1. SCHEDULE MOVING FORWARD

2. WEEK OVERVIEW  Week 10: Researched Argument Presentation  Week 11: Peer Review Draft 2.1  Week 12: BA6 (Citation Workshop?)  Week 13: Peer Critiques (Peer Review Draft 2.2?)  Week 14: Thanksgiving Break Week (Peer Review Draft 2.2? Extended Office Hours?)  Week 15: Final Draft 2.2 Question Session, Writing Review

3. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO?  Write down your preferences for activities over the next few weeks. Presentations? Discussion sessions? Peer reviews? Extended office hours? Also think about particular topics you would still like to cover.  Will you be in attendance the week of Thanksgiving break? We do have a normal class meeting, and attendance will be taken as usual, but several people have already told me they will be gone, and I’d like to be able to plan according to our numbers that week.

4. FEEDBACK

5. FOCUS ON  Feedback on your Draft 1.2 that is still applicable to the researched argument or that looks forward to the researched argument.  Feedback on your first set of peer critiques that will help you improve your second set of peer critiques.  Feedback on BA5 that will help you revise your paper. However, don’t wait for your BA5 feedback to start writing your Draft 2.1. Start writing and then incorporate the feedback once you have it.  Revisit any feedback you received about sources and make sure that your sources are appropriate for this current draft.

6. WRITING A RESEARCHED ARGUMENT

7. PARTS OF AN ARGUMENT  An argument needs several pieces to be cohesive.  This is where narrowing your topic will really help. The more you can focus on one aspect of your topic, the more detailed you can be about that aspect.

8. CLAIM  Your claim is the conclusion you are seeking to establish.  Your thesis should include your claim.

9. QUALIFIERS  Qualifiers limit your claim in a way that makes it viable.  Not every argument needs a qualifier, and just like reasons and assumptions, these may not need to be spelled out for the reader.  So, for example, if you were talking about sex education, your basic claim might be that schools need sex ed. Your qualifier might be that schools specifically need sex ed that focuses on birth control to prevent teen pregnancy, which limits your argument and lets you focus.  Your thesis should include your qualifiers.

10. FORMING AN ARGUMENTATIVE THESIS  An argumentative thesis should do three things.  It should seek to convince readers of something.  It should address a problem that has no obvious answer.  It should present a position that readers can have differing perspectives on.

11. EVIDENCE  Evidence is the appeals and facts that you use to support your claim. Evidence will vary from person to person and paper to paper.  Your list of evidence isn’t going to be exhaustive. You can’t find or use everything that’s ever been said about your topic. You want to find the best evidence, not the most. Quality over quantity!

12. APPEALS IN ARGUMENTATION  There are three main types of appeals in arguments.  Appeals can be used to sway an audience based on varying criteria. Deciding which approach or combination of approaches to use depends on your topic and the audience you’re trying to reach.

13. EMOTIONAL APPEAL  Emotional appeals influence audiences based on their values.  While this can obviously be useful, beware of only using an emotional appeal in your argument. Without other elements, this type of argument is weak.

14. ETHICAL APPEAL  Ethical appeals rely on morality, stipulating that certain actions are generally right or wrong.  How might you combine an emotional and an ethical appeal for maximum effect?

15. LOGICAL APPEAL  Logical appeals rely on facts, which are often very persuasive.  However, you need to make sure that you’re not manipulating facts in your favor.  Many people think facts are the most persuasive kind of appeal. What do you think? How might an emotional or ethical appeal be more effective?  How could you combine a logical appeal with an emotional or an ethical appeal?

16. REASONS  Reasons show that the step from your evidence to your claim is legitimate. Another way to describe this would be analysis.  If the leap from your evidence to your claim isn’t logical, your argument might be flawed.

17. ASSUMPTIONS  Assumptions specifically support your reasons.  Sometimes reasons and assumptions may not need to be spelled out for the reader, depending on your topic.

18. COUNTERARGUMENT  The counterargument anticipates a situation where your argument might not apply. You could also call this a rebuttal.  Counterarguments are often crucial, because they allow you to anticipate the opposition’s reaction to your argument and address it beforehand.

19. COMMON FALLACIES  Common fallacies are misleading argumentative techniques that you’ll want to avoid in your writing. They violate the rules of good arguments.  If you read something that uses one or multiple common fallacies, the author’s argument might be seriously flawed.

