1
RWS 100 Table of Contents
Pg#
Reading and Writing Arguments
Rhetoric, Writing, and Argument
Key Rhetorical Terms and Concepts
PACES: Project • Argument • Claims • Evidence • Strategies
Questions to Ask the Text BEFORE You Read
Mortimer Adler, “How to Mark a Book”
Charting a Text
Rhetorical Précis: description and examples
I know what it says, but what does it do?
Paraphrasing
Some Questions to Ask Any Text
Gerald Graff, “How to Write an Argument”
Short Texts
Vince Parry, “The Art of Branding a Condition”
Jeremy Rifkin, “A Change of Heart About Animals”
Nicholas Kristof, “War and Wisdom”
Jeff Bleich, “California’s Higher-Education Debacle”
Nicholas Kristof, “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”
Transcript of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s speech
Long Texts
Mandelbaum, “Varieties of Religious Experience”
Pinker, “The Moral Instinct”
Analyzing Arguments
Aristotelian Appeals: Logos, Ethos, Pathos
Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies
Sample Rhetorical Strategy Papers
The Rhetorical Strategy of Metadiscourse
Describing relationships between texts
Appendix
Classmate Contact Info
Agreement on Plagiarism/Use of Student Work
The material in this reader was prepared by Erin Flewelling, Chris Werry, Rose Burt, Alicia Upano, and Melissa
Watson, and draws from/remixes/takes inspiration from work done by many members of the RWS department.
2
Rhetoric, Writing & Argument
This is not a literature class, and it’s probably different from all the English classes you’ve taken.
This semester, you will be studying rhetoric, writing, and argument.
Before we begin, it’s probably a good idea to establish some definitions and goals, just so we’re all on the
same page.
What is rhetoric?
Rhetoric began in ancient Greece. Citizens studied rhetoric to learn how to argue, communicate and
reason, mostly so they could use these skills to participate in public life. Rhetorical education was
especially important in law, democratic debate, and political action. The Greek philosophers Plato and
Aristotle both wrote about rhetoric.
Aristotle provided one of the most influential early definitions of rhetoric.
Aristotle noticed that some speakers in Athens were more effective in persuading
the public than others. In On Rhetoric, a collection of those observations, he
offered this definition:
“Let rhetoric be defined as the faculty of observing in any case all of the
available means of persuasion.”
Modern rhetoric: the field of rhetoric has developed enormously over the centuries, drawing from and
influencing other disciplines.
Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg are English professors who discuss the value of learning rhetoric and
how to teach rhetoric to college students. Their definition is a little more detailed:
Rhetoric has a number of overlapping meanings . . . the use of language, written or spoken,
to inform or persuade; the study of the persuasive effects of language; the study of the
relation between language and knowledge; the classification and use of tropes and
figures…Nor does this list exhaust the definitions that might be given. Rhetoric is a
complex discipline with a long history.”
The web site of the department of Rhetoric & Writing Studies describes rhetoric this way:
Rhetoric refers to the study and uses of written, spoken and visual language. It investigates how
texts are used to organize and maintain social groups, construct meanings and identities,
coordinate behavior, mediate power, persuade, produce change, and create knowledge.
Comedian Stephen Colbert describes the importance of studying
rhetoric, stating, “My rhetoric teacher, Professor Crawley, ordered my mind.
Simplicity of language, supporting ideas, synthesizing an effective conclusion—
that’s what I learned from him.”
3
Why Write?
E. M. Forster, who wrote Passage to India, as well as other influential novels, answered the question
this way: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
Young & Sullivan: “Why write? One important reason is that unless we do there are mental acts we
cannot perform, thoughts we cannot think, inquiries we cannot engage in.”
National Commission on Writing: “If students are to make knowledge their own, they must struggle
with the details, wrestle with the facts, and rework raw information and dimly understood concepts into
language they can communicate to someone else. In short, if students are to learn, they must write…The
reward of disciplined writing is the most valuable job attribute of all: a mind equipped to think.”
Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a pioneering aviator and author, gave a more detailed answer. She
explained, “I must write it all out, at any cost. Writing is thinking. It is more than living, for it is being
conscious of living.”
What are arguments, and what do they have to do with writing
and rhetoric?
Obviously, we’re not talking about disagreements with parents, siblings, friends, or enemies.
In this case, an argument is a statement or idea that someone tries to persuade somebody else to believe. A
reasonable person might disagree with that statement.
An argument may also center on a proposed piece of action, upon which reasonable people might disagree.
Arguments are everywhere. You’ll find them in academic writing, advertisements, newspapers, and films.
Politicians use arguments every single day.
In college, you will be asked to read, evaluate, and create arguments. Most of the time those arguments
will be written.
WHY IS ARGUMENT IMPORTANT?
Gerald Graff: “Argument literacy is central to being educated.”
Rolf Norgaard: “Universities are houses of argument.”
Christopher Lasch:
If we insist on argument as the essence of education, we will defend
democracy not as the most efficient but as the most educational form of
government, one that extends the circle of debate as widely as possible
and thus forces all citizens to articulate their views, to put their views
at risk, and to cultivate the virtues of eloquence, clarity of thought and
expression, and sound judgment.
4
KEY RHETORICAL TERMS
& CONCEPTS
Over the course of the semester, you will be asked to describe arguments, what they are, and
how they are constructed. In order to do so, you will identify and discuss rhetorical concepts.
This type of writing is called rhetorical analysis.
Rhetorical Analysis:
Rhetorical analysis looks not only at what a text says, but at what it
does. It includes consideration of the claims, devices and strategic “moves”
an author makes in hopes of persuading an audience.
Many claims and arguments within texts are implied rather than explicit;
performing rhetorical analyses on texts helps us to get a better sense of
how, why, and to what extent an argument is effective.
Consider how a text works to convince its audience of the argument at
hand. What, besides simply using logic, do authors use to help win a
crowd? This work may include describing an author’s argument, use of
evidence, rhetorical strategies, textual arrangement, or the complex
relationships between author, audience, text, context, and purpose.
Some words used to describe what a text does
argues • appeals to authority • assumes • challenges • complicates
constructs an analogy • contrasts • presents counterexamples • defines
distinguishes (between) • extends • forecasts • frames • implies • parodies
problematized • qualifies • rebuts • ridicules • stresses
supports • synthesizes • theorizes
5
PACES: Project, Argument, Claims, Evidence, Strategies
In your rhetorical analyses, you will use specific terms and concepts. To help you remember
these terms, remember the acronym PACES.
This stands for Project • Argument • Claims • Evidence • Strategies
Project:
This is the kind of work an author sets out to do. This definition often
confuses students. It might be helpful to think of Project in other terms:



Argument:


It is the purpose and method used to carry out that work.
It is the overall activity the writer engages in—researching,
investigating, experimenting, interviewing, documenting, etc.
Try to imagine the author’s goals or hypotheses in writing the text.
In the broadest sense, an argument is any piece of written, spoken, or
visual language designed to persuade an audience or bring about a
change in ideas/attitudes.
In academic writing, the argument often refers to the main point,
assertion, or conclusion advanced by an author, along with the evidence
and reasoning by which this is established.
Arguments are concerned with contested issues where some degree of
uncertainty exists. It would be useless to argue about something on
which everyone agrees.
Describing the main argument is NOT the same as describing what a text is “about.”
Arguments (and claims) usually advance debatable propositions. For example, an author may
write about climate change. However, this is not the argument. In that piece of writing, the
author may argue that the United States should pass the Kyoto Agreement, or pass cap and
trade legislation. The author might also argue that climate change is a conspiracy theory
without scientific merit. Each of these is an assertion that stakes out a position. Each can be
debated.
To articulate the argument, you will choose a verb that describes the strength of that
argument.
Arguments exist outside of academic writing as well. Think about advertising, political speech,
and the perspectives of documentary and even fictitious films. All of these can contain
arguments. Even a photograph can communicate an argument.
6
Claims:
A claim is something the writer wants the audience to believe. Usually consists
of an assertion, the staking out of a position, the solution to a problem, or the
resolution of some shortcoming, weakness or gap in existing research.




