Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Critical Reading 10 Steps - TEN Critical Reading Skilled readers are those who can recognize an author’s point and the support for that point. Critical readers are those who can evaluate an author’s support for a point and determine whether that support is solid or not. This chapter will extend your ability to read critically in three ways. It will explain and offer practice in each of the following: Separating fact from opinion Detecting propaganda Recognizing errors in reasoning As illustrated in the picture on page 399 suggests, facts are solidly grounded and can be checked for accuracy; opinions are afloat and open to question. Look at the photograph on page 400 of a gravestone. What do you think are the facts on the gravestone? What do you think is opinion it contains? Fact = information that can be proved true through objective evidence Opinion = a belief, judgment, or conclusion that cannot be objectively proved true Journal Assignment: Complete Writing Facts and Opinions Exercise Page 402. Point about Fact Statements of fact may be found to be untrue. Suppose you discovered that the Quad Tower is only the second-tallest building in the city. The statement would then be an error, not a fact. It is not unusual for evidence to show that a “fact” is not really true. It was once considered to be a fact that the world was flat, for example, but that “fact” turned out to be an error. Points about Opinion Value words (ones that contain a judgment) often represent opinions. These are words like best, worst, lovely, great etc. Value words often express judgments—they are generally subjective, not objective. While factual statements report on observed reality, subjective statements interpret reality. Objective = the observation that it is raining outside Subjective = it is the worst rainstorm ever The words should and ought too often signal opinions. Those words introduce what people think should, or ought to, be done. Other people will disagree. Examples: -Couples should definitely not live together before marriage. -Couples ought to live together before getting married to be sure they are compatible. Don’t mistake widely held opinions for facts. Much information that sounds factual is really opinion. A real estate agent, for example, might say, “At the price listed, this rancher is a great buy.” Buyers would be wise to wonder what the value word great means to the agent. Or an ad may claim that a particular automobile is “the most economical car on the road today,” a statement that at first seems factual. But what is meant by economical? If the car offers the most miles per gallon but the worst record for expensive repairs, you might not agree that it’s economical. Advertisers and politicians often try to manipulate us by presenting opinions as if they are facts. For instance, one politician may claim that another will be soft on terrorism or will waste our tax dollars. But accusations are often not facts. Clear-thinking citizens must aim to get below the surface of claims and determine as much factual truth as possible. Finally, remember that much of what we read and hear is a mixture of fact and opinion. Our job, then, is to draw upon existing fact and opinion and to arrive at an informed opinion. On the Supreme Court, for example, nine justices deliberate in order to deliver informed opinions about important issues of our time. But even these justices often disagree and deliver split decisions. The reality is that most of what matters in life is very complex and cannot be separated into simple fact and opinion. Our challenge always is to arrive at the best possible informed opinion, and even then there will be people who disagree with us. Individual Activity: Journal the answers to Check Your Understanding Pg. 404-405 (1-10) Detecting Propaganda View the picture on page 407. Advertisers, salespeople, and politicians are constantly promoting their points: “Buy our product,” “Believe what I say,” and “Vote for me.” Often they lack adequate factual support for their points, so they appeal to our emotions by using propaganda techniques. Part of being a critical reader is having the ability to recognize these propaganda techniques for the emotional fluff that they are. The critical reader strips away the fluff to determine whether there is solid support for the point in question. None of us wants to accept someone else’s point as a result of emotional manipulation. This section will introduce you to six common propaganda techniques: Bandwagon Testimonial Transfer Plain Folks Name Calling Glittering Generalities While there are other propaganda techniques, these are among the most common. They all use emotional appeals to distract from the fact they are not providing solid evidence to support their points. 1. Bandwagon Old-fashioned parades usually began with a large wagon carrying a brass band. Therefore, to “jump on the bandwagon” means to join a parade, or to do what many others are doing. The bandwagon technique tells us to buy a product or support a certain issue because, in effect, “everybody else is doing it.” A TV commercial may claim that more and more people are watching the evening news with anchorperson Kerrie Berger. Or a cell phone ad may show people in many different kinds of occupations using a certain cell phone. Examples: -With appealing music in the background, flashing scenes show many people wearing the sponsor’s jeans. -On a beautiful day, almost everyone on the beach leaves . 