew, Andrew,Stephen, and Sarah, who have grown to adulthood since he first began writing text-books. June Johnson thanks her husband, Kenneth Bube, a mathematics professor andresearcher, and her daughter, Jane Ellen Bube, now completing her high school expe-rience. Ken and Janie have played major roles in the ongoing family analysis of argu-mentation in the public sphere and of specific arguments on wide-ranging issues. Theyhave also made it possible for her to meet the demands and challenges of continuingto infuse new ideas and material into this text in each resion.

John D. RamageJohn C. BeanJune Johnson

ffi#effireg &wffiwrewreffiw

-&t,t ii:,!iar:r,,r',: r:l

f..lArrg'ln ,,lffigd{t]on,, ,,,,'i,,,... ..

2, r Ar$ men, a9 ;.l:lqu i L1{,:,:,Redihg.an d'.EX ploiingi:

*t,i]:.'.,;, "

These stills from the film Under the Same Mootl l2O07J depict the painfuf separation and long:ng forconnection of an immigrant mother in the United States ancl her young son, Carlitos, left behind inMexico. The telephone booth and the flrrtive, precious calls symbolize the plight of families divided byeconomcs and immigraiion policy. The film's appeals to olrr emotions are discussed in Michael Banks'exploratory essay in Chapter 2, pages 52-57.

&wgwrewm&x &wre ffimKwm#wmffiffiffiffi

At the outset of a book on argument, we ought to explain what an argumentis. Instead, we're going to explain why no universally accepted definition ispossible. Over the centuries, philosophers and rhetoricians have disagreedabout the meaning of the term and about the goals that arguers should set forthemselves. This opening chapter introduces you to some of these controver-sies. Our goal is to show you various ways of thinking about argument as away of helping you become a more powerful arguer yourself.

We begin by asking what we mean by argument, suggesting what argu-ment isn't as well as what it is. We then proceed to three defining featuresof argument: it requires writers or speakers to justifz their claims, it is botha product and a process, and it combines elements of truth seeking andpersuasion. Next, we explore more deeply the relationship between tr-uth seek-ing and persuasion by asking questions about the nature of "h-Lrth" that argu-ments seek. Finally, we give you an example of a successful arguing process.

& &m* Xlqs We &,$emsx Xxpr Argxxm?ex?f?Let's begin by examinurg the uradequacies of two popular images of argument-fight and debate.

Argunaem{ }s N*t a Fght *r a Qr"rar"reTo many, the word argument connotes anger and hostility, as when we say,"I just got in a huge argument with my roommate," or "My mother and Iargue all the time." \\4rat we picture here is heated disagreement, risingpulse rates, and an urge to slam doors. Argument imagined as fightconjures images of shouting talk-show guests, flaming e-mailers, or fist-banging speakers.

But to our way of thinking, argument doesn't implv anger. In fact, arguingis often pleasurable. It is a creative and productir,e actit'i$ that engages us athigh levels of inquiry and cntical thinking. often in conversation wth peoplewe like and respect. For your primary image of zu'gument, we invite you tothink not of a shouting match on cable ne-nr,s but of a small group of reason-able people seeking the best solution to a problem \\'e n'ill retum to this im-age throughout the chapter.

CHAPTER 1 Argument: An Introduction

Argument Is Not Pro-Con DebateAnother popular image of argument is debate-a presidential debate, perhaps, or ahigh school or college debate toumament. According to one popular dictronary, debateis "a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attacka given proposition." Although forrnal debate can develop critical thinking, its weak-ness is that it can turn argument into a game of winners and losers rather than aprocess of cooperative inquiry.

For an illustration of this weakness, consider one of our forrner students, achampion high school debater who spent his senior year debating the issue of prisonreform. Throughout the year he argued for afid against propositions such as "TheUnited States should build more prisons" and "Innovative altematives to prison shouldreplace prison sentences for most crimes." We asked him, "\44:rat do you personallythink is the best way to reform prisons?" He replied, "I don't know I haven't thoughtabout what I would actually choose."

Here was a bright, articulate student who had studied prisons extensively for ayear. Yet nothing in the atmosphere of pro-con debate had engaged him in truth-seeking inquiry. He could argue for and against a proposition, but he hadn't experi-enced the wrenching process of clarifying his own values and taking a personal stand.As we explain throughout this text, argument entails a desire for truth; it aims to findthe best solutions to complex problems. We don't mean that arguers don't passion-ately support their ov,ryr points of view or expose weaknesses in views they find faulty.Instead, we mean that their goal isn't to win a game but to find and promote the bestbelief or course of action.

