Chapter Resources

CHAPTER RESOURCES

Chapter 1

ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT

Goals

This chapter provides students with an overview of several concepts key to writing arguments and key to this text as a whole. The overview includes a definition of a formal argument and a short description of the three models of argument that will be discussed in greater depth in later chapters. The overview includes writing concepts that apply to writing well in general:

• the rhetorical rhombus, which shows students how argument fits into the act of communicating through writing

• prewriting methods that writers use to get started

• techniques for capturing the reader’s attention in the opening paragraph and techniques for firmly concluding a paper

• revising strategies, including reading with a critical eye, using peer-critique workshops, and revising for different purposes

In general, writers may find the notion of the rhetorical rhombus quite useful since its four corners—purpose, audience, writer, and subject—interconnect at different stages of the writing process and form a way of remembering the elements implicit in any communicative event.

Teaching Suggestions

Instructors may find it useful to have students read this chapter for the second day of class in order to see the broad strokes of the material they will be studying for the term. Instructors may wish to discuss in class some of the exercises, such as the one designed to help students understand the distinction between formal argument and disagreements one may have informally in conversations and those exercises demonstrating the way that published writers use some of the introductory techniques in their work. Instructors may also find it useful to devote some of class discussion to explaining the rhetorical rhombus and the WTHC criterion. Many former students have said that applying these guidelines enabled them to better approach writing assignments for all their classes, regardless of discipline. Consider an paper for a philosophy class. Its purpose may be to explain the logic of a particular philosopher’s viewpoint and apply it to a present-day social issue. Notice that if a student chose to consider a particular thinker’s stance, say Machiavelli’s, he or she would not be arguing that the philosophical stance is or is not morally right; rather, the student would be demonstrating how that view could be applied to address a contemporary social issue. The student’s audience would not only be the instructor but would also include the projected, imagined audience of those who wish to deal with the social issue. As the writer, the student has adopted the persona of someone who shares the Machiavellian philosophy. Perhaps the student has narrowed the paper’s subject to a social issue of importance to him or her because he or she believes that the philosopher whose ideas are being applied has an approach that would benefit society today. On the other hand, the student may believe that approach is being used to the detriment of society today and wish to show that to be the case in its baldest form. The “who-the-heck cares” criterion (WTHC), another concept students have found useful, helps hone the idea of audience further—better, actually—for if we really think about it, other than our family and friends, who the heck really cares about our opinions or the ideas that we are writing about? And since we could probably talk to our friends and family fairly easily, why should we bother to write down our ideas? When we really think about our audience in this way, we construct a real audience for ourselves and have a clearer sense of our purpose as well. Who would truly care, and why should they care if they don’t at the outset of the argument? How can we make them care? Some people also refer to the WTHC criterion as significance or point. Attending to the WTHC criterion helps keep writers from reiterating needlessly and assists them in knowing what material to organize, how and what to keep, and what to toss when they go over their drafts.

Example: Writer Meaghan knows a good deal about snowboarding, and her first few drafts illustrate her expertise. In them she includes details about the joy of waking up early when she knows she’ll be driving to the slopes, the way that she prepared her board the night before, the different ways she could have prepared her board if she had been planning to snowboard in another

location or if the snow pack had been different, the exhilaration she felt during her first run, the attempts all the snowboarders on a particular run were making to do the best trick, and the spirituality of snowboarding. However, she isn’t sure what she needs to embellish or how she should conclude. Meaghan has not written an argument; she’s written a few drafts that help her recall why she enjoys the sport.

To construct an argument, Meaghan needs to consider her audience: who-the- heck would care about her experiences snowboarding—and why? If Meaghan is hoping to recruit more members for the ski club so that the costs of going to the slopes will be lower, she will need to convince readers that they would voluntarily want to wake up at 4:30 A.M. on Saturday morning. The details about the preparation of her board will be less important to that audience than those that convey the exhilaration or the spirituality of snowboarding. Meaghan may also need to describe the success that even beginners could enjoy on their first trip to the slopes. She might want to conclude her piece by exhorting her audience to join the ski club to experience the sport first.

Who-the-heck else might care about Meaghan’s experiences snowboarding— and why? Perhaps some fellow members of the ski club have been careless with the equipment provided by the club, and perhaps they’ve also been content with going to the same spots, places where they don’t try anything new. If Meaghan’s audience is comprised of experienced snowboarders who are intermediates, she could instead argue about the importance of maintaining the equipment and the need for intermediates that attempt tricks that could develop their abilities further. In her conclusion, Meaghan might need to show intermediates the value of following her suggestions—the increased safety and enjoyment of the snowboarders and the increased life of the boards.

In this example of a topic with which students may be fairly familiar illustrates how they might use the rhetorical rhombus and the WTHC criterion to communicate effectively. Use of these concepts can assist writers in moving from writer-based to reader-based prose. Further, it can help some writers see how to overcome their difficulty concluding their arguments.

