Download Chapter 2 - TeacherWeb

AP English Language and Composition
Period 4
Bianca Alcala, Aubrie Anderson, Tony Androski, Jasmin Agustin
Introduction
 When arguing, your primary challenge will be to
examine the issue carefully so that you can develop the
most effective argument.
 When developing arguments, you will engage in
invention – exploring and developing ideas about a
specific topic.
 Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty, of observing
in any given case the available means of persuasion.”
 Rhetoric is finding an effective way to persuade other
people to believe or do something.
Three Primary Modes of
Persuasion
 In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he identifies three primary
modes of persuasion:
Logical – arguments based on reason
2. Emotional – arguments that appeal to the
emotions
3. Ethical – arguments based on the speaker’s
character
1.
Logical Arguments
 Logic is often associated with objectivity – a logical
argument is made objectively on the basis of facts or
reason rather than emotion.
 The effectiveness of a logical argument depends largely
on whether or not the main assumption, or major
premise, is valid or acceptable.
 Logical arguments can take different forms, the two
most common being arguments based on inductive
and deductive reasoning.
Given Situation:
You are deciding
what to wear for the
day.
•You look outside and it is
fairly sunny.
•You look at the weather
forecast.
What have you
decided? What is your
reasoning?
Reasoning Inductively
 When using induction, we are drawing a conclusion
based on specific evidence.
 Evidence A  Evidence B  Conclusion

The sun is shining  the temperature is high  the forecast
is favorable  we dress lightly and leave the umbrella at
home
 Inductive reasoning can be seen as probability –
ultimate and positive proof is beyond reach.
 If a writer is careful and has sufficient evidence, their
conclusion will seem valid.
Given Situation:
You are with your friend,
Henry, and he gets a text
message from his
girlfriend, Kate. Upon
reading his message, he
sighs. You ask what’s
wrong, to which he
responds, “she’s just
being emotional
because she’s a girl.”
emotional people
girls
Kate
Is this reasoning
valid? What is he
implying?
Reasoning Deductively
 When an argument rests on a fundamental truth,
right, or value rather than on available evidence, it
employs deductive reasoning.
 The writer’s first concern is to define a commonly
accepted value or belief.
Syllogism:
a three-part argument in which the conclusion rests on two premises
Major Premise: All people have hearts.

Minor Premise: John is a person.

Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.
Enthymeme:
an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated
 In many arguments, a premise might be implied but not stated.
 According to Henry:
Kate is emotional because she is a girl.

Major premise: All girls are emotional.
 The form is correct, but the major premise is faulty.
 An enthymeme or syllogism may be valid in terms of its
organization, but it can be untrue if it rests on a major premise
that can be easily disputed.
Informal Logic
 Writers of arguments rarely adhere to the rules of
formal logic.
 Aristotle called this informal logic an enthymeme.
 Think of it like a syllogism with only two parts
• Can you name the penguin’s:
• Major premise?
• Minor Premise?
• Conclusion?
Cultural Differences in Logical Arguments
 People of different cultures don’t always share the
same beliefs or assumptions.