20. COMMON FALLACIES  AD HOMINEM: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.  AD IGNORANTIAM: Arguing that something is true just because you can’t prove that it’s false.  AD MISERICORDIAM: Appealing to pity as a means to win an argument.  AD POPULUM: Arguing that everyone else thinks it, so it must be true.  BEGGING THE QUESTION // CIRCULAR ARGUMENT: Using your claim as evidence.  LOADED LANGUAGE // POISONING THE WELL: Manipulating the reader with emotional language rather than evidence.  OVERGENERALIZING: Taking a small amount of evidence and considering it representative of all the evidence.

21. COMPLEX QUESTION  Phrasing an argument in such a complicated way that others cannot truly agree or disagree with you.  Basically, this traps you into admitting that the answer to the person’s question is yes.  Example: Have you stopped beating your spouse? This assumes that the person being asked has beaten their spouse in the past, which may not be the case. Obviously, saying yes or no to this question is not desirable.

22. EQUIVOCATION  Using two different meanings for one term during an argument.  Equivocation relies on subtle shifts in meaning between words, often to try and confuse readers.  Example: Theory. A theory can be a system of ideas intended to explain something (like evolution), or it can be an assumption that has yet to be tested. However, calling the theory of evolution an unproven assumption would be inaccurate, because much testing has been done to support the theory. This doesn’t mean that the theory is true or false, but representing it as untested would be inaccurate.

23. FALSE CAUSE // NON SEQUITUR  Attributing an effect to a cause without sufficient evidence.  Example: A lesbian couple raised a child, and when that child grew up he or she committed murder. Thus, having homosexual parents makes you a murderer. Obviously, this is ridiculous, because plenty of people with heterosexual parents have committed murder.

24. FALSE DILEMMA  Reducing everything to an either/or argument when most arguments are far more complex.  Example: Students are having parties on weekends in residential areas and violating noise ordinances. Either we let them keep violating noise ordinances, or students are not allowed to have parties. This ignores the fact that there are other options, such as moving the location of the parties or of having quieter parties, maybe by inviting less people, as well as many other solutions.

25. OVERLOOKING ALTERNATIVES  Overlooking the fact that things can happen for more than one reason.  Example: If your mail was late every day throughout the winter because the roads were icy, and then your mail is late again in the summer, assuming that it is because the roads are icy would be silly. There could be multiple reasons why the mail is late.

26. PERSUASIVE DEFINITION  Defining a term in a loaded way. This can be either positive or negative.  Positive: Going into the military is a noble profession. This leaves no room for the military to be flawed, and might also imply that other professions are not noble.  Negative: Abortion is the killing of innocent babies. This assumes a certain definition of baby, and also ignores the reality of abortion as a medical procedure.

27. POST HOC FALLACY  This assumes causation based on the succession of time, even though that is most often not the case.  Example: Jill sneezed and then there was an earthquake, so Jill’s sneeze must have caused the earthquake. Obviously this is ridiculous.

28. RED HERRING  Drawing attention to a secondary topic that actually diverts readers from the real discussion.  Example: Let’s say that you’re talking about safety features in various cars. If you start talking about how consumers don’t buy cars made in America, this is a distraction from your argument.

29. STRAW MAN  Caricaturing an opposing view to the point where it is so simple that it is easy to refute.  Example: If we’re teaching teens about birth control, they’re just going to go around having sex with everybody! Sex ed is not about telling teens to go around and have sex with everybody. It’s about making sure they know how to have safe sex.

30. SOME MISCELLANEOUS TIPS  When you work with your argument, try to throw away any ideas of what is “normal,” such as a two-parent family or taking vacations. Not everybody has had the same experiences as you, and you don’t want to alienate your audience by calling them not normal!  Be authoritative in your persuasive writing. You’re the expert! Don’t be wishy-washy. Don’t say “this evidence seems to suggest.” Say “this evidence shows that.”

31. DON’T FORGET!  You need a Works Cited page with at least six sources for the Draft 2.1. Your entries on your Works Cited page should be arranged in alphabetical order by author’s last name.  You need in-text citations for every sentence that includes information from a source, whether that information is paraphrased or in the form of a direct quote. In-text citations should include the author’s last name and a page number from the source that the information can be found on.  Make sure you meet the word count, which is a minimum of 1500 words. Try not to go over 2000 words. Your Works Cited page and in-text citations don’t count towards your word count.

32. QUESTIONS?  What questions do you have about writing a researched argument?