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Exercise 1.1

1. Partial definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition:

• argue v. tr. 1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate. 2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend. 3. To give evidence of; indicate. 4. To persuade or influence (another) by presenting reasons.

• argument n. 1.a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute. 2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood. • debate v. –intr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. n. 1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. 2. Deliberation; consideration. 3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

• dispute v. –tr. 1. To argue about; debate. 2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt. 3. To strive to win (a prize for example); contest for. 4. To strive against; resist. –intr. 1. To engage in discussion or argument; debate. 2. To quarrel angrily. n. 1. A verbal controversy; a debate. 2. An angry altercation; a quarrel.

• quarrel1 n. 1. An angry dispute; an altercation. 2. A cause of a dispute or an argument. intr. v. 1. To engage in a quarrel; dispute angrily. 2. To disagree; differ. 3. To find fault; complain.

Using definitions such as these, you can guide students in seeing how definitions provide evidence for their felt sense—for example, that an element of emotion is implied in quarrel but not in debate or argue. Students should also recognize that implicit in the words argue and argument is the notion of providing reasons to the audience.

2. a. Yes. Data are available on correlations between smoking and lung cancer.

b. No. The statement is either true or not true, so it cannot be developed into a formal argument.

c. Yes. Conceivably studies have been done on children studying a foreign language as well as their own. Such studies could be used to test this claim.

d. Yes. Conceivably studies that have tested the correlation between amount of subjects’ video-game playing and their level of abstract reasoning skills exist and can be used to support this assertion.

3. Students must provide this information on their own.

4. a. To support this claim, a person would need to use statistics. First, however, a person would have to define adults and safer.

b. This claim is not truly controversial; if true, it could be verified by statistics. Perhaps the term species might need defining.

c. Correlational statistics and studies of perpetrators of violent acts would be needed to support this claim. However, a person would first need to define violent shows and acts of violence.

d. Again, this claim is not truly controversial; if true, it could be verified by statistics. Perhaps the term smoker needs defining. If someone smokes three cigarettes a day (not even half a pack), does that make the individual a smoker in the same sense that an individual who smokes two packs a day would be considered one?

e. A person would not only use logical appeals but would also use appeals to emotions and morals to argue this claim. First, however, the term obscene should be defined.

5. a. Both emotional and rational appeals would be appropriate.

b. Rational appeals would be appropriate.

c. Both ethical and emotional appeals would be appropriate.

d. Both rational and emotional appeals would be appropriate.

Exercise 1.2

Students do this exercise on their own to practice using some methods of prewriting.

Exercise 1.3

1. The writer uses an occasional opening in the first sentence, referring to Labor Day, and then proceeds with an anecdotal opening.

2. The writer uses an analytical/historical opening that quickly illustrates the swiftness of technology.

3. The writer uses a startling opening, stating in the first sentence an idea that most likely will intrigue readers.

Chapter 2

USING THE CLASSICAL MODEL IN YOUR ARGUMENTS

Goals

This chapter elaborates on the Classical model mentioned in the first chapter and includes examples from both students and professional writers. Writers may find that the audiences for whom they write are uninformed about a topic or uncommitted to a stance, so the Classical model will serve their purposes well. If the audience is uninformed, writers will have to provide background information, that is, include a healthy dose of exposition along with argumentation in their work. Through the use of an outline form of the Classical model, exercises, and a student example, the chapter provides students with both the information and the motivation to try this approach.

Teaching Suggestions

Instructors may find it useful to have students study this model first since it is the most traditional and possibly the most familiar, particularly for those who participated in debate in high school. Instructors can reinforce the usefulness of the rhetorical rhombus

by showing how the questions given as heuristic on page 29 of the text cover its four elements. Instructors can reinforce the usefulness of the WTHC (“who-the-heck cares”) criterion by reminding students of that guideline when they discuss the sections of the chapter on appeals and evidence and on refutation. The guideline can help students determine how best to persuade their audience. To facilitate understanding of the notion mentioned on page 35—“knowledge consists not of disembodied facts but of negotiated ideas”—instructors may wish to cite examples illustrating the development of knowledge: believing that the earth is round rather than flat, believing that the sun rather than the earth is at the center of the solar system. Just prior to discussing the example essays in class, instructors may wish to have students spend a few moments writing out their responses to the exercise questions that follow the pieces. Doing so can help students focus on the work under discussion and facilitate stronger discussions of the examples.

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Exercise 2.1

1. Justine Hearn’s thesis is the last sentence of the second paragraph: “Activists have been petitioning the government to establish a more comprehensive set of laws, but this has yet to be taken seriously by politicians.” Students can discuss in class whether they believe she convincingly supports it.

2. The statistics that Justine cites—the employment rates and the number of squatter- farmers who occupy the land—help to explain what groups are in conflict. The 1995 citation for the employment rate is fairly current, but more recent figures would be more compelling. The information about squatter-farmers, however, seems dated since Justine writes that the situation changed in the late 1980s when commercial farmers began large-scale farming with heavy equipment. Her statement that “squatter-farmers who illegally occupy government land account for one-fifth of . . . [the] population,” a statistic that comes from the same 1995 source as the previous statistic, seems suspect. At the very least, her use of an example of a situation that changed in the late 1980s does not illustrate her claim about societal conflicts that exist today.

3. The final solution offered is that Trinidad and Tobago should base the economy on biodiversity, with eyes on ecotourism and bioprospecting. This solution doesn’t address Justine’s thesis about the need for more comprehensive environmental laws. She also discusses the possible impact of international influences and public support for greater attention to the environment.

4. Justine could strengthen the introduction with a concrete illustration that would draw the reader into the situation more than the stark statement of the present situation does.

Exercise 2.2

1. The author might have presented the points in the following order: Not Universally Popular, Undermine Public Schools, Constitutionally Suspect. The last point is what would receive greater emphasis, so the constitutional basis for disagreement would be a stronger part of the argument than it presently is.

2. The author is appealing to those who somewhat favor his argument already. To convince an audience that disagrees, the author would need to add, for example, more evidence to show that the integrity of public schools is undermined by the voucher program.

3. The author’s evidence that the school voucher program would violate the U.S. Constitution is fairly convincing. However, at the time of the writing, the claim is speculative since the Supreme Court may rule otherwise.

Exercise 2.3

1. a. Despite the fact that the introduction seems a bit self-serving, it does emphasize the author’s commitment to public school education and establishes the author’s familiarity with the historical change in educational need in Baltimore and his personal knowledge of both private and public schooling in the city.

b. The evidence and appeals work if the audience accepts the author’s stance as not just that of a politician but of a parent himself. He appeals to readers’ beliefs in American values such as freedom of choice and healthy competition, drawing analogies to the way that businesses operate. Later in the piece (paragraph 28) he appeals to readers’ emotions when he reminds them of the Rosa Parks incident.

c. The author refutes the opposition in paragraphs 18–23 when he responds to claims that his position is not congruent with those of the Democratic Party and when he comments on the recommendations of the task force that he appointed to analyze the issue of school choice. He demonstrates that he is open-minded when he rejoins that the Democratic Party should rethink its position. He notes that even though he disagrees with the task force’s recommendations, he likes the fact that the group provided for later reconsideration of the voucher issue. Later in the article (paragraphs 37– 42) he refutes other positions rather quickly, relying on his earlier establishment of his credibility and good will—

the ways in which he presented himself as informed and committed to American values he shares with his audience—to convince readers at this point.

d. In the conclusion, the author appeals once again to the shared values he has hoped to showcase for readers: the belief in a simple solution that will benefit all equally (an American value).

2. Instructors may choose to use this exercise for an in-class discussion to help students construct an argument using the Classical model.

Exercise 2.4

1. The basic arguments of the magazine ads are

a. that we don’t know true starvation and should share our largess with those who are really starving,

b. that AT&T quality and customer service are the best, and

c. that the interior workings of a Rolex watch is as valuable as a pearl and protected by a casing just as strong as the oyster shell that protects the pearl within

2. These are the appeals within the magazine ads:

a. pathos and ethos (appeal to the good character of the viewer)

b. logos: reliability of access to a company available 24/7, 365 days a year through a toll-free number

c. the emotional need of the viewer to own such a treasure

3. There is more than one appeal in the ads:

a. Yes (see 2a)

b. Yes; there’s a bit of pathos as well through an appeal to the emotion of humor.

c. Yes; there’s a bit of logos as well with the presentation of information about the workings of the Rolex.

Chapter 3

USING THE TOULMIN MODEL IN YOUR ARGUMENTS

Goals

In this chapter we provide a second lens through which to view arguments in order to construct them: the lens of philosopher Stephen Toulmin. Because this approach may be less familiar to students, the chapter carefully explains its three broadest parts: the claim, support (data), and warrant. Through the chapter’s use of a diagram that shows the relationships among these three parts, use of a student essay, and use of exercises, students should become aware of how to employ the Toulmin model to write arguments.

Teaching Suggestions

Instructors might remind students that this model does not supplant the Classical model but instead provides an alternate way of analyzing and constructing arguments. Instructors may wish to use

• the rhetorical rhombus (PAWS) to show students the way in which the subject receives a good of emphasis in this model and

• the importance of audience and the WTHC (“who-the-heck” cares) criterion when deciding whether to make warrants explicit or to consider the data sufficient.

Because our text is designed to provide writers with the choice of three models so that they can determine which best suits their rhetorical situations, we do not go into the same depth of explanation of the Toulmin model as do texts which are solely dedicated to explaining this model. Instructors who wish to supplement what we provide on the Toulmin model may read, or assign to their students to read, a short biography of Toulmin and a brief introduction to the elements of the Toulmin model at a site called “Stephen Toulmin” by Nathan Meredith at . Instructors who wish to supply an alternate checklist for students to follow when using the Toulmin model (in addition to that in the text on page 69) may check the following link to “Terms in a Toulmin Argument” by Meredith Reynolds and Scott Gilbert: . Instructors may point out that the student essay by Daniel Neal in this chapter has appropriate documentation according to MLA guidelines.

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Exercise 3.1

1. Students can discuss their opinions about the effectiveness of Daniel’s use of the Toulmin model. Daniel might have included emotional warrants or refuted the arguments of someone whose loved one(s) died of tobacco-related causes.

2. Daniel could have discussed how to handle those who were addicted to tobacco before the studies revealed its harmfulness.

Exercise 3.2

1. a. A qualifier could be “unless he can demonstrate that he was not convicted.” A warrant might be that those who knowingly violate any law, even a minor drug law, are not fit for public office. The counterclaim could be that some laws are not as serious as others, such as speeding laws. The counterwarrant could be that only those who violate laws directly related to activities performed during their public service should be considered unfit for public office.

b. A qualifier could be “except those illustrating that the use of racial slurs is wrong.” A warrant could be that the use of racial slurs is wrong. The counterclaim could be that the use of racial slurs is integral to showing the discrimination faced by certain groups during a previous time. The counterwarrant would be that it is necessary to illustrate the extent of discrimination that existed during a previous time.

c. A qualifier could be “unless the customer signs a waiver.”A warrant could be that beef that is not cooked well done carries E. coli bacteria. The counterclaim could be that restaurants should care more about honoring their customers’ requests than worrying about potential lawsuits. The counterwarrant might be that not all beef that is cooked less than well done carries E. coli bacteria.

2. Students should do this exercise on their own.

3. a. Continued reliance on traditional books, since paper is used in their manufacture, could lead to deforestation.

b. Since cats require less exercise by their owners than large dogs do, they make better pets.

c. Regardless of ethnicity, students should be admitted to college on the sole basis of their SATs and high school GPAs.

4. a. One warrant could be that knowledge of economics is expected of a college graduate. Another could be that knowledge of economics helps students in other areas of study, such as history.

b. One warrant could be that college courses should be convenient to student needs. Another warrant could be that many people who want a college education have access to computers.

c. One warrant could be that high schools should teach sex education. Another warrant could be that high schools are students’ sole source of authoritative information about sex, so sex education courses need to be adequate.

Exercise 3.3

“Professions for Women” by Virginia Woolf

The claim is that women must overcome two obstacles to be successful: the Angel in the House and the tendency to avoid writing what they truly feel and believe. The data include Woolf’s personal experiences.

One warrant is that Woolf’s sharing of these experiences can help all women see how to do battle within themselves so that they can work as they nominally wish to work. Another warrant is that women who choose to work outside the home will face these obstacles.

Exercise 3.4

“Declaration of Independence” by Thomas Jefferson

The claim is that “the Representatives of the United States of America . . . [believe] that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be [,] Free and Independent States.” The data are the myriad abuses Jefferson lists that the people of the colonies feel they have suffered at the hands of English rule. The warrants are outlined in the first paragraph, beginning with the wording “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, . . .”

Chapter 4

USING THE ROGERIAN MODEL IN YOUR ARGUMENTS

Goals

This chapter introduces students to a third model for argument, the Rogerian model. Since writers will often present arguments directed toward a hostile rather than a neutral audience, they need to have in their repertoire an approach designed to reduce the hostility so that the audience and the writer can truly understand one another’s points in order to come to a solution that both accept and that benefits both. Through study of two student essays and one of the most famous arguments structured in a Rogerian form, students will see that the tone of the Rogerian model is less aggressive than that of the Classical model, which assumes an uninformed or uncommitted audience.

Teaching Suggestions

Because the Rogerian approach emphasizes the importance of finding common ground, instructors may need to ensure that students recognize that, like the first two models, the Rogerian model requires that they have a definite stance to argue rather than merely

trying to understand the rationale behind others’ positions. Instructors can clear such misunderstanding by pointing out that essays which take the Rogerian approach often have delayed theses, ones that come not at the end of the introduction, as is often the case with the Classical or Toulmin models, but toward the end of the entire essay, sometimes even in the final paragraph. Such positioning illustrates a conclusion that points out the implications or significance of the matters discussed within the essay. To counter student concern about what they sometimes perceive as a “wishy- washy” approach to argument, instructors can use the two student essays to illustrate how effective the Rogerian approach can be. The student essay by Daniela Gibson can also be used as an additional essay for one of the topics in the Reading Clusters (7). Instructors may need to take great care emphasizing that students understand that as writers they should aim to truly understand others’ stances rather than merely to find flaws in those stances. Particularly when discussing the Rogerian approach, I routinely remind my students that most likely no one adopts a stance on an issue just to look foolish. Rather, other positions may result from supporters’ using different value bases or having different information. Therefore, students should consider their audiences in terms of those contexts in order to genuinely understand others’ stances. Since the audience element of the rhetorical rhombus (PAWS) receives heightened attention in this approach, instructors may find it helpful to return to the notion of the rhetorical rhombus presented in the first chapter to reiterate that emphasis and to reinforce the usefulness of the rhetorical rhombus as a writing aid. The importance of truly comprehending the intellectual positions of others is also highlighted by Doug Brent of the University of Calgary in his piece “Rogerian Rhetoric” in Theorizing Composition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in Contemporary Composition Studies (ed. Mary Kennedy). A summary may be found at . Instructors may also wish to read Brent’s 1991 piece in College English, “Young, Becker, and Pike’s `Rogerian Rhetoric’: A Twenty-Year Reassessment,” at . Because our text is designed to provide three models from which writers can choose to determine what best suits their rhetorical situation, we do not discuss the Rogerian model fully. Instructors who wish to supplement our material on the Rogerian model may read, or assign their students to read, “Rogerian Argumentation,” a brief description and outline of the Rogerian model compiled by the writing center at Winthrop University in South Carolina. These materials are available at . Additionally, four members of Southwest Oregon Community College provide a site that explains the principles of Rogerian argument and persuasion succinctly and illustrates Rogerian argument at work in the community. Students often find that alternate explanations help them understand concepts more fully; to this end, they can consult “How To Use Rogerian Argument” at . Also see "Young, Becker and Pike's `Rogerian' Rhetoric: A Twenty-Year Reassessment" by Doug Brent. This article provides a thorough scholarly

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Exercise 4.1

1. Sheila’s essay is most Rogerian when, in the second paragraph, she states her strong belief in government support of the arts and again, in the third paragraph, when she acknowledges that the public can be wrong in its opinion about innovative art. In both of these cases, she is establishing common ground with her audience. The essay is also Rogerian in having its thesis at the end of the piece. Sheila’s essay is least Rogerian when, in the fourth paragraph, she states in a rather aggressive tone her opinion of the Mapplethorpe photograph. Words such as publicly degraded or humiliated are heavily emotionally charged.

2. As stated in the previous answer, paragraphs 2 and 3 attempt to find common ground with those who disagree. Students may assess for themselves how well they believe she succeeds.

3. Sheila distinguishes between good and bad art on the basis of its adherence to what she sees as “the very foundation of art, the expression of beauty, deep purpose, and deep meaning.” Although she provides an example of a violent act in a work of art that she would still call art because the artistry “overrides the violent act itself,” she does not provide the standards by which another might judge. She might improve the piece by more specifically detailing the standards by which one might judge “beauty” or “purpose” or “meaning.”

Exercise 4.2

1. The response to this question is speculative, but students might point to the expectation that letters are generally perceived as less formal and more personal and therefore less threatening than anything labeled as a “manifesto.” Since a Rogerian approach seeks to defuse any hostility, King’s decision to present his argument in a letter rather than in a public manifesto might seem to have produced a more personal and less threatening mode of communicating with his audience.

2. Some passages in King’s letter seem un-Rogerian:

• When King mentions in paragraph 29 that “many streets of the South should . . . be flowing with blood” and that “millions of Negroes will . . . seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies—a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare,” his images appear threatening.

• When King maintains in paragraph 30 that “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever,” his assertion seems ominous.

Students may speculate about whether King’s audience might have tuned his message out at these points.

3. King uses the Aristotelian appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his essay in order as to convince his audience thoroughly:

Ethos:

• when he addresses his audience as “my dear fellow clergymen” (paragraph 1) to show that he is like them

• when he cites, in paragraph 2, his position as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

• when, in paragraph 23, he calls his readers “my Christian and Jewish brothers” before explaining his deep disappointment (rather than outrage, for example) with white moderates and then continuing to use the word disappointment in subsequent paragraphs

• when he notes in paragraph 28 that he has “tried to stand between . . . two forces” rather than allowing one side to be complacent and the other to be full of hate and despair

• when he uses conciliatory language in paragraphs 48 and 49 in an apology to his readers

Pathos:

• the concrete imagery presented in paragraph 14 of the injustices suffered by ethnic minorities and in paragraph 47 of the heroic actions of those who practice civil disobedience

• the examples of civil disobedience King provides in paragraphs 21 and 22 that would carry connotative strength with his audience by arousing their feelings about the injustices suffered by early Christians, American dissenters who opposed the British Crown, and the Jews in Hitler’s Germany

• the connotative value of linking the American colonists’ fight for freedom from British rule and African-Americans’ current fight for freedom in the South

Logos:

• given his audience, the comparison between the apostles’ traveling to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and King’s own traveling to spread “the gospel of freedom” (paragraph 3)

• his detailing (in paragraph 6) of the logical steps in a nonviolent campaign to illustrate the reasonable approach he has taken

• the campaign for desegregation’s consideration of its impact on Birmingham’s economic situation and political election when scheduling its action (paragraphs 8–9)

• his refutation of the opposition’s claims in paragraphs 10, 15, 25, 27 • his reasoned explanation of the difference between a just and an unjust law in paragraphs 16–19

• given his audience, the explanation of the label extremist in paragraph 31

Chapter 5

REASONING: METHODS AND FALLACIES

Goals

This chapter provides students with various strategies for reasoning as well as a taxonomy of errors in reasoning to use as they read arguments critically. Through examples and exercises, students will become familiar with appropriate and inappropriate reasoning strategies. Students will then read a humorous essay that will help them see the lighter side of what is often perceived as a dry subject.

Teaching Suggestions

On the day this chapter is to be discussed, instructors can have students bring in an editorial from the campus newspaper to use as suggested in exercise 5.1, point 2, in order to have students see the immediate, pertinent application of the ideas presented in this chapter. Students will be better prepared for discussions if they are assigned specific exercises which instructors wish to discuss during class. Instructors may also want to look for additional definitions and examples of logic in the basic primer provided by The Learning Network; one page of this site is devoted strictly to Aristotelian logic. This material is not very detailed, but it is accurate, so if

students need more information, they can be given this URL: .

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Exercise 5.1

1. a. Sullivan argues that homosexual advocacy groups must stop portraying “homosexuals as downtrodden and weak.” He uses logical deduction to refute this claim by pointing out that “the number of hate crimes perpetrated against gay people is relatively puny,” that [they] “have survived a health crisis that would have destroyed—and is destroying—other populations,” and that [they] “are represented in almost every major cultural, political, and social organization.” He concludes that “gay strength can be seen everywhere . . . The media is saturated with gay talent, images, and skill.” His examples therefore contradict the opposition’s claim. Sullivan also uses plea by employing emotionally charged language: he calls the attempt to portray George W. Bush as a homophobe a “knee-jerk attempt” that is “misguided”; he states that “it’s ludicrous” to claim that there is employment discrimination when millions of gay people have jobs.

b. Chittick uses logical deduction to identify an inconsistency in the data used to claim that the evolutionary process took place.

c. Steinem identifies omissions in the census figures due to inaccurate methods of data collection and faulty classification systems.

d. Pirsig uses authority (Aristotle) to argue his claim for the moment of birth of “our modern scientific understanding.”

2. Students do on their own analysis as a short writing assignment or together during class discussion.

Exercise 5.2

1. A method of reasoning relies on a logical process that connects the method to the claim. If there is a misstep within the process, an error in reasoning occurs.

• If the line of reasoning that stems from statements assumed to be true is flawed, or if the statements themselves are flawed, there will be an error of deduction.

• If the particulars are of an insufficient number or are assumed to be proven a priori, then there will be an error in induction—a hasty generalization, poisoning of the well, or begging the question.

• If the boundaries of a category are held either too rigidly or too loosely, there will an error in categorization (false dichotomy or apples/oranges).

• If the items being compared differ more than they share common traits, there will be an error in analogy.

• If the expert is nonspecific or outside the field of expertise, there will be an error in authorization.

• If the appeal is unethical, there will be an error in pleading.

2. Inductive reasoning moves from particulars to a general conclusion. Deductive reasoning moves from a general theory or hypothesis to the particulars that support that generalization.

3. a. reasoning by analogy; erroneous in ignoring the greater number of differences than similarities between cats and people; erroneous also in overgeneralizing. Not all curious cats or curious people “get into trouble.”

b. reasoning by deduction; erroneous in using an ad hominem attack

c. reasoning by induction; erroneous in begging the question

d. reasoning by deduction; logical sequence, although the term wolf may have a different denotation in the first two premises.

e. reasoning by deduction; erroneous in use of a non sequitur

f. reasoning by induction; erroneous because the sample seems too small for the claim being made, resulting in a hasty generalization

g. reasoning by pleading; erroneous in that it is an appeal to the bandwagon

h. reasoning by induction; erroneous in that it is a hasty generalization

i. reasoning by induction; erroneous because it may be introducing a red herring since music appreciation classes most likely are not trying to tell students what kinds of music to like

j. reasoning by categorization; erroneous in that chicken and oatmeal are in two different subcategories within the larger category of food (resulting in an apples-and-oranges fallacy)

k. reasoning by categorization; erroneous because, although both libraries and the Internet are repositories of information, both can coexist. Therefore, this is a false dichotomy.

l. reasoning by induction; erroneous in that the main clause states an idea unrelated to the one presented in the introductory verbal phrase. Therefore, this is a red herring.

m. reasoning by analogy; appropriate since there is sufficient similarity between the two kinds of waves for the claim being made.

4. Students can present their own responses.

Exercise 5.3

1. This piece is obviously dated—published in 1951, in a different era when terms such as gender stereotyping didn’t even exist as a concept, let alone as a phrase. A current version might have the characters be two women and one man, with one of the women “teaching” the man about logic, but such an approach would still be sexist because it would continue to objectify the person being tutored and to display that individual as shallow. Another version might have a parent convincing an older sibling to tutor a younger sibling in logic in exchange for a desired object (not a raccoon coat, of course). The younger sibling might then demonstrate how well he or she has mastered the subject of logic in order to gain the desired object. This approach, however, could be regarded as ageist. Perhaps the siblings could be twins to avoid that problem. Or perhaps humor, to a certain degree, always relies on stereotypes of some sort.

2. Fairly obviously, this is not a serious question, one would hope. However, students might enjoy defending the stereotype of college students, from the age range implied by the question to the perception of college students as being any more or less skilled at reasoning than any other segment of the general population.

Chapter 6

METHODS OF CRITICAL READING

Goals

This chapter presents guidelines to assist in another area in which college students usually want to improve: becoming better readers. Students may find strategies such as previewing, skim-reading, postreading, and reading with a pencil helpful as they begin to tackle challenging reading assignments such as many of the works in the Reading Clusters and in their other classes. As students work on their skills of written argument, they also need to think critically about their approach to reading. They will need to read not just for enjoyment but also to obtain specific information about topics and to consider the validity and logic of the arguments they may be selecting to use in their own writing. Students may find themselves deciding not to use a source if they determine its argument is unduly biased, or they may find that they are better able to critique another’s arguments if they have read about all sides of an issue with heightened awareness. We hope that students come to understand the relationship between reading and writing as they think critically, perhaps for the first time, about different ways of reading, depending on the needs of the rhetorical rhombus (their purpose for reading). We also hope that students begin to understand the difference between engaged reading and casual reading, such as perusing an article in Rolling Stone about the latest rock group.

Teaching Suggestions

Instructors may find it useful to assign this chapter together with Chapter 5 since students will find both chapters useful for reading their own essays as well as those by others. If one is teaching on a T/Th schedule, these two chapters might work quite nicely in a longer class session. Instructors might assign some of the exercises, such as 6.1.2 or 6.1.3 as detailed next, along with the reading of the chapter so that when students come to class, they can discuss their responses to the exercises either with the whole class or in small groups. Instructors could begin discussing of this chapter by examining a magazine such as Rolling Stone, which has articles on various rock groups but also generally contains serious pieces in its National Affairs section that address issues relevant to readers interested in subjects other than rap or boy groups. (The November 8, 2001, issue, for example, discusses the war in the Middle East in “Understanding the Enemy” by Michael Vlahos, judges the new drug czar in “The Drug War: Back to the Stone Age” by Daniel Forbes, and reports on the tightening of restrictions on individuals’ rights in “Civil Liberties Under Attack,” an interview by Will Dana with the senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy.) Instructors might ask students if they read the pieces in that section differently from the way in which they read the articles profiling rock artists. Alternately, instructors might begin discussing this chapter by asking students what they generally read for pleasure and how their approach to reading those works differs from the way in which they read their assignments for classes. Students’ answers might lead well into a discussion of active versus passive reading.

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Most of the exercises do not have set responses so much as they genuinely guide students in the methods discussed by the chapter and ask students to think consciously about their approach to reading. Such is the case, for example, with Exercise 6.1.1.

Exercise 6.1

2. Although this exercise asks students to find their own articles, instructors could assign one of the readings in the Clusters, such as “Flowers for Mars” by Christopher McKay on p. 393, for this exercise. If all students examine the same reading, they can compare their own responses with the four concerns of an active reader.

3. Once again, this assignment asks students to find a piece themselves, but instructors could have them read “Standardized Exams Get an ‘A’ ” by Gene Koretz on p. 291 for this exercise.

Exercise 6.4

1. For this assignment instructors may choose to use one of the articles listed in the links for the Reading Clusters. A particularly meaty article is “Educational Assessment Reassessed: The Usefulness of Standardized and Alternative Measures of Student Achievement as Indicators for the Assessment of Educational Outcomes” by William L. Sanders and Sandra P. Horn, from the Education Policy Analysis Archives, available at .

