Chpater one AP Seminar
Understanding Arguments and Reading Them Critically
Arguments are all around us in every medium and genre; anything that expresses a point of view can be an argument (text, spoken, visual, etc.).
Language is often persuasive by nature; even a simple greeting like “Hi, how's it going?” can be seen as arguing for a response.
Some arguments rely on evidence and aim to inform or convince readers to recognize problems and consider solutions.
Examples introduced:
The MeToo movement began with Alyssa Milano’s call to action on Twitter (Oct 15, 2017). Within 24 hours, about people joined, with over posts/comments.
Tarana Burke’s original work with Girls for Gender Equity in Brooklyn emphasized voice for young women of color; she viewed MeToo as a movement, not just a viral campaign.
Jessi Hempel’s critique in Backchannel, “The Problem with #metoo and Viral Outrage,” questions whether the movement will have lasting power and real change.
Molly Crockett’s research suggests digital outrage can transform experience without necessarily changing social realities; outrage online may distract from action.
MeToo has led to high-profile firings and some convictions across fields (Hollywood, opera, Congress, sports).
The example shows how social media creates and reaches audiences rapidly, but also how it can circle back to questions of impact and longevity.
The broader point: arguments on social media operate in crowded, two-way channels that can amplify reach but also raise questions about real-world change.
Key takeaway: studying arguments requires attention to medium, audience, evidence, and possible ethical implications of online discourse.
Why Read Arguments Critically and Rhetorically?
Aristotle argued for the arts of rhetoric to (a) persuade effectively and (b) protect against manipulation.
In today’s information environment, skills in reading critically are survival skills due to “alternative facts,” fake news, mis- and disinformation.
Practices to develop critical reading include: fact-checking, crap detection, and careful reading rather than quick skimming.
Campus initiatives like University of Washington’s “Calling Bullshit” illustrate concerns about statistics and big data that may misinform rather than reveal.
Sound practice steps for readers:
Pay close attention to what you read or view; avoid skim-reading when stakes are high.
Watch for clickbait headlines that over-promise information.
Be skeptical: check author, publisher, and sources for reliability.
Look for unstated assumptions and distinguish verifiable facts from unverified claims.
Learn to triangulate: seek corroboration from multiple reliable sources.
Become a fact checker using nonpartisan resources like Politifact, FactCheck.org, Sunlight Foundation, and Snopes.com.
You’ll find more guidance on attentive reading in other chapters (e.g., Chapters 6 and 19).
Why Listen to Arguments Rhetorically and Respectfully?
Krista Ratcliffe defines rhetorical listening as a stance of openness toward others, texts, and cultures.
Listening well helps us understand where others are coming from and acknowledges that our own views are shaped by unseen forces.
In a polarized environment with echo chambers, rhetorical listening can help find common ground and reduce hostility.
Examples and practices:
Oprah Winfrey’s gathering of women with opposing political views to listen to each other and find commonality.
Hi from the Other Side, a project pairing people with opposing views to foster dialogue and common ground.
The idea that arguing is not won by endless back-and-forth but by finding small areas of agreement and constructive discourse.
Practical guidance: practice listening to understand, then search for shared ground, rather than immediately trying to win an argument.
Why We Make Arguments
In today’s politically divided and entertainment-driven culture, arguments can be perceived negatively (hostility, tweets, posturing).
The book aims to counter this by encouraging examination of personal values and clear, cogent expression while respecting others’ beliefs.
Types of arguments often involve competition or persuasion in various domains (politics, business, law, academia).
In college writing, students may address a “judge” (instructor) and a “jury” (classmates) with arguments supported by evidence.
There are principled reasons to argue and various legitimate ways to do so without name-calling.
Arguments to Convince and Inform
Distinction between convincing and informing: (a) convince audiences that a claim is true or reasonable based on facts; (b) inform by broadening knowledge about a subject.
Academic arguments often blend both goals.
Example: Anahad O’Connor’s 2014 New York Times piece reporting a study that saturated fat may not increase heart disease risk; the article demonstrates careful handling of scientific data to inform readers.
A college paper might compare safety records of different energy sources to inform readers and influence perceptions about nuclear power.
Images can serve as powerful arguments that inform and persuade; e.g., David Plunkert’s New Yorker cover reacting to Charlottesville events.
Arguments to Persuade
Persuasion moves beyond conviction to action, often leveraging emotional appeals alongside facts.
Lilienfeld’s work challenges the use of terms like “microaggressions” as a way to influence opinion, illustrating the tension between offense and proven harm.
Climate change debates illustrate the gap between evidence of warming and persuading people to act; persuasive strategies combine appeals to emotion (fear, pride, hope) with logical arguments.
Paglia’s provocative example about the 1984 drinking age shows how dramatic, emotional rhetoric can push for policy change by dramatizing past vs. present conditions.
The chapter cautions that persuasive arguments draw on all rhetorical appeals (pathos, ethos, logos) to motivate action (consumption, voting, volunteering).
Arguments to Make Decisions
Decision-making arguments explore options and seek consensus in civil or personal matters (e.g., health care, civil rights, immigration).
In academic life, major decisions (e.g., service learning requirements) require weighing alternatives with evidence.
Decision-making arguments can be exploratory, examining multiple options rather than forcing a binary conclusion.
An example discusses remediation in college through a data-informed stance, weighing who should pay and how many courses are needed.
Arguments to Understand and Explore
Journalistic discussions (e.g., transgender coverage) emphasize correct terminology and respecting gender pronouns, while addressing relevant issues for transgender individuals.
Exploratory (invitational) arguments invite mutual exploration of ideas based on discovery and respect.