What assumptions aren’t shared by these two men?
The Toulmin Model
 British philosopher Stephen Toulmin formulated a
more practical way to analyze logic.
 The Toulmin model is broken into three parts:
 Claim: Main belief or statement (ex: Tony probably
owns a pet.)
 Data/Reason: Evidence supporting the claim (ex: Tony
owns a cat named Pepper.)
 Warrant: Similar to the major premise, it is the main
assumption on which a claim is founded (ex: Cats are
considered pets in most cultures, including Tony’s.)
Toulmin’s Advantages
 Toulmin’s model is much more fluid than syllogisms.
 The model incorporates, qualifiers such as “probably”,
“generally”, or “presumably”.
 This allows any of the three parts to be put in any order
by the author.
Understanding Claims & Warrants
 Many kinds supports for claims:
 Supported by Fact, supported by Expert Opinion,
supported by Values
 Warrant can vary as well:
 Many warrants, such as laws, can be used without
controversy and are very straightforward.
 Other more controversial warrants aren’t as widely
accepted. Be prepared to defend the warrant if you use
it.
Evaluating Claims & Warrants
 Argument writers must remember who their audience
is when stating a warrant. If their intended audience
is going to accept the warrant, then they have no need
to defend it in their claim. If their audience won’t
readily accept the warrant, then it needs to be
defended.
 Remember that no claim is universally valid, and
that no warrant is universally acceptable.
Fallacies
 Flaws in a writer’s reasoning are known as logical
fallacies.
 Many have committed fallacies without realizing it.
 However others purposely use fallacies in order to win
arguments.
 However if one wishes to pursue the truth and have a
reasonable, logical discussion, then one must avoid
fallacies.
Appeals
1. Pity
Writers use this to inspire emotion, but be
careful not to use pity that could distract from the
conclusion.
Examples:
• charity, homeless and animal shelters
2. Prejudice
Often used to appeal the reader’s personal
values, but be VERY careful not to use too much or it may
lead to exaggerated and negative remarks.
Examples:
• The Holocaust couldn’t have happened if it weren’t for
the obvious dislike for Jews in Germany
• In most divorce cases, women are given custody of the
child which is a sex-based prejudiced.
Appeals (Continued)
3.
Tradition
Using this can be risky because it
can quickly become fallacious.
Examples: Using the Constitution as a
template of American values
4. Analogy
An analogy is a comparison that
can work on multiple levels. Always make
sure you have more than one thing in
common between items or topics. It is a
speculation not a truly justified statement.
Examples:
“You are as annoying as nails on a
chalkboard.” You must be pretty annoying
for someone to say that.
Attacking the Character of Your Opponents
 When you make personal attacks on
opponents while ignoring what they
have to say (also known as the Ad
Hominem Argument)
 Try to avoid using this at all costs!
It’s always wiser to make justified
responses rather than ones based on
mere individual character.
Sadly, this method of argument is
common in American politics and is
articulated in this comic. The lobster,
who is a lot stronger than his opponent,
questions and attacks his opponent by
his personal stature and build rather
than his arguments.
False Causes and Equivocation
1.
Attributing False Causes
When you assume an event is the result of something that merely occurred before
it, you commit a fallacy of a false causation (also known as post hoc reasoning).
Example: Lucky charms which usually don’t have any affect in your day whatsoever
2. Equivocating
Using vague language that can mislead an audience is something to watch out for.
Another way of thinking of equivocation is when using one word in several different sense
without acknowledging a change in meaning.
Example:
“I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show.
So, I think I'll watch this "Real World" marathon tonight instead of studying for my exam.”
Ignoring and Jumping to Conclusions
1.
Ignoring the Question
It’s often used in politics, when
they don’t feel like answering a question
that may turn voters against them, they skip
and change the subject. Students and even
teachers are guilty of this fallacy. You must
be careful to find ways to answer each
question without affecting your influence
negatively.
2. Jumping to Conclusions
When a conclusion is made
without any means of real support from
quality evidence. Always have more than
one piece of evidence to support your
statement and never be quick to judge.
Over Exaggerating and False Dilemmas
1.
Over Exaggerating
AVOID ALWAYS!!! Try to keep a
moderate view of what your opponent has
to say.
2.
False Dilemmas
When a speaker or writer poses a
choice between two while overlooking other
possibilities.
Examples:
“What’s wrong with low grades? Is cheating
really any better?”
Reasoning That Doesn’t Follow
 When a conclusion doesn’t follow it’s
explanations logically (also known as
non sequitur)
 Commonly seen in complex sentences
and can easily lead into unintended
arguments to rise. In complex
sentences, the subordinate clause doesn’t
clearly tie together with the main clause,
bringing confusion.
The advertisement tells us that Dr. Pepper, a
soft drink know for high sugar content, is
good for our lives. This irrational reasoning
opens up this question: How can an
unhealthy drink make us have better lives?
Emotional Arguments
 Appealing to your readers' emotions is
one of the most powerful ways to
construct and argument
 How we use emotion in an argument
depends on our ability to assess the
impact of a line of reasoning or an
emotional appeal on our audience and
what we hope to achieve with the
argument
 Arguments about controversial issues are
most fitting for emotional appeals, but
emotion can be used in any argument Emotional appeals work on several
different levels:
1.
visual detail
2.
individual words
3.
Phrases - words must be carefully
chosen because of the various
connotations
Strengths of Emotional Argument
 Emotional appeals are
more effective when you
immediately open the
argument with vivid
scenes because it
establishes deep and
powerful emotions
 Discussing the pros and
cons of the argument will
enhance your credibility
by highlighting your
understanding the
situation and defining
the argument as
reasonable and logical
Weakness of Emotional Arguments
 Emotional arguments do not work in all circumstances because
emotion itself is so complex and often misunderstood
 Trying to anticipate how readers might react emotionally to specific
point is nearly impossible (You can only try to anticipate their
responses on the basis of your experience, knowledge, and
understanding of the audience and the rhetorical context
Character Based Arguments
 Invoking character is one of the most basic and long
standing strategies for argument
 Aristotle identified character as one of the most
powerful components of persuasion available to a
speaker
 Writers use both negative and positive aspects of a
character to advance their argument
 Authority and expertise can support the characters
position in an argument
Character Based Arguments in
Advertising
 Certain characters,
usually celebrities, help
influence various social
groups
Character Based Arguments in Law
and Politics
 In law, lawyers use
character as a way to
establish and/or
undermine the credibility
of witnesses as they defend
their arguments
 In politics, character is
often used to denounce
and/or glorify certain
candidates in political
campaigns and elections
Works Cited












Penguin comic: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowdenb/60/f12/syl-f12.htm
Rich man: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/so-warren-buffet-the-rich-guy-who-wants-the-rich-to-pay-moretaxes/question-2122791/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s
Poor man: http://ivarfjeld.com/2010/11/20/poverty-in-the-us-almost-as-bad-as-in-north-korea/
Verbal abuse ad: http://positivemed.com/2012/05/11/your-words-have-power-use-them-wisely/
Sign ad: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2968857/posts
Save the seals:
http://www.peta2.com/heroes/save-the-seals-celebrity-ad-series/brody-jenners-save-the-seals-ad/
Romney ad: http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-09-26/romney-problem-not-solution-obamas-adchannels-reagan/
Obama ad: http://blog.4president.org/2012/2012/02/barack-obama-2012-the-only-candidate-fighting-for-the-middleclass-blog-ads-now-online-in-300x250-and-728x90-sizes.html
ASPCA dog pity photo: http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ASPCA-dog-in-shelter-2.jpg
Japanese prejudiced photo: https://diogenesii.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/000411-copy.jpg
Analogy photo: http://annettebrowninstruction.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/1/5/19155131/4196897_orig.gif

Traditions photo: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/Lr6SHvRfaFM/T6mvw_aVWFI/AAAAAAAAAb4/4zh007cOZiE/s1600/family+dinner.jpg



Jumping to conclusions: http://loving-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nov192013-paper-airplane.jpg
Over exaggerating: http://www.whatyoucanachieve.com/images/over-exaggerate.jpg
False reasoning: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--CEHz7mryaI/TZPu52x2lI/AAAAAAAAFus/XCnzL3i449g/s1600/DrPepper.jpg