Claims often come with self-identification. For example, the author
might state, “My point here is that…”
An author might also provide emphasis, stating, “It must be stressed
that…”
With another type of claim, the author might demonstrate approval. For
example, “Olson makes some important and long overdue amendments to
the basic position outlined by…”
The author might also provide a problem/solution framework.
Arguments may consist of numerous claims and sometimes sub-claims. Whenever you identify
a claim, look for evidence to support that claim. Without evidence, the claim is weak and can
easily be refuted with contradictory evidence.
An author without authoritative evidence may provide statements that justify the claim, or
explain why a claim should be believed. A reason is evidence, information, justification or data
given to support a claim. To find reasons, ask why the claim can be made. What have you got
to go on? What is there to support the claim?
Once again, to articulate a claim, you will choose a verb that describes what that claim is doing.
Evidence:

The component of the argument used as support for the claims made.
Evidence is the support, reasons, data/information used to help
persuade/prove an argument. To find evidence in a text, ask what the
author has to go on.
o What is there to support this claim?
o Is the evidence credible?
Not all evidence is equally credible. Some types of evidence include:
facts • historical examples or comparisons • examples • analogies • illustrations
interviews • statistics (source & date are important) • expert testimony
authoritative quotes • anecdotes or narrative illustrations • witnesses
• personal experiences • reasoning
7
Strategies:
Hmm..
.
Rhetorical strategies are the ways authors craft language—both
consciously and subconsciously—in order to have an effect on readers.
Strategies are means of persuasion, ways of gaining a readers’ attention,
interest, or agreement.
Some common strategies include:












The way an author organizes her text
The way an author selects evidence
When an author addresses the reader
The way an author frames an issue
The choice of a definition for key words
The ways an author uses to establishes credibility and trust
(ethos)
Appeals to authority (logos)
Identifying and refuting opposing views
Use of style and tone
Metaphors and images
Use of “meta-discourse”
Repetition
The Rhetorical Situation – When writing a rhetorical analysis, you will
also consider the circumstances in which an author or speaker communicates (see below).
text/subject
context
purpose
audience
writer
Entry points for analysis:
 writer- age, experience, gender,
locations, political beliefs, education,
etc.
 purpose- to persuade, entertain, inform,
educate, call to action, shock, etc.
 audience- age, experience, gender,
locations, political beliefs, education,
expectations, etc.
 text/subject- broad, narrow, depends on
situation
 context- the “situation” generating need;
time, location, current events, cultural
significance
(adapted from Tony Burman)
8
Questions to Ask About the Text BEFORE You Read1
Previewing, Skimming, Surveying
Your time is valuable. If you’re like most students, you want to finish your reading as quickly
as possible. You have other readings for other classes and a fair amount of homework.
However, you can learn a lot about a text before you even begin reading and it’s worth it to
take a few extra minutes to ask these questions before you begin the reading assignment.
1. What can I learn from the title? While titles can sometimes be general or provide
few clues to the content of the work, a critical reader can often learn a lot about a text
based on its title. A title may indicate the author’s point of view on the subject (e.g.
“Keep the Borders Open”) or reveal the author’s argument (e.g. “A Change of Heart
About Animals”).
2. What do I know about the author? In many academic texts, such as course readers
and textbooks, publishers often include a short biographical sketch of the author. From
this information a reader can gain insight into the author’s background, credentials,
project, argument, purpose, and more. Even when the editor of the course reader or text
book doesn’t give you an introduction, you can do a simple Google search to help
determine the author’s authority, credentials, background, etc. Many writers (and most
academics) have web sites that will tell you a lot about them and the work they do.
You can also use the San Diego State’s online biography resources:
http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/sub2.php?id=92&pg=13
3. Who is the publisher? While a publisher’s reputation is not an automatic indicator of
the source’s reliability, you can learn a lot by discovering who published a particular
work. For example, university presses and academic journals tend to expect a high
degree of scholarship and many of these works are peer reviewed to ensure a text’s
quality. When reading popular periodicals, you may discover that certain magazines and
newspapers consistently reflect certain political positions, which can help you anticipate
the political position of the text you are about to read. You may also be able to identify
the target audience for this particular text, based on the publication source.
4. When was the text written? Locating the date of publication can provide useful
information about the rhetorical context in which the writer developed their work.
5. What can I learn from skimming the text? Proficient readers often skim through a
text before reading to gather important information.
 You can survey the organization of the text, looking for text divisions, section headings,
and subtitles, which may give clues about the text.
1
Part of this adapted from Yagelski, Robert P. and Robert K. Miller, ed. The Informed Argument. 6th ed. Australia:
Thompson, 2004, and work by Jamie Fleres.
9



You can also note important signal words, such as therefore, so, thus, but, however, for
example, first, second, etc. to learn more about the structure of the argument and the
rhetorical work of the writer.
Skim the visuals and note the relationship between the visual and written text.
Look for head-notes, footnotes, and biographical information.
10
Mortimer Adler, an American philosopher, was a high school dropout. Eventually he returned to
school and became an advocate for education. He taught at both Columbia University and the University
of Chicago. This article first appeared in 1940, long before digital media and e-readers. Are his
arguments about marking a text still valid? Why or why not?
[INSERT MORTIMER ADLER ARTICLE, “How to Mark a
Book”]
11
Charting a Text
Charting2 involves annotating a text in order to show the “work” each paragraph, group
of paragraphs, or section is doing. Charting helps identify what each part of the text is
doing as well as what it is saying—helping us move away from summary to analysis.
There are two strategies for charting that we’ll look at: macro-charting and microcharting.
MACRO-CHARTING
How do we do macro-charting?
• Break text down into sections--identify “chunks” or parts of the
text that seem to work together to DO something for the overall
argument.
• Draw lines between sections and label each one, annotating them
with “doing” verbs: providing context, making a claim,
supporting a claim, rebutting counter argument, illustrating
with personal anecdote, describing the issue, etc.
Why do we do macro-charting?
• Macro-charting helps with understanding structure of argument,
as well as locating claims, supporting evidence, and main
argument.
• Macro-charting guides students toward identifying relationships
between ideas.
• Macro-charting brings awareness that behind every sentence there
is an author with intent who makes rhetorical choices to achieve
his/her aims.
MICRO-CHARTING
How do we do micro-charting?
• Break down sections of text by paragraph to analyze what each
paragraph is doing for the overall argument.
• Detail the smaller “moves” and strategies made within paragraphs:
note when, where, and how and author makes a claim, cites
evidence, and/or supports his/argument using a rhetorical
strategy.
Why do we do micro-charting?
• Micro-charting can serve as a way to thoroughly understand in a
detailed way how a text is put together.
• Micro-charting encourages readers to look more carefully and
closely at a text and helps us to focus our reading on tasks asked
for in prompts.
• Micro-charting brings awareness of the specific rhetorical choices
made throughout a text (addressing particular audiences by
making deliberate moves).
2
Adapted from work by Micah Jendian and Katie Hughes
12
Rhetorical Précis – description and examples
In order to help us quickly and effectively describe the argument an author is making in a text,
we can use a method of description called the rhetorical précis. Developed by Margaret
Woodworth, 3 this method is designed to highlight key elements of the rhetorical situation, and
help students with reading comprehension and treatment of source materials in their writing.
This précis is a highly structured four-sentence paragraph that records the essential rhetorical
elements in any spoken or written discourse. The précis includes the name of the
speaker/writer(s), the context or situation in which the text is delivered, the major assertion,
the mode of development for or support of the main idea, the stated and/or apparent purpose of
the text, and the relationship between the speaker/writer(s) and the audience. The following is
a breakdown of the information you should include in each one of the four sentences.
1. Name of the author, a phrase describing the author, the type and title of the work, the
date (in parenthesis), a rhetorically accurate verb (such as “assert,” “argue,” “suggest,”
“imply,” “claim,” “question,” etc.) that describes what the author is doing in the text, and
a THAT clause in which you state the major assertion (argument statement) of the
author’s text.
2. An explanation of how the author develops and/or supports the argument—the
rhetorical structure of the text (for instance, comparing and contrasting, narrating,
illustrating, defining, etc.). Your explanation is usually presented in the same
chronological order that the items of support are presented in the work.
