Written English: Review

Syllogism:

Written English: Review

Syllogism:

A=BB=C∴A=C

All men are mortal. (Major Premise)All Greeks are men. (Minor Premise)

∴ All Greeks are mortal. (Conclusion)

Written English: Review

Syllogism:

A=BB=C∴A=C

All men are mortal. (Major Premise)All Greeks are men. (Minor Premise)

∴ All Greeks are mortal. (Conclusion)

No reptiles have fur.All snakes are reptiles.

∴ No snakes have fur.

All rabbits have fur.Some pets are rabbits.

∴ Some pets have fur.

Question at Issue:A question around which there is some disagreement. A topic that not everyone feels the same way about.

Question at Issue:A question around which there is some disagreement. A topic that not everyone feels the same way about.

Is life better with modern technology, or was life better when technology was simpler?

Should grading be abolished?

Should we use cloning technology for medicinal purposes?

Enthymeme:

Enthymeme:

C because A (Conclusion because premise)MUST address a Question at Issue

Enthymeme:

C because A (Conclusion because premise)MUST address a Question at IssueHere is an example of an enthymeme derived from a syllogism through truncation (shortening) of the syllogism:

"Socrates is mortal because he's human."

The complete formal syllogism would be the classic:

All humans are mortal. (major premise - unstated) Socrates is human. (minor premise - stated) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion - stated)

While syllogisms lay out all of their premises and conclusion explicitly, these kinds of enthymemes keep at least one of the premises or conclusion unstated.

Using evidence:

Ethos:

Using evidence:

Ethos: Appeal to authority

How to use: Cite an authority (expert) in the subject which you are discussing. The authority does not need to be famous, but if people don’t know who the authority is you must explain why they are to be trusted. Why are they an expert?

Using evidence:

Pathos:

Using evidence:

Pathos: Appeal to emotion

How to use: Emotion is best realized through story-telling. You can tell a story of someone famous, your own story, or a story from someone else that you know. Make sure the story invokes emotion. Make us feel for the subject of your story, and feel the emotions the subject felt. You can also invoke emotion through passionate language instead of story-telling.

Using evidence:

Logos:

Using evidence:

Logos: Appeal to logic

How to use: Use the format “Given… If… Then… Therefore…” to derive your logic. Given must be universally true. Then change the language to feel more natural.

Using evidence:

Tips: Remember that Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are not mutually exclusive. One piece of evidence can use more than one “mode of persuasion.”

Also remember to order your evidence in a way that makes sense for your paper. If your Logos depends on establishing some fact that is not commonly known, use Ethos first to establish that fact from a trusted authority.

Introductions:

Introductions:

Clearly state your enthymeme so the reader knows what you believe and what you must prove

Provide background information and engage the reader:•Make sure that the reader has enough information to understand the topic and your argument.•Make sure to make the topic interesting and present your argument in a way that makes the reader want to hear what you have to say.

Conclusions:

Conclusions:

Summarize the evidence you presented in the body of your essay

Use that summary to reinforce your conclusion. Remind us what the main reason you have for your conclusion, and show us that the evidence presented supports that reason. Then we must accept, or at the very least respect, your conclusion.

Overall, what makes a good essay?

Overall, what makes a good essay?

A good essay is easy to understand:•No major grammatical or language errors•A style that makes the essay easy to read• No unnecessarily long words• No unnecessarily complicated grammar

A good essay presents compelling evidence:•Even if we disagree with the evidence, it is easy to understand how the author arrived at their conclusion and we respect their opinion.

The colon:

The colon:

Grammatically, it functions as “, namely,” or “, specifically,”

When to use: when you are about to present a list of items separated by commas, or when you have a sentence with many commas already that you’d like to keep simpler by avoiding the conjunctions above.

The Oxford comma:

The Oxford comma:

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage, because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer claims Ayn Rand and God are the parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

The Oxford comma:

An example collected by Nielsen Hayden was found in a newspaper account of a documentary about Merle Haggard:

Among those interviewed were his two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall.

which may be taken to mean that Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall were Haggard's ex-wives. A serial comma would preclude this reading.

The Oxford comma:

Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma. In American English, a majority of style guides mandate use of the serial comma, including APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, The MLA Style Manual, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual. In contrast, the Associated Press Stylebook and the stylebook published by The Canadian Press for journalistic writing advise against it. It is used less often in British English, but some British style guides require it, including The Oxford Style Manual. According to The Oxford Companion to the English Language, "Commas are used to separate items in a list or sequence ... Usage varies as to the inclusion of a comma before and in the last item ... This practice is controversial and is known as the serial comma or Oxford comma, because it is part of the house style of Oxford University Press."

The Bandwagon Fallacy:

•Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.•Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.•Everyone's doing it.•In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.•Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.•Millions of people agree with my viewpoint, therefore it must be right.•The majority of this country voted for this President, therefore this president must be the right choice.•My family or tribe holds this as a truth, and everyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

The Bandwagon Fallacy:

Establishes only that the position is popular, not whether it is right or wrong. At one time people believed the world was flat, but they were wrong.

Be careful, the Bandwagon Fallacy can seem like Ethos but it is not.

No True Scotsman:

No True Scotsman:

Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar in his tea.”Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his tea.”Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his tea.”

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").

No True Scotsman:

The introduction of the term is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, who in his 1975 book, Thinking About Thinking, wrote:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton (England) Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen (Scotland) man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".

The Straw Man:

The Straw Man:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

The Straw Man:

•Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions.•Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.•Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.•Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Some other tips:

Show don’t tell (don’t tell me that something is wrong or right, show me how it is wrong or right by giving examples).

Avoid vague language, it gives the impression that you are avoiding something and weakens your position. Be precise and clearly say what you mean. For example, try to never use the word thing (it could be anything).

And never start a sentence with the word “And.”