Arguments Can Be Explicit or ImplicitBefore proceeding to some defining features of argument, we should note also thatargumenh can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit argument directly states itscontroversial claim and supports it with reasons and evidence. An implicit argument, incontrast, may not look like an argument at all. It may be a bumper sticker, a billboard,a poster, a photograph, a cartoon, a vanity license plate, a slogan on a T-shirt, anadverbisement, a poem, or a song lyric. But like an explicit argument, it persuades itsaudience toward a cefiain point of ew.

Consider the striking photograph in Figure 1.1-a baby wearing a bib labeled"POISON." This photograph enters a conversation about the safety of toys and otherbaby products sold in the United States. In recent years, fears about toy safety havecome mostly from two sources: the discovery that many toys imported from Chinaused lead paint and the discovery that a substance used to make plastics pliable andsoft-called phthalates (pronounced "thalates")-may be harmful. Phthalates havebeen shown to interfere with hormone production in rat fetuses and, based on otherrodent studies, may produce some kmds of cancers and other ailments. Becausemany baby products contain phthalates-bibs. edges of cribs, rubber duckies, and

FIGURE 1.1 An implicit argument against phthalates

any number of other soft rubbery toys-parents worry that babies can ingest phtha-lates by chewing on these toys.

The photograph of the baby and bib makes the argumentative claim that babyproducts are poisonous; the photograph implicitly urges viewers to take actionagainst phthalates. But this photograph is just one voice in a surprisingly complexconversation. Is the bib in fact poisonous? Such questions were debated during arecent campaign to ban the sale of toys containing phthalates in California. A leg-islative initiative (2007 California Assembly Bill 1108) sparked intense lobbyingfrom both child-advocacy groups and representatives of the toy industry. At issuewere a number of scientific questions about the risk posed by phthalates. To whatextent do studies on rats apply to humans? How much exposure to phthalatesshould be considered dangerous? (Experiments on rats used large amounts of ph-

thalates-amounts that, according to many scientists, far exceed anything a babycould absorb by chewing on a toy.) Also at issue is the level of health risksa free market society should be willing to tolerate. The European Union, operatingon the "precautionary principle," and citing evrdence that such toys might be

$-s-

f,i.\EIi6 L

CHAPTER 1 Argument: An lntroduction

dangerous, has banned toys containing phthalates. The U.S. government sets lessstrict standards than does the European Union. A federal agency generally doesn'tban a substance unless it has been prouen harmful to humans, not merely sus-pected of being harmful. In defense of free markets, the toy and chemical indus-iries accused opponents of phthalates of using 'Junk science" to produce scary butinaccurate data.

Our point in summarizing the toxic toy controversy is to demonstrate the per-suasive roles of both implicit and explicit arguments. \Aihat follows-a photographand a short letter-provide examples. Figure 1.2 shows a speaker at a public hear-ing surrounded by implicit arguments that many toys are unsafe-a poster labeled"Trouble in Toyland" and potentially unsafe toys, many of them soft, pliable plasticsusing phthalates.

In contrast, Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, who was secretary of health and human servicesunder the Clinton administration, makes an explicit argument in a letter to the governorof California. Sullivan opposes the bill banning phthalates, claiming that scientificagencies charged with public safety haven't found phthalates harmI. Instead, he sup-ports an altemative "green chemistry initiative" that would make public policy decisionsbased on "facts, not fear."

FIGURE 1.2 Implicit arguments (the toys and poster) against phthalates

PART 1 Overuew of Argument

s I urge you to reject AB I 10g and allow your health and safety experts,lators, to make judgments about the chemicals in our

"rlironm"ntlbur" nnfear.Sincerely.

Louis W Sullivan, M.D.U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services lggg_1gg3President Emeritus, Morehouse School of Medicine

I I ffi FOR CT ASS DTSCUSSTON tmpticit and Expticit Arguments

Let the Facts Decide. Not Feur: Bcn AB I lSLCUIS yt. suLtMH, ,I.D.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

As a physician and public servant who has worked in the field of medicine and publichealth all my life, I am writing to urge your veto ofAB 1108, a bill that would ban the useof compounds used to make vinyl toys and childcare products soft and flexible. AB I l0gwidely misses rhe mark on the most fundamental underpinning of all good publi. h;;thpolicy-sound science.