3. A statement of the author’s apparent purpose, followed by an IN ORDER TO phrase in
which you explain what the author wants the audience to do or feel as a result of
reading the work.
4. A description of the intended audience and/or the relationship the author establishes
with the author.
Rhetorical Précis Frame
1. (Author’s credentials), (author’s first and last name) in his/her (type of text), (title of
text), published in (publishing info) addresses the topic of (topic of text) and argues
that (argument).
2. He/she supports this claim by___________, then___________, then_____________,
and finally____________.
3. 3. (Author’s last name)’s purpose is to (author’s purpose in writing) in order to
(change in reader/society the author wants to achieve).
4. 4. He/she adopts a(n) __________ tone for his/her audience, the readers of
(publication) and others interested in the topic of______________.
3
Woodworth, Margaret K. "The Rhetorical Précis." Rhetoric Review 7 (1988): 156-164. "The Rhetorical Précis."
Rhetoric Review 7 (1988): 156-164.
13
Example 1:
1. Economist Jeremy Rifkin, in the LA Times editorial titled “A Change of Heart About
Animals” (September 1, 2003), argues that new scientific evidence demonstrates that
humans and animals are more alike than previously assumed.
2. Rifkin supports his claim by introducing human attributes assumed lacking in animals
and then providing evidence that show animals share these characteristics.
3. The author’s purpose is to persuade us that animals and humans are similar in order
to gain support for ethical treatment of animals.
4. The author writes in a respectful tone with informal language to appeal to the broad
audience that reads the LA Times.
Example 2:
1. British philosopher, John Stuart Mill, in his essay “On Nature” (1850), argues that
using nature as a standard for ethical behavior is illogical.
2. He supports this claim by first giving the common definitions as nature as, “all that
exists or all that exists without the intervention of man” and then supplying extensive
examples of the daily brutality of nature in the real world.
3. His purpose is to call attention to the flaws in the “nature as a standard” argument in
order to convince people to discard this standard and to instead use reason and logic
to determine the appropriate ethical standard of action for mankind.
4. He establishes a formal, scholarly tone for the reader of “Nature”—an audience of
philosophers, educators, and other interested citizens.
More Examples
1. Textbook author Sheridan Baker, in his essay “Attitudes” (1966) asserts that writers’
attitudes toward their subjects, their audiences, and themselves determine to a large
extent the quality of their prose.
2. Baker supports this assertion by showing examples of how appropriate attitudes can
make writing unclear, pompous, or boring, concluding that a good writer “will be
respectful toward his audience, considerate toward his readers, and somehow amiable
toward human failings” (58).
3. His purpose is to make his readers aware of the dangers of negative attitudes in order
to help them become better writers.
4. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of college students who are
interested in learning to write “with conviction.”
NOTE that the first sentence identifies the author (Baker), the genre (essay), the title and
date, and uses an active verb (asserts) and the relative pronoun that to explain what exactly
Baker asserts. The second sentence explains the first by offering chronological examples
from Baker's essay, while the third sentence suggests the author's purpose and WHY (in
order to) he has set out that purpose (or seems to have set out that purpose -- not all essays
are explicit about this information and readers have to put the pieces together). The final
14
sentence identifies the primary audience of the essay (college students) and suggests how
this audience is brought into/connected to the essay's purpose. (From
http://english.ecu.edu/~wpbanks/eng8601/8601precis.html)
The following two précis minimally change the order of the information. However, please note
that these précis maintain the four-sentence structure and contain all the needed information.
1. Independent scholar, Indur M. Goklancy in a policy analysis for the Cato institute, argues
that globalization has created benefits in overall “human well-being.” 2. He supports his claim
by providing statistics that show how factors such as mortality rates, child labor, lack of
education, and hunger have all decreased under globalization. 3. His purpose is to show that
the success of globalization should be judged by many measures of instead of just income
inequality in order to rebut social critics of globalization. 4. He establishes an objective,
scientific tone to convince the readers of the Cato Institute, policy makers, and interested
citizens that his view is informed and logical
1. In her article "Who Cares if Johnny Can't Read?" (1997), Larissa MacFarquhar asserts that
Americans are reading more than ever despite claims to the contrary and that it is time to
reconsider why we value reading so much, especially certain kinds of "high culture" reading.
2. MacFarquhar supports her claims about American reading habits with facts and statistics
that compare past and present reading practices, and she challenges common assumptions by
raising questions about reading's intrinsic value. 3. Her purpose is to dispel certain myths
about reading in order to raise new and more important questions about the value of reading
and other media in our culture. 4. She seems to have a young, hip, somewhat irreverent
audience in mind because her tone is sarcastic, and she suggests that the ideas she opposes are
old-fashioned positions. From Bean, John C., Virginia A. Chappell, and Alice M. Gillam. Reading
Rhetorically, Brief Edition. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004. p. 63.
15
Turning your précis into an introduction
Most introductory paragraphs include the same information as is contained in the rhetorical
précis.
Here is a précis for Rifkin’s article titled “A Change of Heart About Animals.”
1. Economist Jeremy Rifkin, in the LA Times editorial titled “A Change of Heart About
Animals” (September 1, 2003), argues that new scientific evidence demonstrates that
humans and animals are more alike than previously assumed.
2. Rifkin supports his argument by introducing human attributes assumed lacking in
animals and then providing evidence that show animals share these characteristics.
3. The author’s purpose is to persuade us that animals and humans are similar in order to
gain support for ethical treatment of animals.
4. The author writes in a respectful tone with informal language to appeal to the broad
audience that reads the LA Times.
The following is an introduction based on the précis. See if you can locate all the précis
information. You will note that at times the author varies from the very exact precis structure.
The author’s purpose is to write a rhetorical analysis of the Rifkin editorial.
The author begins by introducing a topic, which is that many people ascribe human
characteristics to animals. The author reviews fictional works that do this and then suggests
that perhaps animals actually do share human characteristics, providing a bridge to the précis.
The author loosens the précis structure and turns some of the complex sentences into more
than once sentence. However, she does not add additional information. She is saving that for
the body paragraphs. Finally, the author signals the direction of the essay and makes a claim.
This is her thesis.
Cinderella’s mice sew her a beautiful dress so she can attend the ball. In The Lion King,
all the animals bow down to the king of beasts, and a rivalry develops between royal
contenders. One We smile when we see Lady and the Tramp share a spaghetti dinner.
Making animals seem more like humans in films and television makes us happy. We
know it’s not real. After all, mice don’t really sew. But maybe animals actually share
many human characteristics. In an LA Times editorial titled “A Change of Heart
About Animals” (September 1, 2003), economist Jeremy Rifkin argues that new
scientific evidence demonstrates that humans and animals are more alike than
previously assumed. Rifkin supports his argument by introducing human attributes
assumed lacking in animals and then providing evidence that show animals share these
characteristics. He also provides narratives about specific animals, showing similarities
between us and them. Rifkin’s purpose is to persuade his audience that animals and
humans are similar to gain support more ethical treatment of animals. The article
adopts a respectful tone with informal language in order to appeal to a broad audience.
This paper will focus on the use of narratives depicting animals with human
characteristics and discuss strategies Rifkin uses to help his audience identify
with these animals.
16
“I know what it says, but what does it do?”
Verbs that can be used to describe what a text does, whether you are articulating the
project, the argument, or the claims. Verbs are also used to describe the ways evidence
and strategies support claims and arguments.
Acknowledges
Admits
Advises
Advocates
Amplifies
Analyzes
Argues
(Constructs an)
Analogy
Asserts
Assumes
Attacks
Challenges
Claims
Clarifies
Compares
Complicates
Concedes
Concludes
Concurs (with)
Contends
Contrasts
Contradicts
(Presents)
Counterarguments
(Presents)
Counterexamples
Debates
Deconstructs
Defends
Defines
Denies
Describes
Disagrees
Discusses
Disputes
Distinguishes (between)
Emphasizes
Establishes
Exaggerates
Examines
Exemplifies
Explains
Extends
Forecasts
Faults
Frames
Identifies
Illustrates
Implies
Infers
Insists
Introduces
Investigates
Justifies
Maintains
Observes
Outlines
Parodies
Points out
Predicts
Problematizes
Proposes
(Sets up a)
parallel
Qualifies
Questions
Rebuts
Refines
Repeats
Reframes
Reports
Resolves
Ridicules
Satirizes
Stresses
Suggests
Summarizes
Supports
Synthesizes
Theorizes
Try to AVOID: thinks, believes, says, states, etc!
