Carmona Test Flashcards
. Definition of argumentation
a logical way of discussing or debating an idea
Etymology and meaning of the word “Argument”
ETYMOLOGY (LATIN) – Argument comes from “ARGUERE” (to
make clear, to make known, to prove something)
Components of Argumentation: Purpose
To inform an audience that your viewpoint deserves
consideration
Components of Argumentation: Strategy
To present information on both sides of the issue – while
favoring one side and casting reasonable doubt / suspicion on the
other side.
Components of Argumentation: Foundation
Based on logic and reason (pure facts)
Components of Argumentation: Style
Logical, detached, objective
Components of Argumentation: Method:
The writer takes a position / makes a claim / acknowledges
opposing side/views
Components of Argumentation: Rhetorical Appeal:
LOGOS
Components of Persuasion: purpose
Purpose: To move an audience to action OR to convince an audience
to adopt your viewpoint
Components of Persuasion: strategy
Strategy: To present information and opinions on ONE side of an issue
by developing a strong connection with a target audience
Components of Persuasion: foundation
Foundation: Based on emotions and personal opinions
Components of Persuasion: style
Style: Passionate, personal, emotional
Components of Persuasion: rhetorical appeal
Rhetorical Appeal: PATHOS
Components of Persuasion: method
Method: Opinions are blended with facts
Synonyms for the word “claim”
Claim / Assertion (the author’s position – stance on an issue)
3 types of claims
Claim of fact: asserts that something is true or not true
Claim of value: something is good/bad, right/wrong,
desirable/undesirable
Claim of policy: begins with a definition of the problem, explains
why it is a problem, and then explains the change that needs to
happen
Claim of fact
asserts that something is true or not true
Claim of value
something is good/bad, right/wrong,
desirable/undesirable
Claim of policy
begins with a definition of the problem, explains
why it is a problem, and then explains the change that needs to
happen
Counterclaim
(opposite side of the issue)
Evidence
(supporting details that strengthen a claim)
Rebuttal / Refutation
(disprove the counterclaim)
Opponents
people who disagree with an issue
Induction process
In induction, one
begins with specific observations and then moves to general conclusions and
theories.
Inductive reasoning is also known as the “bottom up approach.”
OPHT
Observation»_space; Pattern»_space; Hypothesis»_space; Theory (OPHT)
Deduction process
” In deduction, one
reaches a conclusion by starting with a general principle or universal truth (major
premise) and applying it to a specific case (a minor premise).
Deductive reasoning is also known as the “top-down approach.”
THOC
Theory»_space; Hypothesis»_space; Observation»_space; Confirmation of Theory (THOC)
Syllogism and deductive reasoning connection
Deductive reasoning is often structured as a “syllogism” –> a logical structure
that uses major and minor premises to reach a conclusion
Toulmin Model inventor
Stephen
Edelson Toulmin
6 components of the Toulmin Model
claim, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal,
and qualifier.
6 types of warrants
Warrant Based on Generalization: What is true for some is likely true
for the whole.
- Warrant Based on Analogy: What is true of one situation is likely true
of another, so long as they share key characteristics. - Warrant Based on Sign: One thing indicates the presence or outcome
of something else. For example, we can diagnose an illness or disease
by its symptoms. - Warrant Based on Causality: One thing causes another. For
example, eating too much sugar is the cause of numerous health
conditions. - Warrant Based on Authority: An indication that something is true
because an authority or group of authorities affirms it to be true. For
example, nearly all of the planet’s scientists claim that climate change is
real. - Warrant Based on Principle: An agreed-upon value or rule applied to
a specific scenario. For example, parents should love and respect their
children is a widely-shared value. Backing (or refuting) that this value
should apply to a specific parent in question might be the goal of an
attorney in a criminal trial
Characteristics of open-ended questions
cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no” response
• are phrased as a statement which requires a longer response that demonstrates
critical thinking and understanding of a given topic
• AP argumentative essay is an open-ended question
Disadvantages of open-ended questions
Takes more time and effort to respond to questions
• Answers may differ in levels of details or scope
advantages of open-ended questions
Offers respondents greater flexibility and freedom to answer
• Useful for gaining insights into the respondent’s opinions
Characteristics of closed-ended questions
Can be answered with a “yes” or “no” response
• are often limited to a specific answer and are therefore good for testing
knowledge.
• Examples of closed-ended questions: multiple-choice, rank-based, drop-down
. Disadvantages of closed-ended questions
advantages?
One is unable to adequately or elaborately express his/her opinion on a given
topic.
——–
Quick to answer
• Easy to analyze and compare answers as the data can be assigned numbers
and values. Data can be measured statistically.
Open vs. closed thesis statements
An open thesis is one that DOES NOT list all the points the writer
intends to cover in an essay
A closed thesis is the main idea of the argument that previews the
major points the writer intends to make.
Introduction structure + # of sentences
Introduction (5-7 sentences)
• Hook
• Bridge
• Thesis.
Body I and II structure + # of sentences
Body Paragraphs # 1 and 2 (8 sentences each)
- Topic Sentence
• NOTE: The topic sentence MUST BE ALIGNED with your thesis statement. - Intro to supporting detail # 1
- Supporting detail # 1 (using your own prior knowledge / experiences)
- Explanation of supporting detail # 1
- Intro to supporting detail # 2
- Supporting detail # 2 (using your own prior knowledge / experiences)
- Explanation of supporting detail # 2
- Concluding statement
Body III structure + # of sentences
Body Paragraph # 3 (Counterargument) – 10 sentences
Structure
1. Topic Sentence. Use
- Intro to supporting detail # 1
- Supporting detail # 1
- Explanation of supporting detail # 1
- Intro to supporting detail # 2
- Supporting detail # 2
- Explanation of supporting detail # 2
- Acknowledge the other side’s validity in a respectful way.
- Refutation / Rebuttal Sentence
- Concluding statement
Conclusion structure + # of sentences
Conclusion (5-7 sentences)
- Topic sentence
Provide an observation / reflection about the overall topic
Offer suggestions for the future of the topic
Concluding statement. End with an insightful observation.
Name of authors of two argumentative pieces
Brent
Staples and Ana Homayoun
pieces, and publication years of two argumentative pieces
Brent Staples: “Just Walk On By” (autobiographical) - 1986
Ana Homayoun
June 7, 2017
The Secret Social Media Lives of Teenagers