AB I 108 ignores a recent, comprehensive review ofthe safefy ofvinyl toys conductedby the u.S. consumer product Safety commission. The cpsc iook a long, hard look atthe primary softener used in children's toys and concluded that vinyl toys containing thiscompound are safe as used. In fact, its experts warned that using zubstitutes could maketoys more brittle and less safe.

The CPSC's conclrrsions are reinforced by the findings of many scientific bodiesaround the globe-including the European union's European cheicals Bureau, theU.S. National Toxicology Program, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control andPrevention. At a time when public officials are trying to deal with the serious issue of leadpaint in toys imported from China, California lawmakers should not confuse the safety ofthese softening compounds in vinyl toys with that issue. Signing AB 1l0g will do nothirrgto resolve the lead paint in toys issue.

Californialeeds public health policies based on science. That's why I resoundinglysupport your Green Chemistry Initiative. This is a coordinated, comprehensive ,trut"gy io,.addressing possible risk from products-in a holistic, science-basei fashion-that wouldserve the interests of California families and their children.

not legis-facts, not

1' Aoy argument, whether implicit or explicit, tries to influence the audience's stanceon an issue, moving the audience toward the arguer's claim. Arguments work onus psychologically al well as cognitively, triggering emotions *"*"tt as thoughtsand ideas. How would you describe the differenc"r itr th" way that the poster "andtoy display in Figure 1.2 andthe letter from Srilir-an .rvork on us,,?

CHAPTER 1 Argument: An tntroduction

2' Assume that you are explaining implicit argrments to an international exchangetu{9nt who is not yet familiar with u.s. politics and popular culture. Each of theimplicit arg'ments in Figures 1.3-1.7

-ui"r a craim nlts audience, hying to getewers to adopt the arguer's position, perspective, berief, or point of ew on anissue. For each argument, answer the fo[owing quesons ro. y* new interna-tional friend:a. what conversation does this argument join? what is the issue or controversy?

What is at stake?b Y,hatis the argument's claim? That is, what value, perspective, belief. or position

does the argument ask its viewers to adopt?c. \4/hat is an opposing or altemative view? rrA4rat ews is the argument pushing

against?d. How does the argument try to do its work on the brains or hearts of the

audience?

FIGURE 1.3 These colors don't run

PART 1 Overview of Argument

FIGURE 1.4 Tlese colors don't run the world

FIGURE 1.5 Assisted suicide isn'i "natural"

.

'

FIGURE 1.6 Ethanol versus food

Argument: An lntroduction

FIGURE 1.7 Airplane baggage dilemma

10 PART 1 Overuiew of Argument

The Defining Features of Argumentwe turn now to examine arguments in more detail. (Unless we say otherwise, byargumentwe mean explicit aiguments that attempt to supply rasons and evidencei'r.rpport their clais.) T section examine three defining features of sucharguments.

Argument Requires Justification of Its ClaimsTo begin defining argument, Iet's tum to a humble but universal site of disagreement:the conflict between a parent and a teenager over r"ules. In what way and in whatcircumstances do such conflicts constitute arguments?

Consider the following dialogue:

youNc PERSON (racing for the front door while putting coat on)'. Bye. See you later.PARENT: \44roal \44rat time are you planning on coming home?

youNc pERSON (cooltg, hand, stitl on doorknob): I'm sure we discussed this earlier'I'll be home urorlnd 2 ..1r. (The second sentence, spoken uery rapidly, is barelgaudible.)

pARENT (mouth tightening): we did nol discuss this earlier and you're rzol staying outtill two in the morning. You'll be home at twelve'

At this point in the exchange, we have a quarrel, not an argument. Quarrelers ex-

change antagonistic asserlions without any attempt to suppofi.them rationally' If thedialogue never gets past the "Yes-you-wil1/o-t-won't" stage, it either remains a quarrelor degenerates into a fight.

L"et us say, howevei, that the dialogue takes the followng turn:

YouNG PERSoN (tragicallg): But I'm sixteen gears old!

Now we,re moving toward argument. Not, to be sure, a particularly well-devel-oped or cogent one, brit an argumnt all the same. It's now an argument because oneoi th" qrru"lers has offered J r"uror', for her assertion. Her choice of curfew is satis-factory, she says, because she is sixteen yearc old, an argument that depends on the

unstad assuption that sixteen-year-olds are old enough to make decisions aboutsuch matters.