Consider using the following construction:
This paragraph [VERB]
[IDEA] by [EXPLAIN HOW] .
Also see They Say/ I Say for verbs organized by use for when authors make claims, are in
agreement, question or disagree, and when them make recommendations (see page 37).
17
Paraphrasing
A paraphrase is...
 Your own rendition of essential information and ideas expressed by someone else,
presented in a new form.
 One legitimate way (when accompanied by accurate documentation) to borrow from a
source.
 A more detailed restatement than a summary, which focuses concisely on a single main
idea.
Paraphrasing is a valuable skill because...
 It is better than quoting information from a mediocre passage.
 It helps you control the temptation to quote too much.
 The mental process required for successful paraphrasing helps you to grasp the full
meaning of the original.
Look at the difference…
A quote: (must be word for word—unless brackets or ellipses are used)
“Success is the result of what sociologists like to call ‘accumulative advantage.’ The professional
hockey player starts out a little bit better than his peers. And that little difference leads to an
opportunity that makes that difference a bit bigger, and that edge in turn leads to another
opportunity, which makes the initially small difference bigger still—and on and on until the
hockey player is a genuine outlier” (Gladwell 30).
A legitimate paraphrase:
Gladwell claims that a key factor in the ability to succeed is “accumulative advantage.” For
example, in Canada, hockey players born in January have a headstart in maturity over their
peers. This opportunity to get into the sport with an edge over others leads to more
opportunities and quicker advancement year after year. They keep getting better and better
until they become pro (30).
A plagiarized version:
Success is the result of “accumulative advantage.” The professional hockey player starts out a
little bit better than his peers. And that leads to an opportunity that makes that difference a bit
bigger, and that edge in turn leads to another opportunity, which makes the initially small
difference bigger still—and this continues until the hockey player is a genuine outlier.
18
Some Questions to Ask Any Text
The following questions can be posed to any text, and can help you start thinking about texts from a
rhetorical perspective.
THE BIG PICTURE
1. Who is the audience? Who is the author trying to reach? (age, gender, cultural background,
class, etc.) Which elements of the text – both things included, and things left out – provide clues
about the intended audience? How does the author represent the audience
2. Who is the author, and where is she coming from? What can you find out about the author?
What can you find out about the organization, publication, web site, or source she is writing for?
3. What is the author’s purpose? What is the question at issue? Why has the author written this
text? What is the problem, dispute, or question being addressed? What motivated her to write,
what does she hope to accomplish, and how does she hope to influence the audience?
4. What is the context - what is the situation that prompted the writing of this text, & how do you
know? When was the text created, and what was going on at the time? Can you think of any
social, political, or economic conditions that are particularly important?
5. What “conversation” is the author trying to join? It’s unlikely the author is the first person to
write on a particular topic. As Graff points out, writers invariably add their voices to a larger
conversation. How does the author respond to other texts? How does she enter the conversation
(“Many authors have argued X, but as Smith shows, this position is flawed, and I will extend
Smith’s critique by presenting data that shows…”) How does the author position herself in
relation to other authors?
6. How does the author claim “centrality,” i.e. establish that the topic being discussed matters,
and that readers should care?
7. What is the author’s “stance”? What is his attitude toward the subject, and how does this come
across in his language?
8. What research went into writing the text, & what material does the author examine?
(project)
ARGUMENT & PERSUASION
1. What is the most important sentence in this text, to you? Why?
2. What is the author’s overall argument, or central claim?
3. What are the most important (sub) claims?
4. How does the author establish her authority/credibility? (ethos)
5. How does the author connect with your emotions? (pathos)
6. What evidence or reasons does the author provide, and do they convince you? (logos)
7. What are you being asked to believe, think, or do? (persuasion)
8. How is the text organized? Why do you think the author organized the text this way? What
effect does it have?
9. Does the author respond to other arguments, and if so, are they treated fairly?
10. How do the author’s stylistic choices reinforce or advance the argument? How do word
choice, imagery, metaphor, design, etc. help persuade?
11. How does the author frame the issues? Does the author’s representation of the issue or problem
invite the audience to see things from a particular perspective? How does this help persuade?
12. How does the author define the central terms being discussed? How does this help persuade?
13. What assumptions can you identify? What does the author take for granted, and what does this
tell you about her argument?
14. What implications follow from the author’s argument?
15. Does the author use metadiscourse? Are there moments when the author talks about what he is
doing, or addresses the audience directly? Is this persuasive? How?
19
Gerald Graff, “How to Write an Argument”
Gerald Graff, professor of English at the University of Chicago and author of They Say/I Say, argues
that teachers should “teach the controversy,” the contested parts of any issue. He wants students to get
involved in the ongoing debate, or the larger conversation. He asserts that students need to know and
understand the history of a controversy before they can consider the best way to advocate their own
academic arguments.
Although this article primarily addresses academic arguments, it may be helpful to consider how Graff’s
advice might help you form arguments in other contexts.
[INSERT THE FOLLOWING TEXT:
Gerald Graff, “How to Write an Argument”]
20
Vince Parry is “Chief Branding Officer” of InVentiv Communications. Parry develops strategies for
marketing new health and pharmaceutical products.
We don’t normally think of pharmaceutical marketing as an argument. Either you’re sick or you’re not;
either you need medicine or you don’t. In Parry’s essay, published in Medical Marketing and Media, he
describes the way companies selling health products make arguments. He then identifies some of the
strategies used to support those arguments.
As you read, you might consider how some of his strategies appear in other contexts. What claims does he
make? What kind of evidence does he use to support those claims?
[INSERT THE FOLLOWING TEXT
Vince Parry, “The Art of Branding a Condition”]
21
Rifkin, “A Change of Heart About Animals”
They are more like us than we imagined, scientists are finding
Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times, September 1, 2003. Rifkin is an American economist whose
work explores the way science and technological change influence the economy, jobs, culture,
and the environment. In a 1989 interview published in Time Magazine, Rifkin argues against
some technologies, claiming that in America,[w]e’re so skewed toward efficiency that we’ve lost
our sense of humanity. What we need to do is to bring back a sense of the sacred.”
[1] Though much of big science has centered on breakthroughs in biotechnology, nanotechnology and
more esoteric questions like the age of our universe, a quieter story has been unfolding behind the scenes
in laboratories around the world — one whose effect on human perception and our understanding of life
is likely to be profound.
[2] What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had
ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love — and
these findings are changing how we view animals.
[3] Strangely enough, some of the research sponsors are fast food purveyors, such as McDonald's, Burger
King and KFC. Pressured by animal rights activists and by growing public support for the humane
treatment of animals, these companies have financed research into, among other things, the emotional,
mental and behavioral states of our fellow creatures.
[4] Studies on pigs' social behavior funded by McDonald's at Purdue University, for example, have found
that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The lack
of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of health.
[5] The European Union has taken such studies to heart and outlawed the use of isolating pig stalls by
2012. In Germany, the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human
contact each day and to provide them with toys to prevent them from fighting.
[6] Other funding sources have fueled the growing field of study into animal emotions and cognitive
abilities.
[7] Researchers were stunned recently by findings (published in the journal Science) on the conceptual
abilities of New Caledonian crows. In controlled experiments, scientists at Oxford University reported
that two birds named Betty and Abel were given a choice between using two tools, one a straight wire,
the other a hooked wire, to snag a piece of meat from inside a tube. Both chose the hooked wire. Abel,
the more dominant male, then stole Betty's hook, leaving her with only a straight wire. Betty then used
her beak to wedge the straight wire in a crack and bent it with her beak to produce a hook. She then
snagged the food from inside the tube. Researchers repeated the experiment and she fashioned a hook
out of the wire nine of out of 10 times.
[8] Equally impressive is Koko, the 300-pound gorilla at the Gorilla Foundation in Northern California,
who was taught sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand
English words. On human IQ tests, she scores between 70 and 95.
