2. 12.8/12.11 Fri/Mon warm-up: Fallacy ID fun!
activity 1: write your conclusion
activity 2: notes on 1st hand and 2nd hand evidence
activity 3: Pete Singer wants you to save the world; I just want you to write an introduction and gather some evidence for that introduction
close: application to your grad paper
HW DUE: p of Shea’s and the activity on p In tracker as “Terror Purse!”
HW Tonight: Read Pete Singer’s “Solution to World Poverty”; solve world poverty
Might as well push grammar 3 back too, right? 
Upcoming:
12.18/12.19: grad paper due!
: Winter break
1.3/1.4: grammar 3
1.3/1.4: argumentation FRQ (formal)
1.12: 1st block midterm (argumentation test)
1.16: 2ND block midterm
1.17: 3rd block midterm
1.18: 4th block midterm
1.23/1.24: Begin diction/syntax/tone unit
1.23/1.24: Ch. 1 of Gatsby due
5.16: AP Lang test

3. 12.8/12.11 warm-up: p. 109
What’s the problem? All my friends have a curfew of midnight!
A person who is honest will not steal, so my client, an honest person, clearly is not guilty of theft.
Her economic plan is impressive, but remember: this is a woman who spent six weeks in the Betty Ford Center getting treatment for alcoholism.
Since Mayor Perry has been in office, our city budget has had a balanced budget; if he were governor, the state budget would finally be balanced.
If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Smoking is dangerous because it is harmful to your health.
He was last year’s MVP, and he drives a Volvo. That must be a great car.
A national study of grades 6–8 showed that test scores went down last year and absenteeism was high; this generation is going to the dogs.
bandwagon
circular reasoning
ad hom
post hoc and maybe false analogy
hasty generalization and probably some equivocation and slippery slope, too
circular
appeal to doubtful
hasty generalization and probably slippery slope, too

4. 12.8/12.11 warm-up: writin’ conclusions
Well, I guess it’s time for me to talk about this, right?
I’ll be honest, it’s the least important part of the grad paper.
But you can do something important here.
Remember when Heinrichs said that you should arrange your arguments by ethos, logos then pathos?
Ethos: Intro and background. Establishes your voice, your relationship with the audience and your knowledge of the exigency of your argument.
Logos: Your main points. Proving through research why you think your thesis is viable.
Pathos (?): It can certainly be in other parts. Examples and anecdotes with emotional qualities can appear as grounds in your main points even in your background. But I guess the conclusion is ripe for an emotional appeal.

5. 12.8/12.11 warm-up: writin’ conclusions
Purdue OWL recommends restating your thesis or your three main points.
I’m not sure that that’s necessary.
If neither of those elements were strong enough to be memorable for the eight or so pages of your paper, then, well, it’s not like your conclusion is going to perform some kind of miracle.
One possibility they do raise, however, is to use the conclusion as a call to action.
This, I think you’ll agree, is an easy way to bring in pathos (rally the audience to do something now that they’ve heard all your argument).
You can quite literally give the audience ideas for where they can volunteer locally to effect change, or the name of the congressperson to whom they can write or the hashtag they can follow on Twitter (don’t do that last one; Twitter is stupid).
You may even want to tell the audience what you’ll be doing to effect change.

6. 12.8/12.11 warm-up: writin’ conclusions
Avoid:
Meaningless phrases such as “in conclusion” or “finally.” Yes, I can tell it’s the conclusion without you saying that.
Moralizing. You can effectively rally your audience without preaching to them.
Bringing in new evidence. It’s too late to make a new point, support a new argument or take your argument in a different direction.
Thanking the audience for reading your paper. They may not have had a choice . . .
Shifting tone or voice. If your paper has been serious for eight pages, don’t shift to a jokey voice at the end.

7. 12.8/12.11 notes: Is my evidence good?
Remember:
“Regardless of the type of evidence a writer chooses to use, it should always be relevant, accurate and sufficient.”
Shea’s similarly does a good job of exemplifying and defining the different types of evidence you can use to insure relevancy, accuracy and sufficiency.
They are (you’ll recall):
personal experience;
anecdotes;
current events;
historical information (APUSH!);
expert opinion;
and quantitative evidence.
Let’s look at each in turn.

8. 12.8/12.11 notes: First-hand evidence (stuff you know)
Personal experiences: um, I really don’t know how to define this. Stuff that’s happened to you?
Anecdotes: stories that you know that have happened to other people.
Current events: you know, like stuff you’re learning while watching the PBS NewsHour nightly. The PBS NewsHour is your favorite show.
With all of these, it’s necessary to bring in multiple examples or risk creating a fallacious argument.
Fallacies to watch out for:
Hasty generalizations: just because it’s happened to one person doesn’t mean it holds for everyone.
False analogy: drawing a comparison between your experiences (or someone else’s) that is not relevant.

