Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Argumentation. Argumentation- is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion Argumentation- is a.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Argumentation. Argumentation- is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion Argumentation- is a."— Presentation transcript:

1 Argumentation

2 Argumentation- is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion Argumentation- is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion –Urges people to share the writers perspective and insights

3 What you should be able to identify in the introductory paragraph of an argumentative essay: 1) The main issue is identified 1) The main issue is identified 2) Background information presents both sides of the issue. 2) Background information presents both sides of the issue. 3) Topic Sentence- take a stand (thesis) 3) Topic Sentence- take a stand (thesis)

4 Uses of Argumentation Used to convince others to accept (or at least acknowledge the validity of) your position Used to convince others to accept (or at least acknowledge the validity of) your position Defend your position Defend your position To question or refute a position you believe to be misguided, untrue, dangerous, or evil To question or refute a position you believe to be misguided, untrue, dangerous, or evil

5 Persuasion vs. Argumentation Persuasion- how a writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or follow a course of action Persuasion- how a writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or follow a course of action Argumentation- appeals to reason; does not try to move an audience to action; its primary purpose is to demonstrate that certain ideas are valid and others are not Argumentation- appeals to reason; does not try to move an audience to action; its primary purpose is to demonstrate that certain ideas are valid and others are not –Uses appeals most would consider fair

6 Considering all sides of a question Be willing to change (perception, outlook, opinion) Be willing to change (perception, outlook, opinion) Consider other viewpoints: gives insight to their reactions Consider other viewpoints: gives insight to their reactions Cant be open-minded? Well, choose another topic. Cant be open-minded? Well, choose another topic.

7 Additional criteria: Take a stand to form your thesis Take a stand to form your thesis Is your topic debatable? It needs to be. Is your topic debatable? It needs to be. –Maybe create an antithesis (statement that asserts the opposite position)

8 Use of Evidence Main criteria to look for in evidence: Main criteria to look for in evidence: –1) relevance –2) representative- represents a full range of opinions about your subject, not just one side

9 Use of Evidence You dont need to document common knowledge. You dont need to document common knowledge. Opposition- anticipate the objections; address objections in your essay Opposition- anticipate the objections; address objections in your essay Refute opposing argument by making it seem weaker than it actually is (creating a straw man) Refute opposing argument by making it seem weaker than it actually is (creating a straw man)

10 Rogerian Argument Carl Rogers= how to argue without confrontation (proving opponents position wrong) Carl Rogers= how to argue without confrontation (proving opponents position wrong) Confrontation forces opponent into a defensive position Confrontation forces opponent into a defensive position Think of those that disagree with you as colleagues, not adversaries. Think of those that disagree with you as colleagues, not adversaries.

11 Guidelines for Rogerian Argument Begin by summarizing opposing viewpoints Begin by summarizing opposing viewpoints Consider positions of those that disagree with you. Consider positions of those that disagree with you. Present opposing viewpoints accurately and fairly. Present opposing viewpoints accurately and fairly. Concede strength of a compelling opposing argument Concede strength of a compelling opposing argument Acknowledge shared concerns Acknowledge shared concerns Benefits from the position you are defining Benefits from the position you are defining

12 Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning (moving from evidence to conclusion) Deductive reasoning- proceeds from a general premise or assumption to a specific conclusion (logic) Deductive reasoning- proceeds from a general premise or assumption to a specific conclusion (logic) –Holds that if all statements in the argument are true, the conclusion must be true

13 Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning- proceeds from individual observations to a more general conclusion and uses no strict form Inductive reasoning- proceeds from individual observations to a more general conclusion and uses no strict form

14 Using Deductive reasoning Syllogism- consists of a major premise, which is a general statement; a minor premise, which is a related but more specific statement; and a conclusion drawn from those premises Syllogism- consists of a major premise, which is a general statement; a minor premise, which is a related but more specific statement; and a conclusion drawn from those premises Ex. Ex. –Major premise: All Olympic swimmers are fast. –Minor premise: Michael Phelps is an Olympic swimmer. –Conclusion: Michael Phelps is fast.

15 Deductive and Inductive Reasoning In order for an argument to be valid, a conclusion has to follow logically from the major and minor premises. In order for an argument to be valid, a conclusion has to follow logically from the major and minor premises. To be sound a syllogism must be logical and true. To be sound a syllogism must be logical and true. Unlike deduction, induction has no distinctive form, and its conclusions are less definitive than those of syllogism. Unlike deduction, induction has no distinctive form, and its conclusions are less definitive than those of syllogism.

16 Toulmin Logic Toulmin logic: divides arguments into three parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant. Toulmin logic: divides arguments into three parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant. –Claim- is the main point of the essay –Grounds- the material a writer uses to support the claim-can be evidence or appeals to the emotions or values of the audience –Warrant- is the inference that connects the claim to the grounds

17 Toulmin Logic Ex. Ex. –Claim: Yale should be elected class president. –Grounds: Yale is an honor student. –Warrant: A person who is an honor student would make a good class president.

18 Recognizing Fallacies Fallacies are illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true, but are actually deceptive and dishonest. Fallacies are illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true, but are actually deceptive and dishonest. Types of Fallacies: Types of Fallacies: 1) Begging the question: This tactic asks the readers to agree that certain points are self- evident (so obvious it needs no proof) when in fact they are not. 1) Begging the question: This tactic asks the readers to agree that certain points are self- evident (so obvious it needs no proof) when in fact they are not.

19 Types of Fallacies 2) Argument from analogy: Analogies dont constitute proof. Often ignores dissimilarities between objects being compared. 2) Argument from analogy: Analogies dont constitute proof. Often ignores dissimilarities between objects being compared. 3) Personal Attack (argument Ad hominem): tries to divert attention from facts of an argument by attacking motives or character of the person making the argument. 3) Personal Attack (argument Ad hominem): tries to divert attention from facts of an argument by attacking motives or character of the person making the argument.

20 Types of Fallacies (p ) 4) False Dilemma (Either or fallacy): occurs when a writer suggests that only two alternatives exist even though there may be others. 4) False Dilemma (Either or fallacy): occurs when a writer suggests that only two alternatives exist even though there may be others. 5) Red Herring: occurs when the focus of an argument is shifted to divert the audience from the actual issue. 5) Red Herring: occurs when the focus of an argument is shifted to divert the audience from the actual issue. 6) Appeal to doubtful authority: people are cited as evidence who are not experts on the subject 6) Appeal to doubtful authority: people are cited as evidence who are not experts on the subject

21 Types of Fallacies 7) Post hoc reasoning: assumes that because two events occur together in time, the first must be the cause of the second 7) Post hoc reasoning: assumes that because two events occur together in time, the first must be the cause of the second 8) Non sequitur: occurs when a statement does not logically follow from a previous statement 8) Non sequitur: occurs when a statement does not logically follow from a previous statement


Download ppt "Argumentation. Argumentation- is a process of reasoning that asserts the soundness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion Argumentation- is a."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google