Argument FRQ

Claims

Have to be opinions based (fact, value, policy)

Evidence

• Firsthand evidence (gained from personal experience)

• Second hand evidence (info gain via research)

Strong evidence

Analogies (w/ evidence), experiences and anecdotes, observation and common knowledge, historical and current events, expert opinion, quantitive data

Weak evidence

Analogies (w/out evidence), references to fiction, hypothetical, general commentary

Ethos

First hand evidence

Logos

Second hand evidence

Pathos

First hand evidence (emotional)

Inductive claim

Moving from specific argument —> broader claim

Deductive claim

Logical general argument —> specific conclusion

Introduction

Hook, grabs attention, introduces subject, ethos, leads to thesis

Narration

Factual information, background, logos and pathos

Confirmation

Most logical reason, concrete evidence, logos

Refutation

Counter argument, connects evidence, logos

Conclusion

So what, ethos and pathos

Line of reasoning

Connections between claims in argument and the evidence you present to support claims

Method of argument development

Narration, cause and effect, compare and contrast, definition, description

Questions

Ability to craft an argument, establish line of reasoning, explain relationship between thesis and evidence, demonstrate effective rhetorical choices

Quote response (prompt)

Understand ideas being presented with claim using own evidence

Editorial (prompt)

Problem/solution argument: how to approach situation. End with call to action

Scenario (prompt)

Look at situation and respond to it; similar to editorial although you done have to come up with an action plan

Relationship between concepts (prompt)

Make claims about the connection between two abstract ideas. Requires claims of value and sometimes claims of evidence

Open ended thesis

Does not include all points writer wants to make, inductive in claim, suggests abstract claim of value

Close ended thesis

More specific, limited claim of value and includes list of main points.

Counter arguments

Summarizes primary counter argument then preceded by “while/although” followed by writers claim, preceded by “but/however”

SPEECH (types of evidence)

Science, pop culture, entertainment, experience, current events, history BE SPECIFIC

Evidence to avoid

Fictional example, hypthothetical scenarios, general situations, examples that make the same point

Topic and concluding sentences

Debatable topic sentence end with debatable concluding sentence

Analysis and commentary

How evidence supports claim/reason, direct, specific detailed example, comments back to claim

Rhetorical choices and situation

What the best argument for audience

Counter argument and refutation

Angle at which you approach question

Consessions/qualifications and responding to argument concession

Acknowledges viability of opposing argument —> builds credibility and nuance to own position

Qualification

Acknowledges limits of claim ,reasons or evidence

Logical fallacies

Evidence used in argument that aren’t true/good

Relevance (logical fallacy)

Not connected to claim

Accuracy (logical fallacy)

Not accurate

Sufficient (logical fallacy)

Insufficient to support claim

Red herring (relevance)

Misdirection, introducing something new and distraction

Faulty/false analogy (relevance)

Comparison of two things that are not logically relavent

Ad hominem (relavence)

Attack on character or speaker instead of argument itself

False authority (relavence)

Using someone as an expert who’s not

Straw man (fallacies of accuracy)

Oversimplify example to refute opponent

Slippery slope (fallacies of accuracy)

Scare tactic that claims one action would lead to extreme action

Either or/false dilemma (fallacies of accuracy)

Two extreme options framed as being only possibility

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (fallacies of accuracy)

Correlation doesnt equal causation

Hasty generalization (fallacies of accuracy)

Using one anecdote to prove whole argument

Circular reasoning (fallacies of accuracy)

Using claim as evidence

Bandwagon (fallacies of accuracy)

Everyone’s doing so should I

Stack the deck (fallacies of accuracy)

Shows only one side of an argument, ignoring the other side