2.Testimonial Famous athletes often appear on television as spokespersons for all sorts of products, from soft drinks to automobiles. Movie and TV stars make commercials endorsing products and political issues. The idea behind the testimonial approach is that the testimony of famous people influences the viewers that admire these people. What consumers must remember is that famous people get paid to endorse products. In addition, these people are not necessarily experts about the products or the political issues, they promote. Examples: -An actor promotes a product intended to help a man’s athletic performance. -A sports star praises the brand of sneakers he is wearing. 3. Transfer The most common type of propaganda technique is transfer, in which products or candidates try to associate themselves with something that people admire or love. In the illustration on page 407, we see a political candidate holding a sign saying “Vote for Me” and standing next to a beauty queen wrapped in a U.S.A. banner. There are countless variations on this ad, in which a beautiful and sexy woman (or an American flag) is used to promote a product or candidate or cause. The hope is that we will transfer the positive feelings we have toward a beautiful person to the product or candidate. Examples: - A beautiful woman in a slinky red dress is shown driving the sponsor’s car. -A hospital chain uses a portrait of Benjamin Franklin in its ads and claims that it, like Franklin, stands for new ideas. 4. Plain Folks Some people distrust political candidates who are rich or welleducated. They feel that these candidates, if elected, will not be able to understand the problems of the average working person. Therefore, candidates often use the plain folks technique, presenting themselves as ordinary, average citizens. They try to show they are just “plain folks” by referring in their speeches to hard times in their lives or by posing for photographs while wearing a hard hat or mingling with everyday people. Similarly, the presidents of some companies appear in their own ads, trying to show that their giant corporations are just family businesses run by ordinary folks. Example: - Average-looking American kids are shown at home trying and enjoying a cereal. - A president of an insurance company is shown with his family, talking about his concern for their safety and well-being if he should not be there some day. 5. Name Calling Name Calling is the use of emotionally loaded language to negative comments to turn people against a rival product, candidate, or movement. An example of name calling would be a political candidate’s labeling an opponent “soft,” “radical,” or “wimpy.” Examples: -The fast-food industry labels critics of their industry as “food police,” “cookie cops,” and “the grease Gestapo.” - During a taste test, consumers describe the other leading brand of spaghetti sauce as “too salty” and “thin and tasteless.” 6. Glittering Generalities A glittering generality is an important-sounding but unspecific claim about some product, candidate, or cause. It cannot be proved true or false because no evidence is offered to support the claim. Such claims use general words such as “great” “magical,” or “ultimate.” “Simply the best,” an ad might say about a certain television set. But no specific evidence of any kind is offered to support such a generality. “The right candidate for our city,” a campaign slogan might claim. But what does “right” really mean? It and similar phrases sound good but say nothing definite. Examples: -A store ad claims, “Fashions that will bring out the rainbow in you.” - A canned-food ad boasts of “nutrition for today.” Class Activity: Practice 2 Pg. 411-412 (1-10) Peer Group Activity: Using magazines find an ad that reveals a propaganda technique. Propaganda Techniques -Bandwagon -Testimonial -Transfer -Plain Folks -Name Calling -Glittering Generalities --END 1st Day Instruction Recognizing Errors in Reasoning So far in this chapter, you have gotten practice in separating fact from opinion and in spotting propaganda. In this section you will learn about some common errors in reasoning—also known as fallacies—that take the place of the real support needed in an argument. As shown in the illustration on Pg. 412, a valid point is based on a rock-like foundation of solid support; a fallacious point is based on a house of cards that offers no real support at all. Regrettably, these fallacies appear all too often in political arguments, often as the result of deliberate manipulation, other times as the result of careless thinking. Two Common Fallacies 1. 