Have you ever changed your mind about something? What caused you to re examine a belief or idea? Most likely you write or heard somewhere else's perspective that challenged you to think about an issue at a different way. That is called an argument, an argument is defined as a persuasive discourse. But coherent and considered movement from claim to a conclusion. The goal of this chapter is to avoid thinking of argument as a game of winners and losers. But instead, to see it as a means of better understanding other people's ideas, as well as your own. Rogerian arguments are based on the assumption that having the full understanding of an opposing position is essential to responding to a precisely and refuting in a way that is accommodating rather than alienating or antagonizing.

Staking a Claim

Every argument has a claim that states that the arguments main idea or position acclaim defers rogue topic or subject in that a claim has to be arguable. A claim can also be called an assertion or proposition. It can be a simple statement of fact. It has to state a position which people might agree or disagree on. This allows for arguments.

ex:

• Many schools have single sex classrooms

• Single sex classics have been around for years, especially in private schools.

• Single sex classrooms are ineffective because they do not prepare students for the realities of the workplace.

The first statement may be true, but it is unusually verified and not arguable. Thus, it is simply a topic and not a claim. The second argument has more detail, but it's easily to verify whether it's true or not. Since it's not arguable, it's not a claim. The third statement is a claim because it is arguable.

Staking a Claim

Typically, when we talk about types of claims, we generally speak about three types of claims, claim a fact, claim of value and claim of policy. Each type can be used to guide entire arguments, which we recall arguments of fact arguments of value, fact, and policy. Claims of fact assert that something is true or not true. You can't argue whether Zimbabwe is in Africa, or whether restaurants on Main Street serve more customers at breakfast and lunch. These issues can be resolved and verified. In the first case, by checking a map, and the 2nd by observation, or checking sales figures. Perhaps the most hot type of crime is called a claim of value, which argues that something is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable. Of course, just like any other claim, a cleanly volume must be arguable. Claims of value may be personal judgments based on taste, or they can be more objective evaluation based on external criteria. The last type of claim is called a claim of policy. Any time you propose a change, you are making a claim.

Presenting Evidence

Once a writer had established a claim and developed a piece of statement, the next step is to support it with effective evidence. What evidence to present? How much is necessary and how to present it? Are all rhetorical choices guided by and understanding audience? Regardless of the type of evidence of writer chooses to use, it should always be relevant, accurate and sufficient. Relevant evidence is evidence that specifically applies to the argument being made. Presenting accurate information means taking care to quote sources correctly, without misrepresenting what the sources say, or are taking information from a different context. Finally, you should be able to include sufficient amount of evidence to support your thesis.

Logical Fallacies

Before we turn to specific types of evidence, let's consider logical fallacies, potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in arguments, practically speaking, the logical breakdown in most weak arguments occurs in the use of evidence, since evidence is what we use to prove arguments. A red herring is a typological fallacy that occurs when a speaker skips to a new, relevant topic in order to avoid the topic of discussion. Another type of red herring is called an ad hominem fallacy. The phrase refers to the diversionary tactic of switching the argument from the issue at hand to the character of the other speaker. Analogy is the most vulnerable type of evidence because it is always acceptable to the charge that two things are not comparable, resulting in a faulty analogy. Another fallacy that results from using inaccurate evidence is the either-or fallacy, also called a false dilemma. In this fallacy, the speaker represents two extreme options as the only possible options. A straw man fallacy occurs when a speaker chooses deliberately poor or oversimplified examples in order to ridicule or fee a viewpoint. Perhaps the most common fallacies occur when evidence is insufficient. Another fallacy of inaccuracy is called equivocation, which means to intentionally mislead the audience by using a word with a double or ambiguous meaning. Circular reasoning is another fallacy that involves repeating the claim as a way to provide evidence, resulting in no evidence at all. Hasty generalization means that there's not enough evidence to support a particular conclusion.

Types of Evidence

First hand evidence is something you know, whether it's from personal experience, anecdotally heard from others, or your general knowledge of events. Second hand evidence is evidence that is accessed through research, reading and investigation. It includes factual, historical information, expert opinion and quantitative data. Any time you say what someone else knows, not what you know you are using a second hand evidence, although citing secondhand evidence may occasionally appeal to Pathros and certainly may establish a writer's ethos, the central appeal is to logos, reason and logic.

Induction and Deduction

Induction and deduction are ways of reasoning, but they are often effective ways to structure entire argument as well. Induction means arranging an argument so that it leads from particulars to universals using specific cases to draw conclusions. When you argue using deduction, you reach a conclusion by starting with a general principle or universal truth and applying it to a specific case. Deductive reasoning is often structured as syllogism, a logical structure that uses the major premise and minor premise to region necessary conclusion.