The parent can now respond in one of several ways that will either advance the*gu-"r.i or turn it back into a quarrel. The parent 9an. simglV.invoke parental author-iti(l aon't care-you're still coming home at twelve"), in rvhich case argument ceases'Or the parent can provide u r"*oi for his or her Vieiv ("You will be home at twelvebecaus your dad and I pay the bills around herel"). il u'hich case the arg'ment takesa new tum.

CHAPTER 1 Argument: An Iniroductlon

So far we've established two necessary conditions that must be met before we'rewilling to call something an argument: (1) a set of two or more conflicting assertionsw-ra ) the attempt to resolve the conflict through an appeal to reason.

But good argument demands more than meeting these two formal requirements.For the tgo*"it to be effective, an arguer is obligated to clari$ and support thereasons prented. For example, "But I'm sixteen years old!" is not yet a clear supportfor the assertion "I should be allowed to set my own curfew." On the surface, YoungPerson's argument seems absurd. Her parent, of all people, knows precisely how oldshe is. \&4rt makes it an argument is that behind her claim lies an unstated assump-tion-all sixteen-year-olds are old enough to set their own curfews. \\4rat YoungPerson needs to do now is to support that assumption.* In doing so, she mustanticipate the sorts of questions the assumption will raise in the minds of her parent:Wfraf is the legal status of sixteen-year-olds? How psychologically mature, as opposedto chronologrally mature, is Young Person? What is the actual track record ofyoung perso"n in

"being responsible? and so fofth. Each of these questions will force

Youn[ Person to reexamine and clarify her assumptions about the proper degree ofautonlomy for sixteen-year-olds. And her response to those questions should in turnforce the parents to reexamine their assumptions about the dependence of sixteen-year-olds n parental guidance and wisdom. (Likewise, the parents will need to showwtry "payingin" biltrround here" automatically gives them the right to set YoungPerson's curfew.)

As the argument continues, Young Person and Parent may shift to a different lineof reasoning. For example, Young Person might say: "I should be allowed to stay outuntil 2 A.M. because ali my fnends get to stay out that late." (Here the unstated as-sumption is that the mles in this family ought to be based on the rules in other fami-ties.i ttre parent might in turn respond, "But I certainly never stayed out that latewhen I *, you, age"-an argument assuming that ihe rules in this family shouldfollow the rules of an earlier generation.

As young Person and Parnt listen to each other's points of view (and begin realiz-ing why thei initiat arguments have not persuaded their intended audience), bothpJrti"r nna themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to examine their ownLeliefs and to justifii assumptions that they have taken for granted. Here we encounterone of the earliest senses of the t".- to argue, which is "to clariff'" As an arguer be-gins to clarir her own position on an issue, she also begins to clarify her audience's

[osition. Sun ctarincation helps the argr.rer see how she might accommodate heraudience's views, perhaps by adjusting her own position or by developing reasonsthat appeal to her audience's values. Thus Young Person might suggest an argumentlike ihis:

I should be allowed to stay out until tr'vo on a trial basis because I need enough space todemonstrate my maturity and show you I won't get into trouble'

*Later in this text we will call the assumption unclerlying a Line of reasoningits wanant (see Chapter 4).

12 PART .1 Overview of Argumeni

The assumption underlying this argument is that it is good to give teenagersfreedom to demonstrate their maturity. Because this reason is likely to appeal toher parent's own values (the parent wants to see his or her daughter grow inmaturity) and because it is tempered by the qualifier "on a trial basis" (whichreduces some of the threat of Young Person's initial demands), it may prompt pro-ductive discussion.

Whether or not Young Person and Parent can work out a best solution, the pre-ceding scenario illustrates how argument leads people to clarifu their reasons andprovide justifications that can be examined rationally. The scenario also illustratestwo specific aspects of argument that we will explore in detail in the next sections:(1) Argument is both a process and a product. (2) Argument combines truth seekingand persuasion.

