Ap Lang Midterm
Writing and Rhetorical Terms
Narration: Writing that tells a story by presenting events in a logical sequence.
Description: Writing that uses sensory details to create a vivid picture of a person, place, or thing.
Definition: Writing that explains the meaning of a term or concept by providing a detailed explanation and examples.
Classification: Writing that organizes items into categories based on shared characteristics.
Process Analysis: Writing that explains how something works or how to do something, often step by step.
Problem/Solution: Writing that identifies an issue and proposes ways to resolve it.
Exemplification: Writing that provides examples to clarify or support a point.
Cause and Effect: Writing that analyzes the reasons something happened or the results of an event or action.
Comparison and Contrast: Writing that examines similarities and differences between two or more subjects.
Persuasion / Argumentation: Writing that aims to convince the audience of a specific viewpoint or course of action.
Repetition: The deliberate reuse of words or phrases to emphasize a point or theme.
Anaphora: The repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses or sentences.
Epistrophe: The repetition of the same word or phrase at the end of successive clauses or sentences.
Juxtaposition: Placing two contrasting ideas, images, or statements close together to highlight differences or create an effect.
Compare and Contrast: A method of organizing writing that examines both similarities and differences between two subjects.
Allusion: A reference to a well-known person, place, event, or work of art or literature to enrich meaning.
Parallelism: The use of similar grammatical structures or patterns to create balance and rhythm in writing.
Logical Fallacies
Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient or selective evidence.
Faulty Causality (Post Hoc): Confusing chronology with causation, assuming that one event caused another because it followed it.
Non Sequitur: A statement that does not logically follow from what preceded it.
Equivocation: A half-truth that purposefully obscures the whole truth.
Begging the Question: Making an argument that assumes its conclusion without providing evidence; circular reasoning.
Faulty Analogy: Making an inaccurate or misleading comparison between two things.
Stacked Evidence: Presenting only one side of an argument to distort the issue.
Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant issue to distract from the main argument.
Emotional Fallacies
Sentimental Appeals: Using emotion to distract from facts.
Scare Tactics: Frightening people into agreeing by predicting dire consequences.
Bandwagon Appeals: Encouraging agreement by suggesting that "everyone else is doing it."
Slippery Slope: Suggesting that one action will inevitably lead to another, often disastrous, outcome.
Either/Or Choices: Oversimplifying an argument by presenting only two options.
False Need: Creating an unnecessary desire for something.
Ethical Fallacies
False Authority: Asking the audience to accept a claim based on the authority of someone unqualified.
Using Authority Instead of Evidence: Offering personal authority as proof.
Guilt by Association: Discrediting someone by examining the character of their associates.
Dogmatism: Asserting that a belief is the only acceptable one, shutting down discussion.
Moral Equivalence: Comparing minor problems to much more serious issues.
Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
Strawperson: Misrepresenting an argument to easily refute it.
Logical/Rhetorical Fallacies
A fallacy is the use of poor, deceptive reasoning for the construction of an argument. Fallacies distract the reader/viewer with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning.
*Be careful with accidental fallacies in argumentative writing when using expressions such as “most,” “many,” “all,” “the majority of.”
LOGICAL FALLACIES
A Hasty Generalization: The writer deliberately leads the reader to a conclusion by providing insufficient, selective evidence.
Example: I wouldn’t eat at that restaurant—the only time I ate there, my entree was undercooked.
Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc) arguments confuse chronology with causation: one event can occur after another without being caused by it.
Example: A year after the release of the violent shoot-’em-up video game Annihilator, incidents of school violence tripled—surely not a coincidence.
A Non Sequitur (Latin for “It doesn’t follow”) is a statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An important logical step may be missing in such a claim.
Example: If those protesters really loved their country, they wouldn’t question the government.
An Equivocation is a half-truth, or a statement that is partially correct but that purposefully obscures the entire truth.
Example: Johnny stole four cars, assaulted a cop, and egged a car. When the police brought Johnny home, his mother asked, “What did you do this time?” Johnny replied, “I egged a car.”
Begging the Question occurs when a writer simply restates the claim in a different way; such an argument is circular.
Example: His lies are evident from the untruthful nature of his statements.
Example: "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
A Faulty Analogy is an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things.
Example: Letting prisoners out on early release is like absolving them of their crimes.
Stacked Evidence represents only one side of the issue, thus distorting the issue.
Example: Cats are superior to dogs because they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent.
Example: TV is beneficial because it offers PBS, The Cosby Show and news.
Red Herrings: An attempt to shift attention away from an important issue by introducing an issue that has no logical connection to the discussion at hand.
Example: “My opponent talks about my lack of political experience. Yet he ignores my military leadership. He should focus his concern on his state’s abysmal poverty rate.”
EMOTIONAL FALLACIES
Sentimental Appeals use emotion to distract the audience from the facts.
Example: The thousand of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source.
Scare Tactics try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences.
Example: If you don’t support the party’s tax plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty.
Bandwagon Appeals encourage an audience to agree with the writer because everyone else is doing so.
Example: Paris Hilton carries a small dog in her purse, so you should buy a hairless Chihuahua and put it in your Louis Vuitton.
Slippery Slope arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous results.
Example: If you get a B in high school, you won’t get into the college of your choice, and therefore will never have a meaningful career.
Either/Or Choices reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of action.
Example: The patent office can either approve my generator design immediately or say goodbye forever to affordable energy.
False Need arguments create an unnecessary desire for things.
Example: You need an expensive car or people won’t think you’re cool.
ETHICAL FALLACIES
False Authority asks audiences to agree with the assertion of a writer based simply on his or her character or the authority of another person or institution who may not be fully qualified to offer that assertion.
Example: My high school teacher said it, so it must be true.
Using Authority Instead of Evidence occurs when someone offers personal authority as proof.
Example: Trust me – my best friend wouldn’t do that.
Guilt by Association calls someone’s character into question by examining the character of that person’s associates.
Example: Sara’s friend Amy robbed a bank; therefore, Sara is a delinquent.
Dogmatism shuts down discussion by asserting that the writer’s beliefs are the only acceptable ones.
Example: I’m sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that’s that.
Moral Equivalence compares minor problems with much more serious crimes (or vice versa).
Example: These mandatory seatbelt laws are fascist.
Ad Hominem arguments attack a person’s character rather than that person’s reasoning.
Example: Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced will keep her campaign promises?
Strawperson arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments in order to misrepresent an opponent’s argument in order to defeat him or her
Example: A: We need to regulate access to handguns.
B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom.