Advanced English W03

 REMEMBER

>an argument is more than “just contradiction.” Simply taking a stand on an issue does not qualify as an argument. Likewise, having an opinion is not the same as making an argument. An argument requires both a conclusion—a statement of belief—and the reasons to support that conclusion.

>Standard form asks us to list the reasons or premises that lead to the conclusion—the last statement in a standard form argument. Broken into standard form, Wally’s argument would look like this: Informed opinions take too much work. Work takes the fun out of having opinions. Therefore, you should not have informed opinions. Therefore, signals the conclusion.

>Assumptions are the underlying values or beliefs we use to support our reasoning. As such, they are not inherently bad or good. All arguments are grounded in the way we see the world and our beliefs about right and wrong. To truly understand an argument, you must examine the unstated or underlying assumptions on which it rests

>Sherry Diestler: “Finding hidden assumptions in arguments is like reading or watching mysteries; you accumulate clues from what people say and then make guesses about what important things they believe but aren’t directly stating.” In other words, we make inferences.

• To find underlying assumptions: 

1. Outline the argument
2. Ask questions

*Ethos seeks to establish your credibility with the reader. Everything you do to engender trust in your audience is an appeal to ethos. Citing your sources carefully, demonstrating your expertise or experience

*Pathos is an appeal to emotion. Readers are slow to change unless they feel a need to do so.

>Asking how we know the things that we know is part of the philosophic discipline of epistemology, the theory of knowledge, which is usually taught in upper-level and graduate philosophy courses and is therefore restricted to a small group of college students

Rhetorical Situation: 

• What is my purpose?
• Who is my audience?
• Why am I writing?
• What is the context?

*exigence (situation) = rhetorical situation

>"Communication is always situational"

>when we don’t know the audience well or we don’t feel confident with the material, we may be tempted to assume another voice—to try and sound like the person we think the audience expects to hear--but these attempts rarely succeed

LOGICAL FALLACIES

>The ability to recognize common logical fallacies will protect you from falling prey to weak arguments and help you avoid weak arguments in your own work. And while you may not be able to memorize all logical fallacies, you can acquaint yourself with the marks of poor reasoning they exemplify: relying on irrelevant or insufficient information, presuming a causal relationship when none exists, or defending a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premises (reasons)

• Popular Appeal to Authority This appeal relies on widespread acceptance, not logic.  Example: 85% of students think that college should be free; therefore, colleges should stop charging tuition. (Just because students think college should be free doesn’t make it the only viable option.) 
• Appeal to Ignorance This appeal relies on the absence of contradictory knowledge or evidence.  Example: Of course unicorns exist. No one has ever proven that they don’t.  Example: There’s no way that Joey speaks Spanish; I’ve never seen any evidence that he does. (Lack of evidence doesn’t mean it is false.) 
• Ad Hominem This appeal relies on irrelevant characteristics of persons associated with an opposing argument. In politics, this is often called mudslinging.  Example: We can’t take this candidate seriously because he used to be an actor. 
• Straw Man This appeal uses misquotation or oversimplification to misrepresent an opponent’s position as indefensible.  Example: The school principal wants to stop serving cake in the cafeteria. He clearly wants us to go hungry. 
• Emotional appeal
• Red Herring This appeal sidetracks an issue by introducing unrelated information to distract the audience.

>Improper generalizations summarize a point using inadequate evidence or faulty arguments. The following examples are types of improper generalization: 

• Hasty Generalization
• Slippery Slope This appeal takes several related ideas and inappropriately makes a generalized statement about them all.  Example: If we stop insisting that students wear button-up shirts to class, next thing you know, they’ll be coming to class in pajamas. 
• Questionable Analogy This appeal takes an analogy and inappropriately generalizes the relationship between the two items.  Example: Forcing people to pay taxes is like cornering them in a dark alley and demanding their money.

>False assertion of a cause assumes that two different causes or events are somehow related. The following examples are types of false assertion of a cause: 

• Oversimplified Cause (Post Hoc) This appeal attributes a causal relationship as being the only possible cause of a certain outcome, when other causes may have contributed to that outcome.  Example: When I wear these shorts and take a test, I get a good grade.
• Questionable Cause This appeal correlates two irrelevant items, concepts, or factors, resulting in questionable or confused causes.  Example: Six months after President Hoover took office in 1929, the stock market crashed. Clearly, his taking office caused the stock market to crash. 

>Questionable assumptions reach a conclusion that does not follow according to the context. The following examples are types of questionable assumptions: 

• Begging the Question (circular argument) This appeal assumes the point being proven is true based on the initial premises (reasons) alone.  Example: He must be telling the truth. He said so himself. 
• Equivocation This appeal assumes that two or more inconsistent terms are the same.  Example: I’ve heard people say that time is money; therefore, if I have more time on my hands, I’ll have more money on my hands

GOALS:

• Recognize the different parts of an argument. 

• Identify an argument’s underlying assumptions. 

• Distinguish the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.

• Identify key parts of the rhetorical situation. 
• Accurately analyze a specific rhetorical situation

• Think back on a time when you did not communicate effectively with your intended audience. You may have botched an important conversation at home or work, or received a poor grade or evaluation on a written essay or report.
• Reflect on what you’ve learned about the rhetorical situation. Given the same situation, what would you do differently now? Why?