[9] Tool-making and the development of sophisticated language skills are just two of the many attributes
we thought were exclusive to our species. Self-awareness is another.
22
[10] Some philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that other animals are not capable of
self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism. Not so, according to new studies. At the
Washington National Zoo, orangutans given mirrors explore parts of their bodies they can't otherwise see,
showing a sense of self. An orangutan named Chantek who lives at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to
groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses.
[11] Of course, when it comes to the ultimate test of what distinguishes humans from the other creatures,
scientists have long believed that mourning for the dead represents the real divide. It's commonly believed
that other animals have no sense of their mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of their own
death. Not necessarily so. Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand next to their
dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.
[12] We also know that animals play, especially when young. Recent studies in the brain chemistry of rats
show that when they play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine, a neurochemical associated
with pleasure and excitement in human beings.
[13] Noting the striking similarities in brain anatomy and chemistry of humans and other animals,
Stephen M. Siviy, a behavioral scientist at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, asks a question
increasingly on the minds of other researchers. "If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can
you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?"
[14] Until very recently, scientists were still advancing the idea that most creatures behaved by sheer
instinct and that what appeared to be learned behavior was merely genetically wired activity. Now we
know that geese have to teach their goslings their migration routes. In fact, we are finding that learning is
passed on from parent to offspring far more often than not and that most animals engage in all kinds of
learned experience brought on by continued experimentation.
[15] So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow creatures? And for the thousands of
animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic animals raised
under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption? Should we
discourage the sale and purchase of fur coats? What about fox hunting in the English countryside, bull
fighting in Spain? Should wild lions be caged in zoos?
[16] Such questions are being raised. Harvard and 25 other U.S. law schools have introduced law courses
on animal rights, and an increasing number of animal rights lawsuits are being filed. Germany recently
became the first nation to guarantee animal rights in its constitution.
[17] The human journey is, at its core, about the extension of empathy to broader and more
inclusive domains. At first, the empathy extended only to kin and tribe. Eventually it was
extended to people of like-minded values. In the 19th century, the first animal humane societies
were established. The current studies open up a new phase, allowing us to expand and deepen our
empathy to include the broader community of creatures with whom we share the Earth.
23
Kristof, “War & Wisdom”
New York Times Editorial, February 7, 2003. Pulitzer prize winner Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times
editorials frequently address human rights abuses such as human trafficking in Asia and Africa. He and
his wife argue for women’s rights in their book Half Sky. In this editorial, written before the start of the
war in Iraq, Kristof argues against going to war. How does he build his argument? What kind of
evidence does he use?
[1] President Bush and Colin Powell have adroitly shown that Iraq is hiding weapons, that Saddam
Hussein is a lying scoundrel and that Iraqi officials should be less chatty on the telephone. But they did
not demonstrate that the solution is to invade Iraq.
[2] If you've seen kids torn apart by machine-gun fire, you know that war should be only a last resort.
And we're not there yet. We still have a better option: containment. That's why in the Pentagon, civilian
leaders are gung-ho but many in uniform are leery. Former generals like Norman Schwarzkopf, Anthony
Zinni and Wesley Clark have all expressed concern about the rush to war.
[3] "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made,"
General Schwarzkopf told The Washington Post, adding: "I think it is very important for us to wait and
see what the inspectors come up with." (The White House has apparently launched a post-emptive strike
on General Schwarzkopf, for he now refuses interviews.)
[4] As for General Zinni, he said of the hawks: "I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't
the one that I travel." In an October speech to the Middle East Institute in Washington, he added: "[If]
we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that
that's necessary. Second of all, I think that war and violence are a very last resort."
[5] Hawks often compare Saddam to Hitler, suggesting that if we don't stand up to him today in Baghdad
we'll face him tomorrow in the Mediterranean. The same was said of Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser,
whom the West saw as the Hitler of the 1950's and 1960's. But as with Nasser the analogy is faulty:
Saddam may be as nasty as Hitler, but he is unable to invade his neighbors. His army has degraded even
since the days when Iran fought him to a standstill, and he won't be a threat to us tomorrow; more likely,
he'll be dead.
[6] A better analogy is Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, who used to be denounced as the Hitler of the
1980's. Saddam and Colonel Qaddafi are little changed since those days, but back then we reviled Mr.
Qaddafi — while Don Rumsfeld was charming our man in Baghdad. In the 1980's Libya was
aggressively intervening abroad, trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, losing air battles with
American warplanes and dabbling in terrorism. Its terrorists bombed a Berlin nightclub patronized by
American soldiers and blew up a Pan Am airliner over Scotland. Libya was never a military power on
the scale of Iraq but was more involved in terror; indeed, one could have made as good a case for
invading Libya in the 1980's as for invading Iraq today.
[7] But President Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it — and this worked. Does
anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last
two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert?
[8] It's true, as President Bush suggested last night, that Saddam is trying to play games with us. But the
24
inspectors proved in the 1990's that they are no dummies; they made headway and destroyed much more
weaponry than the U.S. had hit during the gulf war.
[9] Even if Saddam manages to hide existing weapons from inspectors, he won't be able to refine them.
And he won't be able to develop nuclear weapons.
[10 Nuclear programs are relatively easily detected, partly because they require large plants with vast
electrical hookups. Inspections have real shortcomings, but they can keep Saddam from acquiring
nuclear weapons.
[11] Then there's the question of resources. Aside from lives, the war and reconstruction will cost $100
billion to $200 billion. That bill comes to $750 to $1,500 per American taxpayer, and there are real
trade-offs in spending that money.
[12] We could do more for our national security by spending the money on education, or by financing a
major campaign to promote hybrid cars and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and taking other steps toward
energy independence.
[13] So while President Bush has eloquently made the case that we are justified in invading Iraq, are we
wise to do so? Is this really the best way to spend thousands of lives and at least $100 billion?
25
Bleich, “California’s Higher Education Debacle”
Watching the decline of the California State University system from within its boardroom
mirrors the erosion of the California dream
Jeff Bleich,“California's higher-education debacle.” Los Angeles Times, November 04, 2009.
Attorney Jeff Bleich served as member of the Cal State University Board of Trustees from 2004 to 2009
and as its chair from 2008-2009. This article, published in the LA Times on November 4, 2009, was
adapted from a speech to the board.
[1] For nearly six years, I have served on the Board of Trustees of the California State University system
- the last two as its chairman. This experience has been more than just professional; it has been a deeply
personal one. With my term ending soon, I need to share my concern -- and personal pain -- that
California is on the verge of destroying the very system that once made this state great.
[2] I came to California because of the education system. I grew up in Connecticut and attended college
back East on partial scholarships and financial aid. I also worked part time, but by my first year of grad
school, I'd maxed out my financial aid and was relying on loans that charged 14% interest. Being a
lawyer had been my dream, but my wife and I could not afford for me to go to any law schools back
East.
[3] I applied to UC Berkeley Law School because it was the only top law school in the U.S. that we
could afford. It turned out to be the greatest education I have ever received. And I got it because the
people of California -- its leaders and its taxpayers -- were willing to invest in me.
[4] For the last 20 years, since I graduated, I have felt a duty to pay back the people of this state. When I
had to figure out where to build a practice, buy a home, raise my family and volunteer my time and
energy, I chose California. I joined a small California firm -- Munger, Tolles & Olson -- and eventually
became a partner. This year, American Lawyer magazine named us the No. 1 firm in the nation.
[5] That success is also California's success. It has meant millions of dollars in taxes paid to California,
hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time donated to California, houses built and investments
made in California, and hundreds of talented people attracted to work in and help California.
[6] My story is not unique. It is the story of California's rise from the 1960s to the 1990s. Millions of
people stayed here and succeeded because of their California education. We benefited from the foresight
of an earlier generation that recognized it had a duty to pay it forward.
[7] That was the bargain California made with us when it established the California Master Plan for
Higher Education in 1960. By making California the state where every qualified and committed person
can receive a low-cost and high-quality education, all of us benefit. Attracting and retaining the leaders
of the future helps the state grow bigger and stronger. Economists found that for every dollar the state
invests in a CSU student, it receives $4.41 in return.
