Revision workshop: thesis statements and topic sentences.
Once we’ve discussed these thesis statements and topic sentences and revised a few
more on the board, I want you to try revising your own. You can help each other do this.
Be sure your thesis is specific. If it could apply to ANY text – e.g. “Doar uses the
emotional appeal to convince his audience” – then your thesis is not specific enough.
General: “Doar uses the emotional appeal.”
Plus: is there an argument being advanced?
Specific and more assertive: “While Doar’s use of evidence seems like the strongest part
of his argument, his appeal to the jury’s emotions was even more effective.”
OR: “While Doar’s use of evidence is convincing to us, ultimately his clever appeal to
the jury’s sense of humanity and justice represents his only chance to win a conviction
from the local audience.”
Why are the revised thesis statements stronger? What is the central assertion of each?
What will the writer have to prove in each paper? Is one revised thesis stronger than the
other?
Assertive topic sentences help advance your argument. General, descriptive sentences
often occur in the topic sentences. See if you can ‘recast” those, making them more
assertive and specific.
Descriptive topic sentence: “Doar also uses the emotional appeal.”
Assertive topic sentence: “Doar uses emotional language in describing the victims so
that the jury will begin to feel sorry for them.”
Assertive and even more specific topic sentence: “Doar uses emotional language in
describing the victims so that the jury will begin to see them as human beings, instead of
as trouble makers and outsiders.”
OR: “Doar cleverly calls the victims ‘boys’ and describes the brutality of their murders
so that the jury will begin to feel sympathy for them and for their families.”
Remember, if your topic sentence (or the claim/assertion of your paragraph) relates
back to your thesis, it will help your reader follow the logic of your essay. A reader
should be able to scan your topic sentences and get a sense of how your argument builds
or progresses. (Of course, the assertion of your paragraph is not always the first sentence,
but your reader should be able to easily find the claim of each paragraph.)
Developed by Beth Alvarado
University of Arizona Writing Program – 2002
It might be helpful to think of “argument” in the context of academic writing as a
clear, logical line of reasoning that convinces the audience to consider or accept the
writer’s viewpoint. Lapses in logic—also called logical fallacies-- can damage a writer’s
ethos in that they imply a lack of clear thought on the part of the writer. Exposing faulty
logic can provide a powerful counterargument for your paper. However, we shouldn’t
assume that such fallacies are always committed unintentionally; if you can identify and
explain what such lapses in logic suggest about the writer, the audience or the writer’s
conception of the audience, you can move your rhetorical analysis to a more sophisticated
level. Relying on logical fallacies in your academic papers will not be an effective
strategy in that your audience is trained in logical and critical thinking skills—this is our
livelihood! Therefore, you will want to be aware of the most common fallacies (outlined
below in four main categories) so that you can also avoid falling into these traps in your
own arguments.
Fallacies of Relevance
When the main premise of an argument is irrelevant to the conclusion, you can counter
the argument by noting this irrelevance while also acknowledging the strength of the
opposition. Some common fallacies of
1.
An argument attacks an individual’s character or behavior rather than
the issue at hand. Example: A writer argues against increased gun control
because the only people who defend the second amendment are ignorant
rednecks. The attack on the character of second amendment supporters is not
relevant to the issue (even ignorant rednecks have rights as U.S. citizens), and
in focusing his argument in this way the writer also concedes that second
amendment issues threaten his stance (he didn’t, for example, dispute the
interpretation of “right to bear arms” language contained in the amendment,
for example).
2.
An argument relies on the character/beliefs of a certain individual or
group and the audience’s admiration of these characteristics in order to
make an argument not about that individual/group but about an
unrelated issue.
Advertisements rely on this all the time: Rather than discussing the particular
beneficial characteristics of a product, they simply show someone
attractive/happy/talented using the product as a way to persuade the audience
to purchase it as well. Think of major sports stars advertising shoes, for
example.
3. An argument attacks an individual or group based on an association with
another individual or group.
Example: A writer argues that vegetarianism may be the best option for
conserving the environment, but that it also leads to increased drug abuse as
evidenced by the number of vegetarians among those arrested for marijuana
possession in the last year. This argument is fallacious because it suggests
guilt by association with the aspects of another group: while some pot
smokers may be vegetarians, not all vegetarians are pot smokers.
