Week 3 Flashcards
Arguments Part 1
Mature Reasoners are Well Informed
If reader/audience feels like the author doesn’t know the material or isn’t “qualified” to write on a subject, the purpose is lost. Also, and depending on the “topic,” MRs also know their arguments’ contexts (an understanding of the issue/argument at hand… the past, present, future, so to speak. They have awareness of what they are talking about).
Mature Reasoners are Self-Critical and Open to Constructive Criticism from Others
We have opinions that we are heavily invested in to the point where our whole sense of reality (right/wrong; good/bad; our very sense of ourselves) is tied up in them. However, the difference between an extremist (or even an argument “opinionated to a fault,” such as seen in polemics), and a mature reasoner, is that the “MR” is bale to consider or appreciate an “other” point of view, is able to step back and critique own argument, and has the ability to re-examine. This does not have to come out in the argument itself necessarily, but is usually evident (subtly so) by the style and tone/approach of the piece.
Mature Reasoners Argue with their Audience in Mind
To be effective, arguments by MRs must be “other-directed,” attuned to the people/audience they want to reach. They shouldn’t be self-serving (awareness is the goal, remember). Adapting to the audience can sometimes be the biggest challenge.
Three aims of arguments
- to inquire
- to convince
- to persuade
Arguments presented to inquire
Not looking for conviction or to “win” necessarily, but simply opening up a conversation about something or some issue or subject (perhaps to engender/inspire debate or to allow one to “rethink” a topic/issue).
Arguments presented to convince
These arguments want to “win” (win their “case”). Presenting reason and evidence in support of the claim. Wants reader or audience to agree with them/be on their side by the end.
arguments presented to persuade
Like convincing, these arguments also want to “win” and come to agreement, but they also want MORE. Looking to change not only thinking, but behaviour… they want you to “do” something, act upon something, change something.
The three “Rhetorical Appeals” (in arguments)
Writing strategies used to get reader (or audience) to “agree” with a point of view or position (written or in speech). Their use doesn’t really necessarily mean the writer will be successful… that’s up to “the other” (the reader) to decide.
Pathos (rhetorical appeal)
(Pity). Invokes (or evokes) empathy or sympathy from the reader/audience. Appeals to sense of emotion towards a subject, idea, concern, issue, or even a “self.”
Logos (rhetorical appeal)
(Logic). Argument is sound and reasonable. sometimes can be “fact-driven.” But should read as accurate in logical direction, tone, and conclusion. Argument can still be debatable, but what has been presented forms a reasonable position…
Ethos (rhetorical appeal)
(Environment, ethics, or experience). Usually culturally or environmentally driven. Writer had demonstrated their ability to speak on/ address a topic or issue or subject by either their experience or cultural discourse or knowledge.
Models of Argumentation
Can lend to:
- organization (development of your own presentation)
- appropriateness of response (the most “suitable” kind in response to “something” or the most suitable kind if developing your own presentation separate from any response to “another’s”).
models are a kind of “writing strategy,” but it all depends on the topic or idea and your own ideology/discourse, and how you choose to approach your discussion.
Toulmin’s Model
The “classic” argument. It has 3 parts: The claim, the grounds, and the warrant. This kind of argument is most often used to establish a “need” or necessity, for example: “the importance of literacy in society.” For this course, it works well if you are responding to something (like a “quote”) that has 3 distinct parts, where you simply have each of those 3 parts. Using a Toulmin’s Model can generally apply for most arguments, where you simply have your thesis (your claim), then your 3 discussion points (your grounds), followed by a reflection of thesis to support (the warrant). But note there is no concession in Toulmin’s; if you want to concede something, then the Model below (#2) is more effective and appropriate. but to recap:
- the claim (introduction). a critical assertion. this depends on your topic response, as well as the kind of thesis you will be asked to make, which in this course will be a “critical thesis” related to “the human condition.”
- the grounds: (main body ideas). the “evidence” or discussion points you use to support your claim. In a 5 paragraph essay, you will have 3 grounds.
- the warrant (conclusion). this should see a “reflective quality” in light of your critical thesis claim. the warrant is your ultimate purpose. it answers the “so what?” question, so to speak. the warrant links the claims to the grounds to establish “reasoning.”
