Rhetoric of Argument

Rhetorical Situation Image from Exigence Purpose

Reasons for Argument Win Inform Convince/persuade Decide Meditate Understand (invitational rhetoric) Argument (discover a truth)=leads to belief Persuasion (know a truth)=leads to action

What is your Argument?

Determining Your Stance on a Topic: Using Stasis Theory Fact (Does X exist?) Definition (What is X?) Quality (What is the value of X? What are the causes or consequences of X?) Procedure (What should we do about X? Evidence (What is the evidence for my claims about X?)

What is the evidence for your Argument?

Considering Kinds of Evidence Facts Statistics  Large sample size  Representative  Random sample (non-biased) Examples Testimony Evidence must be accurate, representative, sufficient

Using Lines of Argument Ethos—arguments based on character  Good will, good sense, and good character  Common sense, credibility Pathos—arguments based on:  Values  Argument from the heart Logos—arguments based on facts and reason  Artistic  inartistic

Logical Analysis Inductive Arguments  Using observations to draw a specific conclusion Deductive Arguments  Applying a generalized belief to specific case Toulmin’s model  Alternative to induction and deduction

Enumerative induction “Every crow I have seen is black. Therefore all crows are black.” What’s good about this argument? What problems could there be with it?

Enumerative Argument concerns Greater sample size yields greater probability. More representative sample yields higher probabilities. One definite counterexample shoots down an enumerative induction.

Argument by analogy “The tissues of the eye are very similar to the tissues of the digestive system. Would you want to pour whiskey in your eye?” Advantages? Problems? Problem: Only relevant resemblances count in drawing correct analogies.

Deductive Reasoning: Syllogisms Major premise  Generalized belief assumed to be true  All men are mortal Minor premise  Applied to a specific case  Socrates was a man Conclusion  Socrates was mortal Advantages? Problems?

Enthymeme Syllogism with at least one premise left unstated. Example We cannot trust this man, for he has perjured himself in the past. In this enthymeme, the major premise of the complete syllogism is missing: Those who perjure themselves cannot be trusted. (Major premise - omitted) This man has perjured himself in the past. (Minor premise - stated) This man is not to be trusted. (Conclusion - stated) Example from

Deductive reasoning: more examples  Peasant 1: A witch! We have found a witch! Can we burn her?  Belvedere: How do you know that she is a witch?  Peasant 2: Because she looks like one!  Witch: I am not a witch! I am not a witch! They dressed me up like this, and this is not my nose it is a false one!  [Belvedere pulls off the false nose and opens his helmet]  Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose, and the hat....  Belvedere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. Tell me, what do you do with witches?  Peasants: Burn them!  Belvedere: Now, what do burn besides witches?  Peasant 3: More witches! [receives a punch from Peasant 1; silence]  Peasant 2: Wood?  Belvedere: So, why do witches burn? [more silence]  Peasant 2: Because there made of wood?  Belvedere: So, how do you tell if she is made of wood?  Peasant 3: Build a bridge out of her!  Belvedere: Ah, but cant you also build bridges out of stone?  Peasant 3: Oh, right.  Belvedere: Tell me, does wood sink?  Peasant 1: No, it floats.  Belvedere: What also floats in water?  [lots of yelling and many wrong and random answers including very small rocks]  King Arthur: A duck!  Belvedere: Exactly!  Peasant 2: So if she weighs as much as a duck she is made of wood.  Belvedere: And therefore?  Peasants: A witch!

A Witch? She looks like one  Major premise: Witches look a certain way  Minor premise: She looks a certain way  Conclusion: She is a witch She is made of wood  Major premise: Things made of wood burn  Minor premise: Witches burn  Conclusion: Witches are made of wood

Toulmin’s model Claim (controversial statement)  That tutor is probably intelligent. Data (evidence that supports the claim)  She is a Writing Fellow. Warrant (underlying assumption linking the claim and data.  All Writing Fellows are intelligent.

Who is Your Audience?

Consider Audience Who are my readers? What do they believe? What common ground do they share? What do I want my readers to believe? What do they need to know? Why should they care? From Barnet and Bedau, “Developing an Argument of Your Own.” From Critical Thinking to Argument, p. 123.

How will you present your Argument?

Classical Arrangement (for undecided audience) Introduction  State problem  Get readers’ attention  Outline structure Narration/Background  Definitions  History of situation Proposition  Claim  Basic reasons for belief Proof or Confirmation  Evidence Refutation  Disprove counterarguments Concession  Concede any good points of opposition Conclusion

Rogerian Arrangement (for opposing audience) Introduction Concessions Thesis Support Conclusion

Sources Travis T. Anderson, A Primer to Critical Reading and Writing. Philosophy 105 Student Manual. Brigham Young University, 1995 Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. From Critical Thinking to Argument: A Portable Guide. Boston: Bedfords/St. Martin’s, Cheryl Glenn and Loretta Gray. The Writer’s Harbrace Handbook. 3 rd edition. Boston: Thompson/Wadsworth, Howard Kahane and Nancy Cavender. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life. 8 th edition. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 1998.