4. An argument introduces a new argument (also known as a “red herring”)
in order to distract the reader’s attention from the issue at hand.
Example: In debate about the fuel efficiency of various car designs, the
speaker brings up the importance of buying domestic vehicles to support the
American economy. This diverts attention from the issue of fuel efficiency.
Fallacies of False Premises
These flaws in logic can be extremely subtle in that they consist of a misleading or false
basis for an argument. You should always question whether the argument is building on
something the author has already shown to be true, or on assumptions made by the writer
or you, the reader.
1. An argument is based on a non-sequitur, meaning that one premise does not
logically follow from another.
For example, a writer claims that students with high grades and test scores make
the best employees. The conclusion does not follow because the writer has not
established the correlation between the test scores and the desirable characteristics
of an employee. These arguments are sometimes difficult to spot because readers
have a tendency to “fill in the blank” mentally in order to make sense of the
argument, which entails at least a momentary acceptance of the argument.
2. An argument misrepresents the opposing view by rewording it in such a way
as to make the argument seem more vulnerable.
This is known as the straw man fallacy: imagine a battle between two opponents,
where one builds another man out of straw, attacks it and then claims victory.
This type of argument may make perfect sense and be logical; the problem is that
in the context it does not address the real questions in the audience’s mind. In this
sense, it’s similar to the red herring. Example: A writer states that those who
oppose rapid advances in technology want people to go back to using stone tools.
Most likely this is an extreme exaggeration of the opposite position and not what
the argument is really about.
3. An argument is construed as an either/or proposition, which denies any other
alternative.
This is also known as a “false dichotomy.” Example: A writer argues that
Michael Moore’s criticism of our country’s current foreign policy indicates that
he opposes democracy and the American way of life. This implies that there are
only two choices: “with us or against us”. In fact, Moore’s outspoken critiques
could be seen as an affirmation of democracy and the responsibilities of
citizenship.
Fallacies of Inference
When a writer suggests a strong link between two premises when such a link has actually
not been established at all or is very weak, they are committing a logical fallacy. These
arguments often rely on decontextualized or faulty statistics to exact a conclusion.
1.
2.
3.
An argument makes a hasty generalization based on incomplete evidence
or unrepresentative samples.
Example: A writer claims that most students prefer fast food to healthier
options based on the results of a poll taken at the student union.
An argument assumes that an event/action is the cause of another simply
because it occurred before it.
Example: A writer argues that Republican policies are soft on crime because
the murder rate in Washington D.C. has increased substantially since Bush
was elected president. Such a statement maybe true, but analysis of the
statistics may show that many factors besides the election of the president
caused this increase.
An argument relies on a questionable analogy to support the conclusion.
For example, a writer claims that the best solution to traffic problems in
Tucson would be a light rail system because that system was shown to
significantly improve congestion and air quality in Tokyo. To make the
argument logical, the writer must demonstrate substantial similarities between
the two locations and their problems.
Content Peer Review
Rhetorical Analysis
Reviewed by:____________________
Reviewed for:____________________
1. What is the thesis statement? Is it specific? Do you have suggestions to improve it?
2. Evaluate the introduction (and title if there is one). How well does it prepare the
reader for the discussion that follows? Does it make you want to read more?
3. An analysis may require some summary, but should not simply retell the text being
examined. How does the author use summary in this paper? Where might it be
condensed or cut to make room for analysis?
4. Paraphrase the argument of the paper as you understand it. Where in the paper did
you learn something about the text your peer is analyzing? What did you see in a
new way? Are there elements of the text that you feel your peer is overlooking?
Why do you think these warrant more attention?
5. Would you dispute any of the claims the writer makes? On what basis?
6. Has the writer used textual evidence to support his/her assertions? Is this evidence
explained in a way that ties it directly into the author’s own ideas? Indicate specific
places where more evidence is needed to more fully develop/explicate/ defend the
author’s points, or where the evidence is not tied sufficiently into the author’s ideas
to make his/her discussion clear.