Argument Is Both a Process and a ProductAs the preceding scenario revealed, argument can be viewed as a process in whichtwo or more parties seek the best solution to a question or problem. Argumentcan also be viewed as a product, each product being any person's contribution tothe conversation at a given moment. In an informal discusson, the products areusually short, whatever time a person uses during his or her turns in the conver-sation. Under more formal settings, an orally delivered product might be a shortimpromptu speech (say, during an open-mike discussion of a campus issue) ora longer, carefully prepared formal speech (as in a PowerPoint presentation at abusiness meeting or an argument at a public hearing for or against a proposedcity project).

Similar conversaons occur in writing. Roughly analogous to a small-group discus-sion is an exchange of the kind that occurs regularly through informal chat groups orprofessional e-mail discussion lists. In an online discussion, participants have morethinking time to shape their messages than they do in a real-time oral discussion.Nevertheless, messages are usually short and informal, making it possible over thecourse ofseveral days to see participants'ideas shift and evolve as conversants modifutheir initial views in response to others' views.

Roughly equivalent to a formal speech would be a formal written argument,which may take the form of an academic argrment for a college course; a grantproposal; a guest column for the op-ed* section of a newspaper; a legal brief; a letterto a member of Congress; or an article for an organizahonal newsletter, popularmagazine, or professional journal. In each of these instances, the written argrment

*Op-edstands for "opposite-editorial." It is the generic name in joumalism for a signed argument that voicesthe writer's opinion on an issue, as opposed to a news story that supposed to repo events objectively,uncolored by the writer's personal views. Op-ed pieces appear in the edrtonal-opinon section of newspapers,which generally features editorials by the resident staff, opinion pieces bl sr-ndicated columnists, and lettersto the editor from readers. The term op-ed often extended to smdtcated columns appearing in news-magazines, advocacy Web sites, and online news services.

*:;ft:I:

--

:r i;

t- -a,

CHAPTER 1 Argument: An Introduction 13

(a product) enters a conversation (a process)-in this case, a conversation of readers,many of whom will carry on the conversation by writing their own responses or bydiscussing the wyiter's ews with others. The goal of the community of writers andreaders ls to nn the best solution to the problem or issue under discussion'

Argument Combines Truth Seeking and PersuasiCInIn thinking about argument as a product, the writer will find herself continually mov-ing back ir forttr bltween truth seeking and persuasion-that is, between questionsab"out the subject matter (\A4rat is the best solution to this problem?) and about audi-ence (\A4rat db my readers already believe or value? \\lhat reasons and evidence willmost persuade thm?). Back and forth she'll weave, alternately absorbed in the subjectof her argument and in the audience for that argument'

Neiter of the two focuses is ever completely out of mind, but their relativeimportance shifts during different phases of the development of a paper' Moreover,difterent rhetorical situations place different emphases on tmth seeking versuspersuasion. we could thus place arguments on a kind of continuum that measuresih" d"gr"" of attention a writer gives to subject matter versus audience. (SeeFigure t.S.) et the far truth-seeking end of the continuum might be an exploratorypice that lays out several alternative approaches to a problem and weighs thestrengths and weaknesses of each with no concern for persuasion. At the other endof the continuum would be outright propaganda, such as a political campaign ad-vertisement that reduces a complx issue to sound bites and distorts an opponent'sposition through out-of-context quotations or misleading use of data' (At its mostttut*t, propalanda obliterates truth seeking; it will do anything, including theknowing'us o bog.rr evidence, distorted assertions, and outright lies, to win overan audnce.) In te middle ranges of the continuum, writers shift their focusesback and forth between truth t"kittg and persuasion but with varying degrees ofemphasis.

As an example of a writer focusing primarily on truth seeking, consider the caseof Kathleen, wn, in her college argument course, addressed the definitional question"Is American Sign Languag" iASl) a 'foreign language' for purposes of meeting the

Exploratory Argumentasessay inquiry, askingexamining audience toall sides of think outan issue issue with

writer

Dialogicargumentseekingcommon

Classicalargumentaimed at aneutral or

a'.:!';j::':l ::':.II

Aggressiveone-sidedarguments

Persuasion

I

Outrightpropaganda

One-sidedargumentaimed at afriendlyaudience (oftenfor fund-raisingor calls to action)

ground with possiblya resistant skePticalaudience audience

Truth Seeking

FIGURE 1.8 Continuum of arguments from truth seeking to persuasion

PART 1 Overview of Argument

university's foreign language requirement?" Kathleen had taken two years of ASL ata community college. \\4ren she transfer-red to a four-year college, the chair of theforeign languages department at her new college would not allow her ASL profi-ciency to count for the foreign language requirement. ASL isn't a "language," thecharr said summarily. "It's not equivalent to learning French, German, or Japanese."

