THE CORE OF
ARGUMENT
Mr. Baskin
COMP & RHET
THE CLASSICAL STRUCTURE OF ARGUMENT
 “Classical” argument is patterned after the persuasive speeches
of the ancient Greek and Roman orators.
 PRIMARY ELEMENTS
 Exordium-attention grabbing starter element
 Narratio-necessary background information
 Propositio-the speaker’s claim
 Partitio-forecasts main elements of speech itself
 Confirmatio-presents speaker’s arguments in support of
the claim
 Confutatio-summarizes and rebuts opposing views
 Peroratio-concludes by summing up argument, calling for
action, and leaving a strong impression
CLASSICAL ARGUMENT-CONT.
 Now, knowing the Latin terms is awesome, but they are mostly
there to assure you that these forms are time -tested and ancient.
 Here are the contemporary equivalents (you know them well)
 Introduction




Exordium
Narratio
Propositio
Partitio
 Presentation of Writer’s Position (doesn’t have to come first)
 Confirmatio
 Summar y and Critique of Alternate Viewpoints
 Confutatio
 Conclusion
 Peroratio
CLASSICAL ARGUMENT-CONT.
 This method is very strong and robust —it can be used in many
dif ferent situations.
 However, may not be the most persuasive strategy depending
on your purposes.
 May be better to emphasize your thesis without opposing views, or
showing more sympathy for the opposition, for example.
 Even still, can be a useful organizational tool since it forces
you to lay out your argument and counter positions in brief.
 Can reveal flaws in your thinking and push you to do more
research.
 Mostly useful when addressing NEUTRAL or UNDECIDED
audiences.
CLASSICAL APPEALS & THE RHETORICAL
TRIANGLE
 Classical orators were also very concerned about the methods
of persuasion. HOW do you persuade someone?
 Identified THREE persuasive appeals:
 LOGOS
 PATHOS
 ETHOS
LOGOS
Greek for “Word”
Focuses attention on the quality of the
message—on its internal consistency and
clarity, its quality of reason and support. Its
LOGIC.
Effects are referred to as logical appeals.
ETHOS
 Greek for “character”
 Focuses on the writer (or speaker’s) character as projected in
the message.
 Includes credibility.
 Often conveyed through style and tone, the care with which
alternative views are dealt, and writer’s involvement or
investment with the claim.
 Also factors in author’s reputation for honesty and expertise
apart from the actual message of the piece.
 Impact is referred to as an “ethical appeal.”
PATHOS
Greek for “suf fering” or “experience”
Focuses on the values and beliefs of the intended audience.
Also associated with an emotional appeal.
More specifically refers to an audience’s imaginative
sympathies—their ability or capacity to feel and see what the
writer feels and sees.
 So, when we turn an abstract situation or claim into an
immediate story that engages the emotions and imagination,
we are using a pathetic appeal.
 LOGOS and ETHOS appeal to reason and logic —our
understanding.
 PATHOS engages our feelings, and deepens the audience’s
appreciation of the message.




KAIROS
 A related concern (in addition to ETHOS, PATHOS, and LOGOS)
is KAIROS, or the Greek word for “the right season.”
 Suggests that for an argument to be persuasive, the timing
must be ef fectively selected.
 In addition, its tone and structure must be in the right
measure or proportion.