Concession-Refutation
An argument that allows for the writer to “acknowledge” the other side’s point of view. it’s a technique that provides some balance, fairness, and can establish credibility. This concession is very briefly noted in the Introduction so that it illustrates the writer’s awareness and respect for another viewpoint from the outset. But follows with “ideological build” to start “introducing” your refute of the stated claim, and ending with your thesis to alternative effect. The Main Body holds 1 paragraph for “full concession” and 2 paragraphs of “refutes.” In what order is up to you. but your conclusion maintains pure refutation (although, another very brief acknowledgment of concession can also be included/ acknowledged in a different way or meaning. not a repeat though). But your argument/discussion should ultimately conclude with a final point to firmly establish your refutation (end your response on this, your last sentence). This model works well when you can “see” and understand the point of view presented, but you also have other ideas/perspective, or flat-out fundamentally disagree.
Rogerian Conciliation
“Conciliation” means “to make calm” or “pacify” or “assuage.” In this sense, the argument/discussion reads like a compromise has been met. This kind of argument is less concerned with winning/losing, but is more related to having a conversation or dialogue about something. It explores common grounds, attempts to unite opposing sides. It’s a “negotiating tool” and acts as a mediator in some respects. Argument is very respectful to both sides, and presentation should be neutral (cannot establish what side the author/writer/you are on, or, when you don’t want to choose sides). Usually appropriate with something controversial (but not necessarily), or, with something that has a clear division in a society. note about Thesis Statements for Rogerian arguments: This is the exception. The thesis applied for this Model must be “neutral” as well (it’s a kind of “neutral critical thesis”). A “question” for a thesis usually works well for Rogerians, since they are considered neutral in appropriate form. Otherwise, for all other Models, the thesis will be a specific critical one related to the human condition.
Monroe’s Motivational Model
As the term suggests, this kind of argument is highly motivational, reasoning inspired. The argument is driven by this positivity, and although usually associated with oral communication or speeches, this kind of written argument works well on topics that need some clear inspiration–even hope– whether towards “an other,” a society, or even a “self.” It works well when something (such as a “quote” or an article) is uninspiring or profoundly negative, or defeatist. Your response wouldn’t allow for any concessions–all positive, decent, inspirational, encouraging, hopeful. *it follows very much the same as Toulmin’s Model, in that you would have your 3 main body paragraph ideas – the difference here is that they are all inspired or positive or hopeful or encouraging. No “concession” to the negativity of defeatism or hopelessness. note: Monroe’s Motivational can be applied to a quote/idea that is already inspirational… you would simply continue with the positivity/ideology in your response. But they are best applied for the purpose of this course, if this is the route you choose to take. Other Models might be applied aswell.
Humour
Humour can be one of the most effective ways to get a point across or discuss a topic, or simply open up a conversation. It can be the defining strategy a writer uses (drives by comedic or humourous ideology), or the occasional use “here and there.” If played well with tack and skill, it can result in some of the most influential writing, which allows people to think about a subject through different lens (or rethink it). Humour can range from the subtle to the obvious (even sarcastic), to the clever/witty, to illustrating a sense of humility, to carefully crafted satirical pieces. Sometimes in humour, “truths” are revealed.
Humour in writing (especially arguments) can…
- relax people and open them up to a new perspective
- it can create interest
- there is “truth” often found in humour
Satire
“The exploration of truth through absurdity.” Think of some comedy “news shows” like This Hour has 22 Minutes or even some late-night comedy “opening monologues.” But satire is a very specific category… you’ll know it when you see it or read it.
Parody
Falls within satire, only that a parody must have an “original host,” so for example, a comedic sketch that is a parody of “Romeo & Juliet.”
Humour can backfire
If offered in poor taste (insulting or inappropriate), or, can sometimes read as not worthy of a serious read (writer will just seem like a clown). Its usage will inevitably be viewed differently by all (ie. some will find it funny/effective; others hurt/offended, or wonder if others are). The “success” of humour ultimately comes from the public’s or reader’s response to the piece.
Academic acknowlegements
Articles go in “quotation marks” (not underlined or italicized), and are properly capitalized (for MLA). The source (where it was located/published, such as a newspaper) is underlined or italicized. The (source and date) of publication go in a (bracket) after the article title.