Kathleen disagreed, so she immersed herself in developing her argument. \Vhiledoing research, she focused almost entirely on subject matter, searching for whatlinguists, neurologists, cogmtive psychologists, and sociologsts had saicl about the lan-guage of deaf people. Immersed in her subject matter, she was only tacitly concemedwith her audience, whom she thought of primarily as her classmates and the professorof her argument class-people who were fliendly to her views and interested in her ex-periences with the deaf community. She wrote a well-documented paper, citing severalscholarly articles, that made a good case to her classmates (and the professor) lhat ASLis indeed a distinct language.

Proud ofthe big red A the professor had placed on her paper, Kathleen decidedfor a subsequent assignment to write a second paper on ASL-but this time aimingit directly at the chair of foreign languages and petitioning him to accept her ASiproficiency for the foreign language requirement. Now her writing task falls closer tothe persuasive end of our continuum. Kathleen once again immersed herself inresearch, but this time focused not on subject matter (whether ASL is a distinctlanguage) but on audience. she researched the history of the foreign languagerequirement at her college and discovered some of the politics behind lt (an oiforeign language requirement had been dropped in the 1970s and reinstituted in the1990s, partly-a math professor told her-to boost enrollments in foreign languagecourses). She also interviewed foreign language teachers to find out whai they knewand didn't know about ASL. She discovered that many teachers thought ASL was"easy to learn," so that accepting ASL would allow students a Mickey Mouse way toavoid the rigors of a "real" foreign language class. Additionally, she learned ihatforeign language teachers valued immersing students in a foreign culture; in fact, theforeign language requirement was part of her college's effort to create a multicul-tural curiculum.

This new understanding of her target audience helped Kathleen reconceptualizeher argument. Her claim that ASL was a real larguage (the subject of her firsi paper)became only one section of her second paper, much condensed and abridge. bheadded sections showing the difficulty of learning ASL (to counter her audienc's beliefthat learning ASL was easy), showing how the deaf community fomed a distinctculture with its own customs and literature (to show how ASL met the goals of multi-culturalism), and showing that the number of transfer students with ASL credits wouldbe negligibly small (to allay fears that accepting ASL r'voulcl threaten enrollments inlanguage classes). she ended her argument with an appeal to her college's public em-phasis (declared boldly in its mission statement) on eraclicating social injustice andreaching out to the oppressed. She described the isolanon of deaf people in a worldwhere almost no hearing people learn ASL, and she argued that th deaf communityon her campus could be integrated more fully into canpus ljfe if more students could

CHAPTER 1 Argument: An lntroduction 15

"talk" with them. Thus the ideas included in her new argument-the reasons selected,the evidence used, the arrangement and tone-all were determined by her primaryfocus on persuasion.

Our point, then, is that all along the continuum writers attempt both to seektruth and to persuade, but not necessarily with equal balance. Kathleen could nothave written her second paper, aimed specifically at persuading the chair of foreignlanguages, if she hadn't first immersed herself in truth-seeking research that con-vinced her that ASL is indeed a distinct language. Nor are we saying that her sec-ond argument was better than her first. Both fulfilled their puposes and met theneeds of their intended audiences. Both involved huth seeking and persuasion, butthe first focused primarily on subject matter whereas the second focused primarilyon audience.

Argument and the Problem of TruthThe tension that we have just examined between truth seeking and persuasion raisesan ancient issue in the field of argument: Is the arguer's first obligation to truth or towinning the argument? And just what is the nature of the h-uth to which arguers aresupposed to be obligated?

In Plato's famous dialogues fuom ancient Greek philosophy, these questions wereat the heart of Socrates' disagreement with the Sophists. The Sophists were profes-sional rhetoricians who specialized in training orators to win arguments. Socrates, whovalued truth seeking over persuasion and believed that truth could be discoveredthrough philosophic inquiry, opposed the Sophists. For Socrates, Truth resided in theideal world of forrns, and through philosophic rigor humans could transcend thechanging, shadowlike world of everyday reality to perceive the world of universalswhere Truth, Beaufy, and Goodness resided. Through his method of questioning hisinterlocutors, Socrates would gradually peel away layer after layer of false views untilTiuth was revealed. The good pelson's duty, Socrates believed, was not to win an ar-gument but to pursue this higher Truth. Socrates distrusted rhetoricians because theywere interested only in the temporal power and wealth that came from persuading au-diences to l.he orator's ews.

