Argumentation/Persuasion
Using clear thinking and logic, you will try to
convince readers that your opinion/stance
on a controversial issue is sound and often
urges readers to commit themselves to your
side of the topic.
An Argumentation Essay
• An argumentative essay will utilize statistics,
report findings, and expert opinion to
demonstrate/support your stance on the subject.
• You will want to incorporate the opposition to
your topic into the essay and work on refuting
their claims and dissenting views.
• Refutation means pointing out the problems with
the opposing viewpoints, thereby highlighting
your own position’s superiority.
Greek Basic Concepts of Logic: LOGOS
• Logos—the soundness of your argument: the
facts, statistics, examples, and authoritative
statements you gather to support your
viewpoint.
• This supporting evidence must be unified,
specific, adequate, accurate, and
representative.
Greek Basic Concepts of Logic: PATHOS
• Pathos—the emotional power of language:
appeals to readers’ needs, values, and
attitudes, encouraging them to commit
themselves to a viewpoint or course of action.
• Connotative language—words with strong
emotional overtones—can move readers to
accept a point of view and may even spur
them to act.
Greek Concepts of Logic: ETHOS
• Ethos—the credibility and integrity of the
argument: you cannot expect readers to
accept or act on your viewpoint unless you
convince them that you know what you’re
talking about.
• Come across as knowledgeable and
trustworthy by incorporating logos and taking
the opposing views into account.
Writing an Effective ArgumentationPersuasion Essay
Evidence/Support can be found in many ways:
• Statistics from a report
• Fact from a newspaper article
• Personal observation
• Examples from an interview
• Expert opinion cited in a documentary
Evaluate Your Sources
• For each source, you should establish the credibility of the material
or person being cited.
• After each quote, you need to explain the material to the reader
and then provide a response.
• By providing a response to the sourced material, you are integrating
the support into your argument.
Mary Sherry, owner and founder of a research and publishing firm,
finds that many writers who aim to publish their work are
“inadequately suffering from grammar amnesia and are deluded by
a desire to be famous” (515). By this, I believe she means that many
of the writers today have overlooked the importance of grammar
and punctuation and simply want to be recognized. This supports
my stance that many writing students today. . .
Inductive Reasoning
• Involves examination of specific cases, facts,
or examples. Based on these specifics, you
then draw a conclusion or make a
generalization.
• Evidence: My head is aching
• Evidence: My nose is stuffy
• Evidence: My throat is scratchy
• Conclusion: I am coming down with a cold.
Deductive Reasoning
• Begins with a generalization that is then
applied to a specific case
• This movement from general to specific
involves a three-step form of reasoning called
a syllogism:
1)Major Premise
2)Minor Premise
3)Conclusion
Example of Syllogism
• Major Premise: In an accident, large cars are
safer than small cars
• Minor Premise: The Hummer is a large car.
• Conclusion: In an accident, the Hummer will
be safer than a small car.
Logical Fallacies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hasty Generalization
Sweeping Generalization
Post Hoc Fallacy (“after this, therefore because of this”)
Non Sequitor Fallacy (“it does not follow”)
Ad Hominen Argument (“to the man”)
Appeals to Questionable or Faulty Authority
Begging the Question
A False Analogy
Either/or Fallacy
Red Herring Fallacy
Appeal to Reader’s Fear or Pity
Hasty Generalizations
• Hasty Generalization: making a claim on the
basis of inadequate evidence.
• Example: It is disturbing that several of the
youths who shot up schools were users of
violent video games. Obviously, these games
can breed violence, and they should be
banned.
[Most youths who play violent video games do
not behave violently.]
Sweeping Generalization
• Absolute statements involving words such as all,
always, never, and no one that allow no
exceptions.
• Examples:
People who live in cities are unfriendly.
Californians are fad-crazy
Women are emotional
Men can’t express their feelings
[These are often considered stereoptypes]
Post Hoc Fallacy
• Occurs when you conclude that a cause-effect
relationship exists simply because one even
preceded another.
• Example:
A number of immigrants settle in a nearby city.
The city suffers an economic decline.
The immigrants’ arrival caused the decline.
[This is simply co-occurrence. There are most likely
other reasons for the decline.]
Non-Sequitor
• Linking two or more ideas that in fact have no
logical connection.
• Example: She uses a wheelchair, so she must
be unhappy.
[The second clause has nothing to do with the
first.]
Ad Hominem
• Attacking the qualities of the people holding
an opposing view rather than the view itself.
• Example: Bill Clinton had extramarital affairs,
so his views on global policy merit no
attention.
[Do the ex-president’s marital problems
invalidate his political views?]
Appeals to Questionable or Faulty
Authority
• Occurs when the argument fails to provide the
credibility of the sourced material.
• Examples:
Sources show…
An unidentified spokesperson states…
Experts claim…
Studies show…
[If these people and reports are so reliable, they
should be clearly identified.]
Begging the Question
• Involves failure to establish proof for a
debatable point.
• Example: The college library’s funding should
be reduced by cutting subscriptions to useless
periodicals.
[Are some of the library’s periodicals useless?]
False Analogy
• Implies that because two things share some
characteristics, they are therefore alike in all respects.
• Example: Nicotine and marijuana involve health risks
and have addictive properties.
“Driving while smoking a cigarette isn’t illegal, so driving
while smoking marijuana shouldn’t be illegal.”
[By making this argument, you have overlooked a major
difference between these two substances. Marijuana
impairs perception and coordination—important
aspects of driving—while there’s no evidence that
nicotine does the same.]
Either/or Fallacy
• Assuming that a complicated question has
only two answers, one good and one bad, or
both bad.
• Example: Either we permit mandatory drug
testing in the workplace or productivity will
continue to decline.
[Productivity is not necessarily dependent on
drug testing.]
Red Herring
• Introducing an irrelevant issue intended to
distract readers from the relevant issues
• Example: A campus speech code is essential to
protect students, who already have enough
problems coping with rising tuition.
[Tuition costs and speech codes are different
subjects. What protections do students need
that a speech code will provide?]
Appeal to Reader’s Fear or Pity
• Substituting emotions for reasoning
• Example: She should not have to pay taxes
because she is an aged widow with no friends
or relatives.
[Appeals to people’s pity. Should age and
loneliness, rather than income, determine a
person’s tax obligation.]