[8] So as someone who has lived the California dream, there is nothing more painful to me than to see
this dream dying. It is being starved to death by a public that thinks any government service -- even
public education -- is not worth paying for. And by political leaders who do not lead but instead give in
to our worst, shortsighted instincts.
[9] The ineffective response to the current financial crisis reflects trends that have been hurting
California public education for years. To win votes, political leaders mandated long prison sentences that
forced us to stop building schools and start building prisons. This has made us dumber but no safer.
26
Leaders pandered by promising tax cuts no matter what and did not worry about how to provide basic
services without that money. Those tax cuts did not make us richer; they've made us poorer. To remain in
office, they carved out legislative districts that ensured we would have few competitive races and leaders
with no ability or incentive to compromise. Rather than strengthening the parties, it pushed both parties
to the fringes and weakened them.
[10] When the economy was good, our leaders failed to make hard choices and then faced disasters like
the energy crisis. When the economy turned bad, they made no choices until the economy was worse.
[11] In response to failures of leadership, voters came up with one cure after another that was worse than
the disease -- whether it has been over-reliance on initiatives driven by special interests, or term limits
that remove qualified people from office, or any of the other ways we have come up with to avoid
representative democracy.
[12] As a result, for the last two decades we have been starving higher education. California's public
universities and community colleges have half as much to spend today as they did in 1990 in real dollars.
In the 1980s, 17% of the state budget went to higher education and 3% went to prisons. Today, only 9%
goes to universities and 10% goes to prisons.
[13] The promise of low-cost education that brought so many here, and kept so many here, has been
abandoned. Our K-12 system has fallen from the top ranks 30 years ago to 47th in the nation in per-pupil
spending. And higher education is now taking on water.
[14] At every trustees meeting over the last six years, I have seen the signs of decline. I have listened to
the painful stories of faculty who could not afford to raise a family on their salaries; of students who are
on the financial edge because they are working two jobs, taking care of a child and barely making it with
our current tuitions. I have seen the outdated buildings and the many people on our campuses who feel
that they have been forgotten by the public and Sacramento.
[15] What made California great was the belief that we could solve any problem as long as we did two
things: acknowledged the problem and worked together. Today that belief is missing. California has not
acknowledged that it has fundamentally abandoned the promise of the Master Plan for Higher Education.
And Californians have lost the commitment to invest in one another. That is why we have lost our way in
decision after decision.
[16] Today, everyone in our system is making terrible sacrifices. Employee furloughs, student fee
increases and campus-based cuts in service and programs are repulsive to all of us. Most important, it is
unfair. The cost of education should be shared by all of us because the education of our students benefits
every Californian.
[17] We've gone from investing in the future to borrowing from it. Every time programs and services are
cut for short-term gain, it is a long-term loss.
[18] The solution is simple, but hard. It is what I'm doing now. Tell what is happening to every person
who can hear it. Beat this drum until it can't be ignored. Shame your neighbors who think the
government needs to be starved and who are happy to see Sacramento paralyzed. We have to wake up
this state and get it to rediscover its greatness. Because if we don't, we will be the generation that let the
promise for a great California die.
27
Kristof, Nicholas. “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”
New York Times, December 15, 2012
[1] IN the harrowing aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought wells in my mind:
Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?
[2] The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or
criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.
[3] Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other
industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard who has
written an excellent book on gun violence.
[4] So let’s treat firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one life every 20
minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns, but we can take steps to reduce the
carnage.
[5] American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School
buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for
safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill.
[6] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while
federal authorities shrug at serious curbs on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns
30,000. We even regulate toy guns, by requiring orange tips — but lawmakers don’t have the gumption to
stand up to National Rifle Association extremists and regulate real guns as carefully as we do toys. What
do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless
politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.?
[7] As one of my Facebook followers wrote after I posted about the shooting, “It is more difficult to adopt
a pet than it is to buy a gun.”
[8] Look, I grew up on an Oregon farm where guns were a part of life; and my dad gave me a .22 rifle for
my 12th birthday. I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seat
belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can’t we be equally adult about
regulating guns?
[9] And don’t say that it won’t make a difference because crazies will always be able to get a gun. We’re
not going to eliminate gun deaths, any more than we have eliminated auto accidents. But if we could
reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually.
[10] Likewise, don’t bother with the argument that if more people carried guns, they would deter shooters
or interrupt them. Mass shooters typically kill themselves or are promptly caught, so it’s hard to see what
deterrence would be added by having more people pack heat. There have been few if any cases in the
United States in which an ordinary citizen with a gun stopped a mass shooting.
[11] The tragedy isn’t one school shooting, it’s the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die
in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack
and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
28
[12] So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun
traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as
many people without reloading.
[13] We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make
serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns
imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.
[14] “We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years,” President Obama noted in a
tearful statement on television. He’s right, but the solution isn’t just to mourn the victims — it’s to change
our policies. Let’s see leadership on this issue, not just moving speeches.
[15] Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the
nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms
agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and
safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
[16] The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands
by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings. In the 18 years before the
law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The
murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by
the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than
half.
[17] Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it
imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.
[18] For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some
auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say,
“Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”
[19] Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have
introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All
this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.
[20] Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in
the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me
on Facebook and Google+, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.
29
Transcript of NRA's LaPierre's speech on Newtown massacre,
December 21, 2012
The National Rifle Association’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the media following
the shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.
"The National Rifle Association's 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror,
outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such
incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.
Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment.
While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.
Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us
over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question
we face: How do we protect our children right now , starting today, in a way that we know works ?
The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth .
Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post
signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are
their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we
protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even
sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.
We care about the president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work
in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.
Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our
children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it
and exploit it. That must change now.
The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so
evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly evercomprehend them.
They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his
attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?
How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine
that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking
others to try to make their mark?
A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's
refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?
And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers,
robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.
Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.
30
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for
the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster,
and you've got a recipe for a national nightmareof violence and victimization.
And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous,
corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and
Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my
research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found
it?
Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired
like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke
and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
But is that what it reallyis? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest
form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate
and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and
criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.
A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she
reaches the ripe old age of 18.
And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act
as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the
media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with
misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next
atrocity is only a news cycle away.
The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms
are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ... when all
of these claims are factually untrue . They don't know what they're talking about.
Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful,
lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed.
As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional
and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own
— to stop it.
As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for
their safety at school.
The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of
absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather
have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?
31
Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the
NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much
less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?
A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands
of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living
room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get
there fast enough to protect you.
So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police,
but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools? They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And
it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every
school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook
Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?
Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you
that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's
gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school
principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political
prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this
President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure Our
Schools" policing grants in next year's budget.
With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every
school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the
ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.
Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active,
reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an
extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in
devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now . We can immediately
make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.
The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and
courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.
I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in
every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to
school in January. Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation,
regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every
single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed
security .
Right now, today, every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators,
teachers and local authorities — and draw upon every resource available — to erect a cordon of protection
around our kids right now. Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.
32
Every school in America needs to immediately identify , dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put
these security forces in place right now. And the National Rifle Association, as America's preeminent trainer of
law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.
Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our
schools and our children now. We did it for the nation's defense industries and military installations during
World War II, and we'll do it for our schools today.
The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School
Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design
and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be
developed by the very best experts in their fields.
Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield
Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S.
Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland
Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts
available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.
If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of
protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.
Under Asa's leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting
our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge .
That's a plan of action that can , and will , make a real, positive and indisputable difference in the safety of our
children — starting right now.
There'll be time for talk and debate later . This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.
We can't wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can't lose precious time debating
legislation that won't work. We mustn't allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us.
We must act now.
For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school
administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield
Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that's tested and proven to work.
33
[Gladwell, Malcolm. "Small Change, Why the Revolution will not be
Tweeted." The New Yorker. 4 Oct 2010]
INSERT Gladwell, "Small Change, Why the Revolution will not be
Tweeted]
34
“The Moral Instinct,” Steven Pinker
New York Times Magazine, January 13, 2008. Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology
at Harvard University and the author of The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a
Window Into Human Nature.
