terms of logic and types of argument ap english language and composition
TRANSCRIPT
Terms of Logic and Types of Argument
AP English Language and Composition
Premise
A statement or position regarded as true that helps to support a conclusion.
Inductive Reasoning
The process of reasoning from specific to general
Begins with specific facts; draws generalizations or conclusions from those facts
Premises are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it
Example of Inductive Reasoning
I get hives when I eat salmon. My tongue swells when I eat flounder. I am allergic to fish.
Deductive Reasoning
The process of reasoning from general to specific
Conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises
Example of Deductive Reasoning
I am allergic to fish. Flounder is a type of fish. I am allergic to flounder.
Syllogism
Three-part deductive argument; conclusion follows from two premises
Major premise: General principle or rule. (A=B)
Minor premise: Introduction of new, more specific fact; verifiable by evidence (C=A)
Conclusion: Based on the two premises (C=B)
Examples of Syllogisms
Major premise: All human beings are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Examples of Syllogisms
Major premise: All people have hearts.
Minor premise: John is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.
Examples of Syllogisms
Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.
Minor premise: All black dogs are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.
Valid vs. True
Truth: Accuracy of conclusion Valid: Method used to arrive at
conclusion A sound syllogism is both valid and
true. A syllogism may be true without being
valid, and valid without being true.
Valid, true, both, neither?
All cats are animals. All dogs are cats. Therefore, all dogs are animals.
Illogical Syllogisms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Enthymemes
A shortened, compressed syllogism that leaves one premise unstated/assumed
Depends on audience’s agreement with an assumption
Ex.) Socrates is mortal because he is a human being.
-What is unstated/assumed?
Aristotle’s Classical Model
Introduction (exordium) Introduces reader to subject Piques interest Establishes ethos
Narration (narratio) Establishes why subject needs addressing Provides factual/background information Logos or pathos
Aristotle’s Classical Model
Confirmation (confirmatio) Develops and proves the argument Most specific and concrete detail Appeals to logos
Refutation (refutatio) Addresses the counterargument (opposing side) Appeals to logos
Conclusion (peroratio) Brings essay to a close Answers the question, “So what?” Appeals to pathos
Rogerian Model- Basics
Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers
Emphasizes building bridges between speaker and audience
Focuses on problem-solving/coming to a consensus
Willingness to think about opposing positions and present them fairly
Rogerian Model- Purposes
Appropriate model for: Trying to reconcile conflicting parties;
achieving a compromise Issues that are highly emotional
Rogerian Model- Effects
Writer shows empathy for audience’s viewpoint
Opens door for mutual understanding and respect
A “win-win” situation
Rogerian Model-Strategies
Avoid heated, stereotypical, or attacking language that might put audience on defensive
Use appeals to emotions and character/credibility
Rogerian Model- Structure
Introduction: Statement of problem to be solved or question to be answered; how it affects both speaker and audience
Summary of Opposing Views: Described using a seemingly objective persona
Statement of Understanding: Concedes circumstances under which opposing views might be valid
Rogerian Model- Structure
Statement of Your Position (Thesis) Statement of Contexts: Describes
contexts in which your position applies/works well
Statement of Benefits: Appeals to self-interest of readers who may not yet agree with you; demonstrates how your position benefits them
Toulmin Model- Basics
Developed by Stephen Toulmin, 1950s “Acknowledges the complications of
life”
Toulmin Model- Structure
Claim: The argument you wish to prove Qualifier: Any limits you place on your
claim (usually, probably, maybe, in most cases)
Reasons/Evidence: Support for your claim
Warrant: Underlying assumption that links claim to evidence
Warrants: Practice
Because the mushroom is poisonous, you should not eat the mushroom, since…
You should not eat the mushroom.
Warrant/Assumption?
The mushroom is poisonous.
Warrants: Practice
I don’t like receiving grades in high school.
Grades in high school should be abolished.
*Disputable warrants have to be defended before you can continue arguing for your claim.*
Warrant/Assumption?
Toulmin Model- Structure
Backing: Evidence for questionable warrants (can be emotional, ethical, or logical appeals)
“My claim is true, to a qualified degree, because of the following reasons, which makes sense if you consider the warrant, backed by these additional reasons.”
Toulmin Model- Structure
Reservations/Conditions of Rebuttal Explains terms and conditions
necessitated by the qualifier Shows an understanding of those who
see your issue differently
Toulmin Model- Structure