AP Lang & Comp: Argument

Subjective claims

Subjective claims

assert that something should exist and present evidence derived from ethical, moral, or aesthetic convictions

Argument

a form of discourse in which the writer or speaker presents a pattern of reasoning (reinforced by detailed evidence and a refutation of counterargument); and tries to convince the audience to accept the claim, that the arguer's point of view is sensible and worthy of serious consideration (if not outright acceptance).

Three basic part of argument

1. relevant information (as much as possible)

2. convincing evidence (supporting claim)

3. pattern of reasoning (logical progression from thesis/claim to support to conclusion)

Stategies of reasoning

deduction, induction, categorization, analogy, authorization, plea

Pattern of reasoning

logical progression; defined unfamiliar terms or concepts; enough background info to provide context.

Detailed evidence

must be accurate, timely, relevant, and efficient; distinguished as indisputable (factual) and disputable (not verifiable)

First-hand Evidence

Personal experience, observation, or general knowledge. Anecdotes and current events are forms of first-hand evidence.

Second-hand Evidence

Evidence that is accessed through research, reading, and investigation. It includes factual and historical information, expert opinion, and quantitative data

the APPEALS

Ethos - authority, traditional values, ethical and moral behavior

Pathos - feelings and basic human needs such as security, love, belonging, health, and well-being

Logos - reason and rational thinking (especially facts and data)

Models of Argumentation

Classical, Toulmin, Rogerian

Classical Model of Argumentation

neutral audience; committed arguer; appeals and evidence; relies of fundamentals of rational thinking

Toulmin Model of Argumentation

complex, real world issues; emphasis on ethics and values, not just evidence; complex claims that must be qualified; everything must be supported and proven

Rogerian Model of Argmentation

specific audience; compromise, solution based, seeks common ground, moves away from win/lose and pro/con

Classical Model outline

introduction; background; lines of reasoning; alternative arguments; conclusion

Rogerian Model outline

introduction; contexts; writer's position; benefits to the opponent

Toulmin Model outline

claim; stated position (with a "because clause" & often a Qualifier); data or grounds; warrant; backing

Objective claims

assert something that actually exists and presents evidence that is factual; present themselves as objective truths, but not self-evident truths

Deductive Reasoning

Concluding assertions you know to be true; reasoning from the general to the specific

Inductive Reasoning

arriving at a conclusion that is based on what you judge to be sufficient evidence; reasoning from the specific to the general

Categorization

placing an idea/ issue in a larger context (using strategies of definition, classification, & division)

Analogy

trying to enhance the validity of a claim by comparing it to a similar situation, but in a different context

Cause and Effect

explains why things have/will happen; shows purpose; links things to higher values; shows link between what happens first and next; goes beyond correlation to give refutable evidence of casualty

Authorization

establishes the validity of a claim by invoking authority (personal testimonial from expert of pre-established policy/law)

Plea

uses emotional expressions of feeling to aid/defend an assertion

In ________________________, an arguer needs to assure they are not relying on unsupported generalizations, stereotypes, or assumptions.

deductive reasoning

In ____________________________, the arguer needs to make sure the number of samples is adequate, and that the samples are reliable

inductive reasoning

In _____________________, the arguer needs to make sure definitions are clear

categorization

In _______________________________, the arguer needs to watch out for mistaking temporal relationships for causal

cause and effect reasoning

In _____________, the arguer needs to assure the expertise of the "authority"

authority

In ______________, the arguer needs to make sure that the situations have more in common than superficial characteristics

analogy

Hasty Generalization

a fallacy in which a speaker jumps to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence

Slippery Slope

A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented

Straw Man

A logical fallacy that involves the creation of an easily refutable position; misrepresenting, then attacking an opponent's position.

False Dilemma

A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in fact more options are available.

Post Hoc/False Cause

Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.

Red Herring

A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion

Genetic Fallacy

Arguments that state that an idea should be discounted simply because of its source or origin.

Ad populum

This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to "everybody's doing it, so it must be a good thing to do."

Ad Hominem

a fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute

Weak Analogy

Claiming that items with only minor similarities are the same in almost everything else.

Appeal to Authority

A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for a famous person or institution.

Tu Quoque

Dismissing someone's viewpoint on an issue because s/he is inconsistent in that very thing (hypocritical).

Appeal to Ignorance

A fallacy that uses an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the conclusion's correctness.

Begging the Question

asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence (aka circular reasoning); restates the argument rather than actually proving it

Equivication

Using words that have at least two different definitions to support or refute an issue

Non Sequiter

Latin for "it does not follow." When one comment isn't logically related to another.

Affirming the Consequence

the first part of the assertion (the '"if" clause) is the antecedent and the second part (the "then" clause) is called the consequent.

Card-Stacking

omitting facts that challenge your position

Syllogisms

proper analysis of premises; to arrange premises so that only one true conclusion is possible

Invalid Syllogisms

if used carelessly, syllogisms can instill a false sense of confidence in unsupported conclusions

Enthymemes

A shortened syllogism which omits one premise, usually the major premise, allowing the audience to fill it in.