9. 12.8/12.11 notes: Second-hand evidence (research, reading, investigation)
(For obvious reasons, this is less applicable when completing an argumentation FRQ)
Historical information: you learned something in this class, civics or your history class. Be cautious of reducing complex events to distorted simplicities.
Expert opinion: Cite credentials. Quote from the person. Comment no the viewpoint offered.
Quantitative data: what I usually refer to as “hard data.” Numbers, polls, statistics. Stuff that cannot be false (but can be misrepresented).
Fallacies to watch our for:
Non sequitur: the conclusion you reach from the grounds cannot be supported even if the grounds are hard data.
Post hoc: assuming that two events having occurred at about the same time are related.
Appeal to doubtful authority: did you actually research the person whom you’re citing? Are they trustworthy? Say goodbye to your ethos if they’re not.
Bandwagon: don’t assume that because it’s popular historically that it was correct.

10. 12.8/12.11 activity: You and Pete Singer
Let’s consider this following prompt:
In the “Singer Solution to World Poverty,” an article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the urgent need of r food and medicine in many parts of the world. Singer argues that prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America all money not needed for the basic requirements of life. “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spend on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.”
Write an essay in which you evaluate the pros and cons of Singer’s argument. Use appropriate evidence as you examine each side, and indicate which position you find more persuasive.

11. 12.8/12.11 activity: You and Pete Singer
This is an older prompt, and the language has changed in the twelve years since it appeared on the test.
But it still works for our purposes.
Draft out an intro for the prompt.
Here’s what you should do (if you’ve forgotten):
Your intro should do two basic things: state the basic context (exigency/occasion) of your argument and answer the prompt.
Your intro should give us an idea who you as the speaker is and who your audience is.
Here, again, is the prompt:

12. 12.8/12.11 activity: You and Pete Singer
In the “Singer Solution to World Poverty,” an article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, calls attention to the urgent need for food and medicine in many parts of the world. Singer argues that prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organizations such as UNICEF or Oxfam America all money not needed for the basic requirements of life. “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spend on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.”
Write an essay in which you evaluate the pros and cons of Singer’s argument. Use appropriate evidence as you examine each side, and indicate which position you find more persuasive.

13. 12.8/12.11 activity: You and Pete Singer
Compare your intro to the one from a released essay for this prompt (it’s hand out time!):
Ok, so now you’ve got two intros.
Choose one of those intros (yours or the released essay) and gather evidence.
Recall evidence can be first-hand or second-hand.
Drafting out your evidence should be accomplished by using the basic outline I’ve been giving you for weeks now.

14. BP1: SUB-IDEA 1 BP2: SUB-IDEA 2 Grounds Grounds Warrant Warrant
THESIS: Singer’s argument is not realistic.
BP1: SUB-IDEA 1
value/judgement
policy
definition/classification
BP2: SUB-IDEA 2
value/judgement
policy
definition/classification
Grounds
Synthesis from multiple sources
Grounds
Synthesis from multiple sources
Warrant
generalization, causal, authority, principle
Warrant
generalization, causal, authority, principle

15. BP1: All people deserve access to the fundamental rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness. But systemic societal inequity prevents this from happening. There are the haves and have nots, aren’t there? My own experiences can confirm this. I remember when I was in 7th grade, everyone and their brother wanted an iPhone 7s. It was the status symbol everyone needed in order to be popular. I begged my parents to get me the phone. I pleaded with them, but to no avail. My family, as a later came to understand, did not have the means to purchase me this phone. The fact that I did not have the means to buy a phone prevented me from accessing my God-given rights to liberty and happiness. Therefore the government should institute a tax plan that positively benefits lower income families.
What type of clam is being used here? Judgement/value, policy or definition?
What sort of evidence is being used? First-hand or second-hand? Go further and identify the specific type of evidence.
What sort of logic is employed here? Inductive or deductive?
Is there any fallacy (or fallacies) at play here? If so, identify and explain.

16. BP2: Communities only prosper when all members of that community prosper. Look at your typical high school lacrosse team. I’ve been playing lacrosse at my high school for three years now. We’ve gotten pretty good over the past two years, and last year we competed at state. My first year on the team, though, there were two girls who simply were not doing their job. They showed up late to practice; they didn’t study the plays. These girls were my friends, and I didn’t want to see them fail. So I decided to talk to them and get them on the same page as the rest of the team. Now they’re two of our best players. This is similar to what happened after World War II. During WW2, President Roosevelt taxed any individual over an income of $200,000 at 90%. The sacrifice was deemed necessary for the war effort, but, surprisingly, President Eisenhower maintained this tax rate throughout the ‘50s leading to one of America’s most prosperous economic environments in history. Clearly, President Eisenhower and I were operating from the same playback. It’s reasonable to infer, then, that this system will work in America today.
What type of clam is being used here? Judgement/value, policy or definition?
What sort of evidence is being used? First-hand or second-hand? Go further and identify the specific type of evidence.
What sort of logic is employed here? Inductive or deductive?
Is there any fallacy (or fallacies) at play here? If so, identify and explain.

17. 12.8/12.11 close: application to grad paper
Identify one of your main point BPs.
Go through the following process:
What type of claim have you used?
What type of evidence have you used? First-hand or second-hand? Identify further from there.
Is your logic inductive or deductive?
Have you committed a fallacy?
Are your grounds sufficient, relevant and accurate. And also delicious. Do they taste like snow? It’s snowing.

18. CLOSE and HW 12.8/12.11 HW: CLOSE:
Read “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.”
It’s in Shea’s.
CLOSE: