Argument as Inquiry: Part I
Chapter 2
“Is it possible in America today to
convince anyone of anything he [or she]
doesn’t already believe?”
“How can arguers participate in a
‘mingling of the minds’ and use
argument productively to seek answers
to problems?”
Oral, visual, print, hypertext
arguments = antagonistic sound bites
or talking points
To position ourselves as inquirers as
well as persuaders:
▫
▫
▫
▫
engage thoughtfully with alternate points of view
truly listen to other perspectives
examine own values and assumptions
PERHAPS change views
Thinker’s goal:
▫ live with questions
▫ acknowledge uncertainty and complexity
▫ resist settling for simple or quick answers
Finding Issues to Explore
▫ curiosity
▫ confusion
▫ concern
Brainstorm (pg. 26)
Inventory of communities to which you
belong
• Controversy within those communities
•
•
•
•
•
• Narrow list of problematic issues
•
•
•
•
• List of related issues
Exploring Ideas by Freewriting
• writing on issue nonstop (pg. 29)
• (remember “relax, relax, relax” and “I’m stuck”)
Exploring Ideas by Idea Mapping (pg.
29)
• Place “trigger idea” in center of circle and ideas
in branches and subbranches
Believing and Doubting Game (pg.
30)
• First, write as if you are wholly sympathetic to
the idea.
▫ Suspend disbelief
▫ Find/list reasons to believe
• Then, write as a judgmental or critical reading.
▫ Find best counter-examples and inconsistencies
Consider the Rhetorical Context
• Evaluate the genre and source—do the
writers/speakers/publishers have a hidden or
overt agenda?
• (consult chart on pg. 33)
Summary Writing for Reading to
Believe
• Read the article for general meaning
▫ Don’t judge
▫ Walk in the writer’s shoes
• Re-read article closely
▫ Write short does and says statements for each
paragraph
 DOES: offers several examples of vegan menus for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
 SAYS: that adding a wide variety of food choices
throughout the day can help meet daily
requirements for protein.
Thinking Dialectically
• Plays ideas against each other, creating a tension
• Listen to different views and identify sources of
disagreement
▫ Disagreement about the facts of a case
▫ Disagreement about underlying values, beliefs, or
assumptions