Exercise 6.9

In discussing Galileo’s letter, instructors might wish to ask students to consider what model of argument—Classical, Toulmin, or Rogerian—the piece seems most like. Students might think about which type they believe it to be as they answer questions 2 and 4 of this exercise. Instructors could ask students to identify the elements of the rhetorical rhombus—purpose, audience, writer, and subject—as they apply to Galileo’s letter. By doing so, instructors reinforce the usefulness of the rhetorical rhombus for both writers and readers.

Chapter 7

RESEARCHING YOUR ARGUMENT

Goals

Because many students in institutions of higher learning may have previously written research papers or have had to research topics for their work, they may believe that they already fully know how to research arguments. However, they may not have considered all of the sources for research, so this chapter provides an overview of different valid sources for serious arguments. To reinforce the usefulness of the rhetorical rhombus, the chapter shows how its four corners (purpose-audience-writer-subject) can help writers focus the direction of their research. Further, the chapter underscores the importance of having a clear, specific thesis for an argument. It also reviews various Internet and print resources and discusses different ways to gather information from experts: e-mail, telephone and personal interviews, and surveys. Students learn the criteria to use when evaluating sources and the way to incorporate others’ material into their own work without plagiarizing. This last section provides a good transition into the next chapter, “Documenting Your Sources,” which presents explicit examples of ways to use sources to reinforce arguments rather than stringing together others’ material into a patchwork quilt of an essay.

Teaching Suggestions

• Instructors may wish to schedule a library tour for students in conjunction with teaching this chapter so that they might, for example, be able to find the precise location of the various periodical indices in the campus library.

• To begin a class discussion on use of Internet resources, instructors could ask students how they use the Web. What sorts of information have they looked up— driving maps, weather reports, or airfares? What other kinds of sites have they accessed—fan members’ sites for different musical artists or for different television programs? In times of national or local crises, students may have consulted various news sites. After having looked at such web sites, students should be able to discuss rather readily the merits of different sites within particular categories (driving maps or airfares, for example).

• To help students practice some of the strategies mentioned in the chapter, instructors might assign Exercise 7.2 as required prewriting for their next writing topic. Instructors might also require that students include at least one interview or one Internet resource in a subsequent writing assignment.

Suggested Answers to the Exercises

Once again, most of the exercises will vary according to student opinion and activity since they genuinely attempt to guide students in the use of research methods discussed in the chapter. The following, however, are a few sample responses to some of the exercises.

Exercise 7.2

2. A purpose-based question: What am I hoping that my audience will think or do about sexual harassment in the workplace after reading my paper?

Audience-based questions: What is the position of my targeted audience on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace? Are they heavily entrenched in that position? Are they primarily unaware of the serious damage to self-image that sexual harassment can cause?

Writer-based questions: Why do I want to write about the best way to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace? Am I genuinely interested in the topic or just going through the motions?

Subject-based questions: Which terms do I need to define as I argue for the best ways to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace? How will I define best? Should I use examples as well as legal definitions of the term sexual harassment? 3. a. The drinking water in the San Francisco Bay Area’s Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir needs to be monitored on a more frequent basis than twice a year.

c. Our university should offer courses in minority literatures so that all students might benefit from reading selections from an enlarged literary canon.

Exercise 7.6

1. a. The exact wording suggests that the sentence has been borrowed, so this statement needs to be acknowledged.

b. The notation at the end providing a citation strongly suggests the statement needs to be acknowledged.

c. Since the information in the statement can be found in any three reference books and the phrasing is not distinctive, this statement needs no acknowledgment.

d. The exact wording is not distinctive and the idea unoriginal, so this statement needs no acknowledgment.

Chapter 8

DOCUMENTING YOUR SOURCES: MLA AND APA FORMATS

Goals

This chapter is primarily a resource for students to use as they would a dictionary, as a reference tool they consult as needed. Rather than put the information in an appendix, however, we have presented it as a chapter to emphasize to students the strong rather than secondary emphasis that serious writers of argument place on appropriate documentation.

Teaching Suggestions

This chapter logically follows the one on how students should research their arguments, so instructors might now want to specify which documentation style they would prefer that students use—MLA or APA. All instructors know that one can’t easily discuss a chapter that basically lists the different citation formats for different resources. Students won’t read such a list in depth; they’ll only note the odd citation form that catches the eye (“You mean I have to cite a telephone interview differently than I would a personal interview?”). To help

students actually notice some of the picayune minutiae of documentation, instructors could assign the two example student essays and then ask the class to determine which method of argument each author uses. (Gibson writes following the Rogerian model; Green employs the Toulmin model.) Class discussion can center on what model students see each essay as following, but instructors and students alike can focus on some of the marginalia that highlights the conventions of documentation. When students, in conference or during office hours, ask how to cite particular sources, instructors could model leafing through the chapter to the appropriate format so that students will see no one need memorize the citation form for every type of resource.