Let's apply Socrates' disagreement with the Sophists to a modern instance.Suppose your community is dided over the issue of raising enronmental staridardsversus keeping open a job-producing factory that doesn't meet new guidelines forwaste discharge. The Sophists would train you to argue any side of this issue on behalfof arry lobbying group willing to pay for your services. If, however, you followed thespirit of Socrates, you would be inspired to listen to all sides of the dispute, peel awayfalse arguments, discover the Truth through reasonable inquiry, and commit yourselfto a Right Course of Action.

But what is the nature of Truth or Right Action in a dispute between jobs andthe environment? The Sophists believed that truth was determined by those in

thus they could enter an argument unconstrained by any transcendent

16 PART 1 Overuiew of Argument

beliefs or assumptions' \\rhen Socrates talked "l:"t j"tti:: i^"11t1"' the Sophistscouldreplyco,'temptoo',,ry'nu''n"'.werefictitiousconceptsinventedbytheweakto protect themselves rrorJ tn" strong. over the years, thg Sophists',

relativist beliefs

became so repugnant to people that the lerm ophistry became synonymous with

"*?T;:r:i:ffi".x,;* years the sophists, critique of .a {anscendent universal rruth

has been taken serioui;;;;;dr,l"rophers, sociologists, and other thinkers whodoubt Socrates, confident euer tnat arguments, properlyignducted,

necessarily arrive

at a single Truth. Forin"rrtr-rmr."rr, ui fo, trr'soini.tt, there are often different de-

grees of truth un ff"r""ikinds of truths for different situations or cultures' From this

perspective,*t't"r't*"'onsiderquestionsofinterpretationorvalue'wecanneverdemonstrate that a belief or assumption is tn-re-nof through scientific

observation' not

through reason, *a ,tot through 'Lhgiot"

revelation' We get our beliefs' according to

these contemporary ,'rrt "rr,

o* t" shared assumptioni of our particular cultures'Wearecondemned(orliberated)toliveinapluralistic,multiculturalworldwithcompeting visions of truth'

Ifweacceptthispluralisticviewofth.lworld'dowethenendorsetheSophists'radical relativism, fr""il;^;;; aryue any side of any issue? Or do we doggedly pursuesome modern equivalent of Socrates' truth?

ourownsympathiesarewithSocrates,butweadmittoaviewoftruththatismoretentativ","u'tio','"*dconflictedthanhis'Forus,truthseekingdoesnotmeanfinding the ,,Right errr\Vr,, to a disputed question, but neither does

it mean a valueless

relativism in lvhich utt *'*"" a "quulty

good' For us' truth seeking means taking

responsibility lor detelrnining the "eit u*.e'" or "best solution" to the quesrion lor

the good of the whole'""ri""tqr when taking into consideration the interests of allstakeholders. rt *""* -J"g huta decisions itt th" fut" of uncertainty' This more ten-tative view of truth means that you cannot use argument to

'prove" your claim, but

only to make a ."ur""Jf" .are"fo, your claim' One contempomry philosopher says

that argument ."" h;;;;;;l;-,,r"c.;:re,adherence" to ideas, not absolutelv convince

an audience or tt. ,rl""rrulry h-uth of ideas. Even though you can't be certain, in aSocratic sense, that your solution to the problem is the best one

available, you must

ethicallytakeresponsibilityfortheconsequencesofyourclaimarrdyoumustseekjus-tice for stakeholders;."J yourself. iou must, in other words, forge a

p-ersonal

stance based on yo* "*r-r-raiion

of all the evidence and your articulation of values

that you can make public and defend'Toseektruth,then,meanstoseekthebestormostjustsolutiontoaproblem

while observing all uru"frf" evidence,listening with an pen mind to the views of

all stakehold"rr, .fuiifyhg and attempting to iustify -y-o.ttt o*lt values and assump-

tions, and taking ,",po'iiuty for your "t!"-!1t.i1fblio$'s that truth seeking often

means delaying cloiure on an isrue, ucinowledging the pressure of alternative

views, and being *iili"; to "hurrg"

one,s mind. Seen in this *'av, learning to argue

effectivelyhasthedeepestsortofsocialvalue:Ithelpsconmunitiessettlec