Rogerian arguments aim for nonthreatening engagement, seeking win/win solutions by recognizing the other side’s perspective.
Risks of Rogerian approaches include potential over-cautiousness or insufficient challenge when needed.
Respond exercises
Respond: Reflect on your own reasons for making arguments. Do a two-day note-taking exercise tracking arguments and identifying whether you aimed to convince, inform, persuade, explore, or understand.
Occasions for Argument
Aristotle’s classification of arguments by time perspective (past, present, future) remains a useful framework today, though modern contexts differ.
Past (forensic) arguments evaluate what happened in the past (courts, investigations, historical analysis).
Example discussion: post-2016 election hacking debates about Russian interference; forensic questions include what hacks occurred, how voting procedures were affected, and what role Russia played.
Present (epideictic) arguments praise or blame contemporary culture (ceremonial rhetoric; e.g., inaugural addresses, sermons, eulogies).
Example: Ruth J. Simmons’s commencement address defending free speech as essential to knowledge and questioning process.
Future (deliberative) arguments consider what should happen next (policies, legislation).
Example: Marc Prensky’s provocative call to ban physical books on campuses to push toward digital tools.
Kinds of Argument (Stasis Theory)
To analyze arguments, consider stasis questions that identify the point of contention and what needs proof:
Did something happen? (Fact/Arguments of Fact)
What is its nature? (Definition/Arguments of Definition)
What is its quality or cause? (Evaluation/Arguments of Evaluation)
What actions should be taken? (Proposal/Arguments for action)
Facts: Establish reliability, source origin, potential problems, and causes; example: pollution in oceans requires evidence about sources and verification.
Definitions: Debates over naming and meaning (e.g., fetus, amnesty, sexual assault definitions) have real consequences; provided a Justice Department NIJ definition of incapacitated sexual assault as a case study.
Evaluation: Assess criteria and measure against standards; example: Pixar’s evolution and the question of whether it lost its way due to corporate changes.
Proposals: After establishing facts, definitions, and evaluations, propose actions (e.g., addressing remedial education, college tuition costs).
The Rhetorical Situation, Kairos, and Audience Appeals
Kairos: The opportune moment for an argument; timing and context matter for effective communication.
The rhetorical situation includes writers/speakers, texts, readers/listeners, and the broader contexts (social, cultural, economic, linguistic, geographic).
Three classic appeals (Aristotle):
Pathos (emotional appeals): Example of LePatner’s Too Big to Fall, describing a catastrophic bridge collapse to evoke concern and urgency.
Ethos (ethical appeals): Establish credibility by aligning with respected professionals (e.g., engineers) or shared values to build trust.
Logos (logical appeals): Use facts, statistics, credible testimony, and cogent examples to persuade.
The “Bringing It Home” concept: Kairos and the rhetorical moment require recognizing the best way to present messages for a specific audience and context.
Invoked vs. intended readers: Writers imagine a routine or ideal reader, but actual readers may differ; texts can attract audiences beyond the intended.
The rhetorical situation diagram emphasizes the dynamic interconnections among writers, texts, audiences, and contexts.
Cultural Contexts for Argument: Communicating Across Cultures
Normalize critical examination of one’s own assumptions about what is “normal” in argumentation.
Acknowledge cultural differences in arguing styles; avoid stereotyping and recognize diversity within groups.
Adapt arguments to respect differences in family structures, work, happiness, and political beliefs across cultures.
Do not assume uniform beliefs within any group; treat individuals with nuance and avoid broad generalizations.
Key terms and concepts to remember
The difference between arguing to convince vs. arguing to persuade vs. arguing to inform.
The difference between forensic, deliberative, and epideictic arguments (and their time orientations: past, future, present).
Stasis theory questions and their use in identifying the point of contention.
The three appeals: Pathos, Ethos, Logos, and their practical application with examples.
Kairos and the rhetorical situation: timing, audience, and context;
Invoked vs. intended vs. real readers and the role of audience in shaping argument.
The value of rhetorical listening and invitational/Rogerian approaches for constructive dialogue.
Critical reading practices: attention, skepticism, corroboration, triangulation, and fact-checking.
Ethical considerations in argumentation: respectful engagement, avoiding deception, and recognizing political and cultural power dynamics.
Notable examples and references mentioned in the chapter
Alyssa Milano’s MeToo call to action and its viral spread; discussion of Tarana Burke’s origins and framing as a movement.
Jessi Hempel’s critique and Molly Crockett’s research on online outrage and social change.
No Child Left Behind Act and debates about education policy and civil liberties.
Camile Paglia’s critique of the 1984 drinking age and its social consequences; emotional rhetoric contrasted with policy outcomes.
Ruth J. Simmons on free speech and the role of universities in fostering inquiry.
Latisha Chisholm’s critique of rap culture and its shifting values.
The use of editorial and journalistic excerpts to illustrate arguments to convince, inform, and persuade.
The concept of “crap detection” and the role of nonpartisan fact-checkers in a media-rich landscape.
Quick study cues
When reading any piece, ask: Who is arguing? What is their purpose? To whom are they speaking? Is the goal to convince, inform, persuade, explore, or understand?
Identify whether the piece uses pathos, ethos, or logos predominantly, and examine how the author builds credibility, emotional engagement, and logical support.
Consider the rhetorical moment: is the timing and context favorable for the argument? Are there external pressures or opportunities (kairos) that shape how the argument is framed?
Evaluate the audience: intended vs invoked vs real readers; how might readers outside the intended audience respond?
Practice critical reading with the recommended steps: focus, check sources, triangulate, and verify with independent fact-checkers.