An aim to influence a person by emotional and ethical appeals.
An aim to win the reader's agreement by logical appeals.
Stating the truth as you see it.
The main position of an argument. The central contention that will be supported.
The sentence where your thesis is stated.
Anything that demonstrates what you are thinking/claiming.
This may include: facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, and reported experience.
An appeal to emotion.
Ex: She tried to take her reader's probable sympathy for child laborers and expand on it.
Making your reader believe you are a reliable person- so as to also be believed.
We make statements that lead to a conclusion.
The Toulmin Method
1- THE DATA- the evidence to prove something.
2- THE CLAIM- what are you proving with the data.
3- THE WARRANT- the assumption/ principle that connects the data to the claim.
Ex: Drug abuse is a problem. South America produces much of the drugs that are smuggled into the US. Therefore, we should increase survailance.
An assumption/ generalization that explains why a claim follows from the data. (The thinking that leads to the claim)
An inclusive leap from the evidence to the conclusion. (The smaller the leap the better.)
All man is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Problem with Inductive Reasoning
If something is true, you can't say it's not simply because it doesn't fit the specific catergory.
Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles.
The Earth has no limbs and muscles.
Hence, the Earth does not move.
Errors in reasoning that lead to wrong conclusions.
Stating a conclusion that does not follow from the 1st premise(s).
Ex: "I've lived in this town a long time- why, my grandfather was the first mayor- so I'm against putting flouride in the drinking water."
Neat and easy explanation for a large and complicated phenomena.
Ex: "No wonder drug abuse is out of control! Look at how the courts have hobbled the police."
Leaping to a generalization based on faulty evidence.
Ex: "Women are too emotional to fight in combat."
Assuming that a reality may be divided into only two part extremes.
Ex: "Either we ban all imports from Asia, or the trade empire will collapse."
Argument from Doubtful Authority
To agree to something without the representative being knowledgable in the specific area.
Ex: "We ought to castrate all sex offenders: Uncle Oswald says we should."
Argumentum ad Hominem
Attacking views by attacking the representative's character.
Ex: "Mayor Burns is divorced and estranged by his family, don't listen to him."
Begging the Question
Ex: "I am going to college because it is the right thing to do. Going to college is the right thing to do because it is what is expected of me."
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
After this, Therefore because of this.
Ex: "Ever since the city suspended height restictions on skyscrapers, the city budget has been balanced."
The claim of pursuasive likeness when none exists.
Ex: "Enemy" and "War on Drugs"
Abuse of Logic
Introduction of irrelevant and irrational evidence
Argumentum ad Populum
Appeal to feelings, passion and predjudice, rather than the reason, of the group. This has a wider range than Argumentum as Hominem and the writer uses emotion to bias his audience.
Ex: "Wall-Street Monopolist" and "Rich gangsters"
Depends on the reader's ability to inter-associate one idea with an other when the two ideas are not logically connected.
Ex: "You should not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
Argumentum ad Verecundiam
More general transfer device. It uses a name/ a brand to draw perspective buyers. To have a valid issue, the writer must prove the words of the authorities have logical bearing to the present issue. Competence in one area does not imply competence in an other.
Presenting a situation which is acknowledged to be true, and then, on the basis of it, commenting on an other situation that is similar. Usually makes an issue more simplistic/ vivid. The danger is that the writer will try to make a connection when none exists.
Ex: "Don't change horses in the middle of a stream."
To oversimplify a situation. No hypothesis can be considered sound unless all the factors are related to it. It is easier to condemn than to understand. If people do not demand the truth, the providers don't feel like they should give them.
Ex: "Spectacular... Exhilarating..." when in all actuality it was "This could have been spectacular if they had an actual plot that made a lick of sense. This is as exhilarating as watching grass grow."
Card-stacking, laying heavy and insistent emphasis upon certain topics, discussion of which can probably do no harm.
Ex: "Boasting about the reduction of taxes without mentioning the blow to the economy because of it.
Irrelevant issue that if drawn across the path when tehir side has become embarrassing and they wish to change the subject.