[1] Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman
Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother
Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates,
infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in
effigy in “I Hate Gates” Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is
Norman Borlaug?
[2] Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the “Green Revolution” that
used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than
anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined
that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria,
diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed
missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics
and dangerously primitive medical care.
[3] It’s not hard to see why the moral reputations of this trio should be so out of line with the good they have
done. Mother Teresa was the very embodiment of saintliness: white-clad, sad-eyed, ascetic and often
photographed with the wretched of the earth. Gates is a nerd’s nerd and the world’s richest man, as likely to
enter heaven as the proverbial camel squeezing through the needle’s eye. And Borlaug, now 93, is an
agronomist who has spent his life in labs and nonprofits, seldom walking onto the media stage, and hence into
our consciousness, at all.
[4] I doubt these examples will persuade anyone to favor Bill Gates over Mother Teresa for sainthood. But
they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning
of the actions that make people suffer or flourish. It seems we may all be vulnerable to moral illusions the
ethical equivalent of the bending lines that trick the eye on cereal boxes and in psychology textbooks.
Illusions are a favorite tool of perception scientists for exposing the workings of the five senses, and of
philosophers for shaking people out of the naïve belief that our minds give us a transparent window onto the
world (since if our eyes can be fooled by an illusion, why should we trust them at other times?). Today, a new
field is using illusions to unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense. Moral intuitions are being drawn out of
people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory,
neuroscience and evolutionary biology.
[5] “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily
we reflect on them,” wrote Immanuel Kant, “the starry heavens above and the moral law within.” These days,
the moral law within is being viewed with increasing awe, if not always admiration. The human moral sense
turns out to be an organ of considerable complexity, with quirks that reflect its evolutionary history and its
neurobiological foundations.
[6] These quirks are bound to have implications for the human predicament. Morality is not just any old topic
in psychology but close to our conception of the meaning of life. Moral goodness is what gives each of us the
sense that we are worthy human beings. We seek it in our friends and mates, nurture it in our children,
advance it in our politics and justify it with our religions. A disrespect for morality is blamed for everyday
35
sins and history’s worst atrocities. To carry this weight, the concept of morality would have to be bigger than
any of us and outside all of us.
[7] So dissecting moral intuitions is no small matter. If morality is a mere trick of the brain, some may fear,
our very grounds for being moral could be eroded. Yet as we shall see, the science of the moral sense can
instead be seen as a way to strengthen those grounds, by clarifying what morality is and how it should steer
our actions.
The Moralization Switch
[8] The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing
how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave.
Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a
distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral
(“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms
are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).
[9] The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape
and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively
warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one
would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”
[10] The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not
only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get
away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other
people they deem immoral. Bertrand Russell wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a
delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell.”
[11] We all know what it feels like when the moralization switch flips inside us — the righteous glow, the
burning dudgeon, the drive to recruit others to the cause. The psychologist Paul Rozin has studied the toggle
switch by comparing two kinds of people who engage in the same behavior but with different switch settings.
Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral
vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating
their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral
vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup
into which a drop of beef broth has fallen. They are more likely to think that other people ought to be
vegetarians, and are more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat
avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial.
[12] Much of our recent social history, including the culture wars between liberals and conservatives, consists
of the moralization or amoralization of particular kinds of behavior. Even when people agree that an outcome
is desirable, they may disagree on whether it should be treated as a matter of preference and prudence or as a
matter of sin and virtue. Rozin notes, for example, that smoking has lately been moralized. Until recently, it
was understood that some people didn’t enjoy smoking or avoided it because it was hazardous to their health.
But with the discovery of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, smoking is now treated as immoral.
Smokers are ostracized; images of people smoking are censored; and entities touched by smoke are felt to be
contaminated (so hotels have not only nonsmoking rooms but nonsmoking floors). The desire for retribution
has been visited on tobacco companies, who have been slapped with staggering “punitive damages.”
[13] At the same time, many behaviors have been amoralized, switched from moral failings to lifestyle
choices. They include divorce, illegitimacy, being a working mother, marijuana use and homosexuality. Many
36
afflictions have been reassigned from payback for bad choices to unlucky misfortunes. There used to be
people called “bums” and “tramps”; today they are “homeless.” Drug addiction is a “disease”; syphilis was
rebranded from the price of wanton behavior to a “sexually transmitted disease” and more recently a
“sexually transmitted infection.”
[14] This wave of amoralization has led the cultural right to lament that morality itself is under assault, as we
see in the group that anointed itself the Moral Majority. In fact there seems to be a Law of Conservation of
Moralization, so that as old behaviors are taken out of the moralized column, new ones are added to it.
Dozens of things that past generations treated as practical matters are now ethical battlegrounds, including
disposable diapers, I.Q. tests, poultry farms, Barbie dolls and research on breast cancer. Food alone has
become a minefield, with critics sermonizing about the size of sodas, the chemistry of fat, the freedom of
chickens, the price of coffee beans, the species of fish and now the distance the food has traveled from farm to
plate.
[15] Many of these moralizations, like the assault on smoking, may be understood as practical tactics to
reduce some recently identified harm. But whether an activity flips our mental switches to the “moral” setting
isn’t just a matter of how much harm it does. We don’t show contempt to the man who fails to change the
batteries in his smoke alarms or takes his family on a driving vacation, both of which multiply the risk they
will die in an accident. Driving a gas-guzzling Hummer is reprehensible, but driving a gas-guzzling old Volvo
is not; eating a Big Mac is unconscionable, but not imported cheese or crème brûlée. The reason for these
double standards is obvious: people tend to align their moralization with their own lifestyles.
Reasoning and Rationalizing
[16] It’s not just the content of our moral judgments that is often questionable, but the way we arrive at them.
We like to think that when we have a conviction, there are good reasons that drove us to adopt it. That is why
an older approach to moral psychology, led by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, tried to document the
lines of reasoning that guided people to moral conclusions. But consider these situations, originally devised
by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt:
- Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they
decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control
pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again.
They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think
about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?
- A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag
anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.
- A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they
cut up the dog’s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.
[17] Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong.
It’s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but
they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be
emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the
community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t
explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral
rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work
backward to a plausible justification.
37
[18] The gap between people’s convictions and their justifications is also on display in the favorite new
sandbox for moral psychologists, a thought experiment devised by the philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith
Jarvis Thomson called the Trolley Problem. On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the
track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track,
oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley
onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is
laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Almost everyone says
“yes.”
[19] Consider now a different scene. You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway
trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in
its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you. Should you throw the man
off the bridge? Both dilemmas present you with the option of sacrificing one life to save five, and so, by the
utilitarian standard of what would result in the greatest good for the greatest number, the two dilemmas are
morally equivalent. But most people don’t see it that way: though they would pull the switch in the first
dilemma, they would not heave the fat man in the second. When pressed for a reason, they can’t come up with
anything coherent, though moral philosophers haven’t had an easy time coming up with a relevant difference,
either.
[20] When psychologists say “most people” they usually mean “most of the two dozen sophomores who filled
out a questionnaire for beer money.” But in this case it means most of the 200,000 people from a hundred
countries who shared their intuitions on a Web-based experiment conducted by the psychologists Fiery
Cushman and Liane Young and the biologist Marc Hauser. A difference between the acceptability of switchpulling and man-heaving, and an inability to justify the choice, was found in respondents from Europe, Asia
and North and South America; among men and women, blacks and whites, teenagers and octogenarians,
Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and atheists; people with elementary-school educations and
people with Ph.D.’s.
[21] Joshua Greene, a philosopher and cognitive neuroscientist, suggests that evolution equipped people with
a revulsion to manhandling an innocent person. This instinct, he suggests, tends to overwhelm any utilitarian
calculus that would tot up the lives saved and lost. The impulse against roughing up a fellow human would
explain other examples in which people abjure killing one to save many, like euthanizing a hospital patient to
harvest his organs and save five dying patients in need of transplants, or throwing someone out of a crowded
lifeboat to keep it afloat.
