Everything's An Argument Chapters 1-6

Why do we make arguments?

1. Convince and Inform
2. Persuade
3. To Make Decisions
4. Understand and Explore

Arguments to Convince and Inform

lead audiences to accept a claim as true or reasonable based on information or evidence that seem factual and reliable

Arguments to Persuade

Seek to move people beyond conviction to action - moving people to do more than just agree

Arguments to Make Decisions

Push to find consensus and make a choice/decision - choices between opposing positions already set in stone

Arguments to Understand and Explore

Arguments that genuinely explore possibilities without constraints or prejudices

Invitational Arguments

exploration of ideas that begin by trying to understand another's perspective

Rogerian Arguments

approaches audiences in nonthreatening ways, finding common ground and establishing trust among those who disagree with the issue - try to see where other person is coming from - look for "win-win"

Rhetoric

the art of persuasion

When do we make Arguments? (Occasions)

Forensic Arguments
Deliberative Arguments
Epideictic/ Ceremonial Arguments

Forensic Argument

Debates about what happened in the past

Deliberative Arguments

Arguments about the future - what will or should happen

Ceremonial Arguments

Arguments about the present - explore the current values of society; affirm or challenge widely shared beliefs or assumptions

Statis Theory

a means of categorizing arguments based on the kinds of issues they address

What are the kinds of arguments?

1. Fact
2. Definition
3. Evaluation
4. Proposal

Argument of Fact

"Did something happen?" Involves a statement that can be proved or disproved by evidence

Argument of Definition

"What is its nature?" Define area of disagreement

Arguments of Evaluation

"What is the quality or cause?" Present criteria and then measure individual people, ideas, or things against those standards

Proposal Arguments

Answers: Now what do we do about all this? AFTER issue has been confirmed, defined, evaluated, causes traced, then you need to figure out how to address the controversy

Intended Audiences

the people an author hopes to and expects to address

Invoked reader

an actual reader that the author shapes the response of in a way they imagine as ideal/desirable

Pathos

Emotional Appeal- generates emotions that the writer hopes will lead the audience to accept a certain claim

Ethos

Ethical Appeal - When a writer comes across as trustworthy because they share the same values - credibility and authority too

Logos

A logical appeal - the use of reason and evidence

Kairos

describes the most suitable time and place for making an argument and the most opportune ways of expressing it

Three main elements of Ethos

1. Credibility: trustworthy
2. Authority: has authority to speak to an issue
3. Unselfish or Clear Motives

Two kinds of logos arguments

1. artistic proof
2. inartistic proof

artistic proof

Arguments the writer creates - constructed arguments appealing to reason/ common sense

Inartistic proof

Arguments the writer is given - hard evidence, facts, stats, etc.

Syllogism

Type of deductive reasoning kind of like transitive property (Humans are mortal, Socrates is human, therefore Socrates is mortal

Enthymeme

A compressed argument that works off an assumption based on what your audience already knows and will accept

Analogy

complex/extended comparison

Precedent

also involves comparison - "if this then surely that"

Fallacy

argumentative moves flawed by their very nature or structure

Scare Tactics

sometimes if used too much to provoke too much (illegitimate) fear will backfire and your audience will stop listening

slippery slope

portrays today's tiny missteps as tomorrow's slide to disaster - can become a fallacy when an author exaggerates possible consequences of an action to frighten readers

Either or Choices

can sometimes reduce a complicated issue to simple terms or used to obscure legitimate alternatives (eat your broccoli, or go to your room)

Overly Sentimental Appeals

Use tender emotions excessively to extract readers from facts - make a reader feel guilty if they challenge an idea/policy/proposal - they seldom give a complete picture of a situation

Bandwagon Appeals

urge people to follow the same path as everyone else - push people to take easier path rather than thinking independently

False Authority

when writers offer themselves or other authorities as sufficient warrant for believing a claim "X is true because I say so. (warrant = What I say must be true) - when reading make sure to "trust, but verify"

Dogmatism

asserting or assuming that a particular position is the only one that is conceivably acceptable - undermines the trust of character - imply that no support is necessary because the truth is self-evident

Ad-Hominem Arguments

attack the character of a person rather than the claims he or she makes - attempting to destroy the credibility of your opponent

Stacking the Deck

showing only one side of the story, the one in their favor - not showing that you considered alternatives loses the trust of your audience

Hasty Generalization

an inference drawn from insufficient evidence - to avoid these make sure to have enough evidence and to tag with a sensible qualifier (some, a few, many, most, occasionally, in my limited experience, etc.)

Faulty Causality

the faulty assumption that because one even follows the other, the first event caused the second

Begging the Question

assuming as true the very claim that's disputed (You can't give me a C...I'm an A student)

Equivocation

half-truths or arguments that give lies an honest appearance - usually based on tricks of language

Non-Sequitur

an argument whose claims, reasons, or warrants don't connect logically - authors sometimes miss a step in an otherwise logical chain of reasoning

Straw Man

attacks arguments that no one is really making or portray opponent's positions as more extreme or less coherent than they are

Red Herring

changes the subject abruptly or introduces an irrelevant claim or fact that to throw off readers from the trail - can also use to undermine an opponent's arguments

Faulty Analogy

inaccurate or inconsequential comparisons between two objects or concepts - happens sometimes if an analogy is proven false, taken too far, or taken too seriously

Rhetorical Analysis

The close reading of a text/video/speech, etc. to figure out how exactly it functions

policy

a claim that something should or should not, to evoke change Ex:
Obesity causes health problems.

cause and effect

a claim that when something happens, it causes something else to occur due to the cause Ex:
When you smoke for 20+ years you will likely get lung cancer.

Value

a claim that something is good or bad, right or wrong Ex:
Harrison Ford is the greatest actor ever.

Fact

a claim that something is or is not
Ex:
Obesity causes health problems.