In essence, ask these questions:
Is this the right time for the message?
Is my audience ready to hear me?
Would the argument be more effective if I waited?
If it does need to be sent now, is this the right tone and content for
the moment?
ISSUE QUESTIONS AS THE ORIGINS OF
ARGUMENT
 At the heart of any argument is the “issue” —a controversial
topic area
 Gives rise to points of view and conflicting claims about the
issue.
 Best to focus by developing an “issue question” that invites at
least two alternative answers.
 FOR EXAMPLE:
 When does a fetus become a human being? (At conception?
At 3 months? At birth?)
 What are the ef fects of legalizing abortion? (Greater freedom
of choice? Lessens society’s respect for life?)
INFORMATION VS. ISSUE QUESTIONS
 Not all questions can be answered reasonably in two or more
dif fering ways; thus not all questions lead to solid arguments.
 Distinguish between two categories:
 EXPLICATION—writing designed to inform or explain
 ARGUMENTATION—writing designed to persuade or change a
reader’s mind
 EXAMPLE:
 How does the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States
compare to the rate in Sweden? If the rates are dif ferent,
why?
 The first is informational —the second is potentially
argumentative.
IDENTIFYING AN ISSUE QUESTION
 Consider your relationship to the audience, and your purpose.
 A teacher’s general goal is to inform. Their questions aren’t
about persuasion, most of the time.
 However, a lawyer in front of a jury is generating issue
questions.
 EXAMPLES:
 How does a diesel engine work?
 Why is a diesel engine more fuel ef ficient than a gas one?
 What is the most cost ef fective way to produce diesel from
crude oil?
 Should the present highway tax on diesel be increased?
PSEUDO-ARGUMENT
 Not every dispute over answers is a rational argument (duh)
 Rational (real) arguments require:
 Reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of
reasonable behavior.
 Potentially sharable assumptions that can serve as a starting place
for argument.
 If one of the above is not met, then we are left with a PSEUDO
ARGUMENT
FANATICISM
 Reasonable argument assumes the possibility of change —
disputants may modify their views as they acknowledge
strengths in alternate views or weaknesses in their own.
 Fanatical commitment to a position negates this possibility.
FANATICAL BELIEVERS
 Claims are true because they say so, end of story.
 Often follow a “party line” of views.
 Ideological convictions are shaped by their favorite
indisputable texts, websites, shows, etc.
 Arguments/pronouncements never change over time, but
remain constant.
 Disagreement is generally non -productive.
FANATICAL SKEPTICS
 Dismisses the possibility of proving ANY THING.
 Short of absolute proof (which never exists), these skeptics
accept nothing.
 Demands ironclad, logical demonstration of a claim’s
“rightness” or “truthiness.”
 Disagreement generally non -productive.
LACK OF SHARED ASSUMPTIONS
 Another source of pseudo argument.
 Dif ficult to argue ef fectively without some kind of common
ground.
 Shared assumptions are starting points for argument.
 A DOOMED EXAMPLE
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
Smoking should be banned because it causes cancer.
So it causes cancer. What’s so bad about that?
Don’t be perverse. Cancer causes suffering and death.
Don’t be such a lightweight. Suffering and death are part of the
human condition.
 But that doesn’t make them desirable, especially if they can be
avoided.
 They can be avoided for a while, but we all die eventually. So
who cares if smoking causes cancer?




 Without any shared assumptions (cancer=bad, death should be
delayed, suffering should be minimized, etc.), this argument has
no good outcome. It’s just a bottomless pit. Calling out bad
assumptions is GOOD. Having no shared assumptions makes
argument impossible.
PSEUDO ARGUMENTS (CONT)
 Often, these arguments are built around personal opinions,
like which is better—pizza or nachos?
 We COULD do it, if we agreed to some shared criterion, like
nutritional value.
FRAME OF AN ARGUMENT: A CLAIM
SUPPORTED BY REASONS
 As stated earlier, argument begins with an ISSUE QUESTION,
which by definition is any question that provokes
disagreement about the best answer.
 When you compose an argument, your task is to take a
POSITION on the issue and support that stance with reasons
and evidence.
 The CLAIM of your essay is the position you want your
audience to accept.
 CLAIM=THESIS
 CLAIMS require SUPPORT
WHAT IS A REASON?
 A REASON (or PREMISE) is a claim used in support of another
claim.
 The reason is usually linked to the claim with connecting
words like BECAUSE, SINCE, FOR, SO, THUS, CONSEQUENTLY,
and THEREFORE.
 Each indicates that the claim follows logically from the
reason.
 EXAMPLE: Women in the Military
CONT.
 Formulating a list of this type can help in a variety of ways:
 It provides a frame for your arguments, allowing you to build in parts
 It allows you to select the reasons that will best persuade your
audience. Perhaps all of them will work, or just one or two.
 Allows for further development of each line of reasoning
 EXAMPLE
 IF we expand upon the reason of “Women have already proven
their combat ef fectiveness in the Iraq war, where are there
are no front lines,” we would SUPPORT that reason (or sub claim) with stories of women in non -combat or support units
proving their ef fectiveness in combat.
 Would probably also attempt to assert how these support unit
performances would transfer to combat heavy units.
 Then, repeat for each reason you wish to use.
EXPRESSING REASONS IN BECAUSE
CLAUSES
 For most children BECAUSE is a magic word. It provides
enough reason for anything. It seems DECISIVE. It seems
POWERFUL.
 Eventually, you learned that what came AFTER because was
the important part.
 Still, it is most people’s first introduction to LOGIC.
 But, it isn’t the only way to introduce a reason.
OTHER THAN BECAUSE
THE USEFULNESS OF BECAUSE
 Even though we CAN state logical relationships in various
ways, writing out one or more because clauses seems to be
the most succinct and manageable way to clarify an argument
for oneself.
 As a result, it is often useful to devise a WORKING THESIS
STATEMENT (W TS) for your projects.
 The W TS summarizes your reasons as because clauses
attached to your claim.
 EXAMPLE
DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH
 Some of you will wish to define your arguments, create a W TS,
etc. BEFORE you begin a rough draft. That’s great!
 However, some writers use the process of writing to explore
and refine their ideas, discovering as they go.
 BOTH ARE FINE!
 You may even choose to use a combination of pre -planning
and in-draft refinement. Find what works for you!
 Use BECAUSE as a discovery tool.
 May seem to tidy and reductive, but it can outline clearly what
you need to do in composing and structuring a sound
argument.