argument and persuasion

Post on 08-Jan-2016

34 Views

Category:

Documents

1 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION. Definitions. Argue —defend a side of an issue; give reasons for and against a claim Persuade —convince someone to accept a viewpoint or take action. Elements/goals of persuasion. Claim = opinion Support = evidence Counterarguments = opposing points of view - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION

Definitions

Argue—defend a side of an issue; give reasons for and against a claim

Persuade—convince someone to accept a viewpoint or take action

Elements/goals of persuasion

Claim = opinionSupport = evidenceCounterarguments = opposing

points of viewFocus topic/claim with a thesisDon’t offend readers

Persuasive appeals

3 basic appeals used in argument and persuasion

Emotion—anger, joy, fear, injustice, etc. Ethics

right vs. wrong writer credibility building common ground with reader

Persuasive appeals

Logicmakes senseattempt to present claim as

reasonable and true facts, statistics, etc.

ABC Test (from RCWW)

Appropriate Evidence is relevant to claim Sources are appropriate for topic

Believable Facts/assertions are true Consider beliefs that readers share Sources are credible through experience or

authority

ABC Test

Consistent and Complete

Ideas do not contradict each other Writer is willing to stand by claim Support is thorough

Tips for persuasive writing

Avoid “I think” phrases—solid, outright statements are better

Don’t overuse emotional appeals Use counterarguments fairly and accurately Select words that make full use of appeals Establish your credibility—experience or

interest you have in the topic. Why do you care, and why should readers listen to you?

Toulmin logic

Claim = opinionReason = supportWarrant = justifies the claim,

connects reason to claim

Toulmin Poison Ivy Example:

Claim = Don’t touch that plant! Reason = That plant is poison ivy. Warrant = Poison ivy causes skin

irritation, so the plant shouldn’t be touched.

Toulmin example

Claim = We should restrict the use of cell phones in moving vehicles.

Reason = Scientific studies reveal an increased rate of accidents among drivers who use cell phones while driving.

Warrant = Scientific studies that reveal risks should be considered for making restrictions.

Induction

Induction—specific to general (used to draw a general conclusion after considering specific cases or evidence)

See triangle as visual representation:Specific : A driver talking on a cell phone nearly ran into my car. (specific case)

General: Drivers (in general) should not be allowed to be on cell phones.

Deduction

Deduction—general to specific (used to draw a specific conclusion after considering general cases or evidence)

General: Drivers (in general) who use cell phones are at greater risk for accidents.

Specific: I (specific person) will not use my cell phone when I am driving.

Syllogisms

Used in deductive reasoningRequires:

Major premise (general)Minor premise (link, example)Conclusion (specific)

Syllogism example #1

All dinosaurs are now extinct.The T rex was a dinosaur.The T rex is now extinct.

Using premises All dinosaurs are now extinct. (major) The T rex was a dinosaur. (minor) The T rex is now extinct. (conclusion)

Syllogisms

If A = Band B = Cthen A = C

A = B…

A B All dinosaurs are now extinct.

C A The T rex was a dinosaur.

C B The T rex is now extinct.

Syllogism example #2

GM makes reliable cars.The Grand Prix is a GM car.The Grand Prix is reliable.

Faulty logic in a syllogism

All dinosaurs are now extinct. The passenger pigeon is extinct. The passenger pigeon was a dinosaur.

(pigeon is not a dinosaur; it’s a bird) ***********************

GM makes reliable cars. The Prius is a reliable car. The Prius is a GM

(Prius is not a GM; it’s a Toyota)

Is this a strong or weak argument?

An 18-year-old can fight for the U.S.

An 18-year-old is old enough to legally drink alcohol.

Is this a strong or weak argument?

No clear supportWhere is the minor premise or

warrant to link these ideas?Where do you draw the line?The claim itself isn’t the

problem—the lack of minor premise or warrant is.

What is the logical flaw here?

“We trust 16-year-old students to drive a 4,000 pound vehicle on the highway, but not to eat a Snickers? They can join the Army and handle an M-16, but they can’t handle a pack of Skittles?” ~Arizona state Senator Dean Martin, on

lawmakers’ efforts to ban junk food from high school vending machines.

Quoted in Newsweek, Oct. 10, 2005

top related