AP Lang & Comp: Argument

0.0(0)
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/50

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

51 Terms

1
New cards

Subjective claims

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

2
New cards

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).

3
New cards

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)

4
New cards

Stategies of reasoning

deduction, induction, categorization, analogy, authorization, plea

5
New cards

Pattern of reasoning

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

6
New cards

Detailed evidence

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

7
New cards

First-hand Evidence

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

8
New cards

Second-hand Evidence

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

9
New cards

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)

10
New cards

Models of Argumentation

Classical, Toulmin, Rogerian

11
New cards

Classical Model of Argumentation

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

12
New cards

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

13
New cards

Rogerian Model of Argmentation

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

14
New cards

Classical Model outline

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

15
New cards

Rogerian Model outline

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

16
New cards

Toulmin Model outline

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

17
New cards

Objective claims

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

18
New cards

Deductive Reasoning

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

19
New cards

Inductive Reasoning

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

20
New cards

Categorization

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

21
New cards

Analogy

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

22
New cards

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

23
New cards

Authorization

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

24
New cards

Plea

uses emotional expressions of feeling to aid/defend an assertion

25
New cards

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

deductive reasoning

26
New cards

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

inductive reasoning

27
New cards

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

categorization

28
New cards

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

cause and effect reasoning

29
New cards

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

authority

30
New cards

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

analogy

31
New cards

Hasty Generalization

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

32
New cards

Slippery Slope

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

33
New cards

Straw Man

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

34
New cards

False Dilemma

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

35
New cards

Post Hoc/False Cause

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

36
New cards

Red Herring

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

37
New cards

Genetic Fallacy

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

38
New cards

Ad populum

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

39
New cards

Ad Hominem

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

40
New cards

Weak Analogy

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

41
New cards

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.

42
New cards

Tu Quoque

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

43
New cards

Appeal to Ignorance

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

44
New cards

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

45
New cards

Equivication

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

46
New cards

Non Sequiter

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

47
New cards

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.

48
New cards

Card-Stacking

omitting facts that challenge your position

49
New cards

Syllogisms

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

50
New cards

Invalid Syllogisms

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

51
New cards

Enthymemes

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