2. Changing the subject – attention is diverted from the issue at hand by presenting irrelevant support—evidence that actually has nothing to do with the argument. Hasty generalization – a point is based on inadequate support. To draw a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence is to make a hasty generalization. Below are six other common fallacies. In all of these fallacies, a point is argued, but no true support is offered for that point. Three Fallacies that Ignore the Issue Circular Reasoning Personal Attack Straw Man Three Fallacies that Oversimplify the Issue False Cause False Comparison Either-Or Fallacies That Ignore the Issue Circular Reasoning Part of a point cannot reasonably be used as evidence to support it. The fallacy of including such illogical evidence is called circular reasoning; it is also known as begging the question. Example: Mr. Edwards is a great teacher because he is so wonderful at teaching. Personal Attack Personal attack ignores the issue under discussion and concentrate instead on the character of the opponent. It takes the form of accusations made about the opponent’s personal life or character. Example: Senator Brill’s opinions on public housing are worthless. He can’t even manage to hold his own household together—he’s been married and divorced three times already. Straw Man An opponent made of straw can be defeated very easily. Sometimes, if one’s real opponent is putting up too good of a fight, it can be tempting to build a scarecrow and battle it instead. Example: Ms. Collins opposes capital punishment. But letting murderers out on the street to kill again is a crazy idea. If we did that, no one would be safe. Ms. Collins, however, never advocated “letting murderers out on the street to kill again.” In fact, she wants to keep them in jail for life rather than execute them. The straw man fallacy suggests that the opponent favors an obviously unpopular cause—when the opponent really doesn’t support anything of the kind. Fallacies That Oversimplify the Issue False Cause You have probably heard someone say as a joke, “I know it’s going to rain today because I just washed the car.” The idea that someone can make it rain by washing a car is funny because the two events obviously have nothing to do with each other. However, with more complicated issues, it is easy to make the mistake known as the fallacy of false cause. The mistake is to assume that because event B follows event A, event B was caused by event A. Cause-and-effect situations can be difficult to analyze, and people are often tempted to oversimplify them by focusing on one “cause” and ignoring other possible causes. To identify an argument using a false cause, look for alternative causes. Example: The Macklin Company was more prosperous before Ms. Williams became president. Clearly, she is the cause of the decline. Event A: Ms. Williams became president. Event B: The Macklin Company’s earnings declined. However, Ms. Williams has been president for only a few months. What other possible causes could have been responsible for the decline? Perhaps the policies of the previous president are just now affecting the company. Perhaps the market for the company’s product has changed. Example: I knew I shouldn’t have taken the baby to the park today. Now he’s got a cold. There are many ways the baby could have caught a cold besides being taken to the park. False Comparison When the poet Robert Burns wrote, “My love is like a red, red rose,” he meant that both the woman he loved and a rose are beautiful. In other ways—such as having green leaves and thorns, for example—his love did not resemble a rose at all. Comparisons are often a good way to clarify a point. But because two things are not alike in all respects, comparisons (sometimes called analogies) often make poor evidence for arguments. In the error in reasoning known as false comparison, the assumption is that two things are more alike than they really are. Example: It didn’t hurt your grandfather to get to work without a car, and it won’t hurt you either. Grandpa didn’t have to be at work an hour after his last class. In fact, Grandpa didn’t go to school or even have a family car available to him. Example: I don’t know why you’re so worried about my grades. Albert Einstein had lousy grades in high school, and he did all right. Either-Or It is often wrong to assume that there are only two sides to a question. Offering only two choices when more actually exist is an either-or fallacy. For example, the statement “You are either with us or against us” assumes that there is no middle ground. Example: People opposed to unrestricted free speech are really in favor of censorship. This argument ignores the fact that a person could believe in free speech as well as in laws that prohibit slander or that punish someone for falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Example: If you don’t study at least three hours a night, you’re not really serious about being in college. (Some issues do have only one side—Will you pass Reading?) CHAPTER REVIEW Critical readers evaluate an author’s support for a point and determine whether that support is solid or not. Critical reading includes the following three a abilities: 1. 2. 3. Separating fact from opinion. A fact is information that can be proved true through evidence. An opinion is a belief, judgment , or conclusion that cannot be proven true. Detecting propaganda. Advertisers, salespeople, and politicians often try to promote their points by appealing to our emotions rather than our powers of reason. To do so, they practice six common propaganda techniques: bandwagon, testimonial, transfer, plain folks, name calling, and glittering generalities. Recognizing errors in reasoning. Politicians and others are at times guilty of errors in reasoning—fallacies—that take the place of the real support needed in an argument. Such fallacies include circular reasoning, person attack, straw man, false comparison, and either-or. Peer Groups Activity: --Complete Review Test #1 Pg. 419 (1-10) (Journal Answers) Individual Activity: --Read “Gambling—A Dangerous Game” Pg. 423-427 --Complete “Reading Comprehension Questions Pg. 428-429 (1-10) (Journal Answers)