[22] By itself this would be no more than a plausible story, but Greene teamed up with the cognitive
neuroscientist Jonathan Cohen and several Princeton colleagues to peer into people’s brains using functional
M.R.I. They sought to find signs of a conflict between brain areas associated with emotion (the ones that
recoil from harming someone) and areas dedicated to rational analysis (the ones that calculate lives lost and
saved).
[23] When people pondered the dilemmas that required killing someone with their bare hands, several
networks in their brains lighted up. One, which included the medial (inward-facing) parts of the frontal lobes,
has been implicated in emotions about other people. A second, the dorsolateral (upper and outer-facing)
surface of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in ongoing mental computation (including nonmoral
reasoning, like deciding whether to get somewhere by plane or train). And a third region, the anterior
cingulate cortex (an evolutionarily ancient strip lying at the base of the inner surface of each cerebral
hemisphere), registers a conflict between an urge coming from one part of the brain and an advisory coming
from another.
38
[24] But when the people were pondering a hands-off dilemma, like switching the trolley onto the spur with
the single worker, the brain reacted differently: only the area involved in rational calculation stood out. Other
studies have shown that neurological patients who have blunted emotions because of damage to the frontal
lobes become utilitarians: they think it makes perfect sense to throw the fat man off the bridge. Together, the
findings corroborate Greene’s theory that our nonutilitarian intuitions come from the victory of an emotional
impulse over a cost-benefit analysis.
A Universal Morality?
[25] The findings of trolleyology — complex, instinctive and worldwide moral intuitions — led Hauser and
John Mikhail (a legal scholar) to revive an analogy from the philosopher John Rawls between the moral sense
and language. According to Noam Chomsky, we are born with a “universal grammar” that forces us to
analyze speech in terms of its grammatical structure, with no conscious awareness of the rules in play. By
analogy, we are born with a universal moral grammar that forces us to analyze human action in terms of its
moral structure, with just as little awareness.
[26] The idea that the moral sense is an innate part of human nature is not far-fetched. A list of human
universals collected by the anthropologist Donald E. Brown includes many moral concepts and emotions,
including a distinction between right and wrong; empathy; fairness; admiration of generosity; rights and
obligations; proscription of murder, rape and other forms of violence; redress of wrongs; sanctions for wrongs
against the community; shame; and taboos.
[27] The stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood. Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others
and try to comfort people they see in distress. And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith
Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles.
Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little
girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher
allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl
would still not be.
[28] Though no one has identified genes for morality, there is circumstantial evidence they exist. The
character traits called “conscientiousness” and “agreeableness” are far more correlated in identical twins
separated at birth (who share their genes but not their environment) than in adoptive siblings raised together
(who share their environment but not their genes). People given diagnoses of “antisocial personality disorder”
or “psychopathy” show signs of morality blindness from the time they are children. They bully younger
children, torture animals, habitually lie and seem incapable of empathy or remorse, often despite normal
family backgrounds. Some of these children grow up into the monsters who bilk elderly people out of their
savings, rape a succession of women or shoot convenience-store clerks lying on the floor during a robbery.
[29] Though psychopathy probably comes from a genetic predisposition, a milder version can be caused by
damage to frontal regions of the brain (including the areas that inhibit intact people from throwing the
hypothetical fat man off the bridge). The neuroscientists Hanna and Antonio Damasio and their colleagues
found that some children who sustain severe injuries to their frontal lobes can grow up into callous and
irresponsible adults, despite normal intelligence. They lie, steal, ignore punishment, endanger their own
children and can’t think through even the simplest moral dilemmas, like what two people should do if they
disagreed on which TV channel to watch or whether a man ought to steal a drug to save his dying wife.
[30] The moral sense, then, may be rooted in the design of the normal human brain. Yet for all the awe that
may fill our minds when we reflect on an innate moral law within, the idea is at best incomplete. Consider this
moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack,
39
but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a
teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever?
[31] This is no joke. Last month a British woman teaching in a private school in Sudan allowed her class to
name a teddy bear after the most popular boy in the class, who bore the name of the founder of Islam. She
was jailed for blasphemy and threatened with a public flogging, while a mob outside the prison demanded her
death. To the protesters, the woman’s life clearly had less value than maximizing the dignity of their religion,
and their judgment on whether it is right to divert the hypothetical trolley would have differed from ours.
Whatever grammar guides people’s moral judgments can’t be all that universal. Anyone who stayed awake
through Anthropology 101 can offer many other examples.
[32] Of course, languages vary, too. In Chomsky’s theory, languages conform to an abstract blueprint, like
having phrases built out of verbs and objects, while the details vary, like whether the verb or the object comes
first. Could we be wired with an abstract spec sheet that embraces all the strange ideas that people in different
cultures moralize?
The Varieties of Moral Experience
[33] When anthropologists like Richard Shweder and Alan Fiske survey moral concerns across the globe, they
find that a few themes keep popping up from amid the diversity. People everywhere, at least in some
circumstances and with certain other folks in mind, think it’s bad to harm others and good to help them. They
have a sense of fairness: that one should reciprocate favors, reward benefactors and punish cheaters. They
value loyalty to a group, sharing and solidarity among its members and conformity to its norms. They believe
that it is right to defer to legitimate authorities and to respect people with high status. And they exalt purity,
cleanliness and sanctity while loathing defilement, contamination and carnality.
[34] The exact number of themes depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter, but Haidt counts five —
harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity — and suggests that they are the primary
colors of our moral sense. Not only do they keep reappearing in cross-cultural surveys, but each one tugs on
the moral intuitions of people in our own culture. Haidt asks us to consider how much money someone would
have to pay us to do hypothetical acts like the following:
1. Stick a pin into your palm.
Stick a pin into the palm of a child you don’t know. (Harm.)
2. Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it at no charge because of a computer error.
Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it from a thief who had stolen it from a wealthy
family. (Fairness.)
3. Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in your nation.
Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in a foreign
nation. (Community.)
4. Slap a friend in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit.
Slap your minister in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. (Authority.)
5. Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like idiots for 30 minutes, including flubbing
simple problems and falling down on stage.
Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like animals for 30 minutes, including
crawling around naked and urinating on stage. (Purity.)
[35] In each pair, the second action feels far more repugnant. Most of the moral illusions we have visited
come from an unwarranted intrusion of one of the moral spheres into our judgments. A violation of
community led people to frown on using an old flag to clean a bathroom. Violations of purity repelled the
people who judged the morality of consensual incest and prevented the moral vegetarians and nonsmokers
40
from tolerating the slightest trace of a vile contaminant. At the other end of the scale, displays of extreme
purity lead people to venerate religious leaders who dress in white and affect an aura of chastity and
asceticism.
The Genealogy of Morals
[36] The five spheres are good candidates for a periodic table of the moral sense not only because they are
ubiquitous but also because they appear to have deep evolutionary roots. The impulse to avoid harm, which
gives trolley ponderers the willies when they consider throwing a man off a bridge, can also be found in
rhesus monkeys, who go hungry rather than pull a chain that delivers food to them and a shock to another
monkey. Respect for authority is clearly related to the pecking orders of dominance and appeasement that are
widespread in the animal kingdom. The purity-defilement contrast taps the emotion of disgust that is triggered
by potential disease vectors like bodily effluvia, decaying flesh and unconventional forms of meat, and by
risky sexual practices like incest.
[37] The other two moralized spheres match up with the classic examples of how altruism can evolve that
were worked out by sociobiologists in the 1960s and 1970s and made famous by Richard Dawkins in his book
“The Selfish Gene.” Fairness is very close to what scientists call reciprocal altruism, where a willingness to be
nice to others can evolve as long as the favor helps the recipient more than it costs the giver and the recipient
returns the favor when fortunes reverse. The analysis makes it sound as if reciprocal altruism comes out of a
robotlike calculation, but in fact Robert Trivers, the biologist who devised the theory, argued that it is
implemented in the brain as a suite of moral emotions. Sympathy prompts a person to offer the first favor,
particularly to someone in need for whom it would go the furthest. Anger protects a person against cheaters
who accept a favor without reciprocating, by impelling him to punish the ingrate or sever the relationship.
Gratitude impels a beneficiary to reward those who helped him in the past. Guilt prompts a cheater in danger
of being found out to repair the relationship by redressing the misdeed and advertising that he will behave
better in the future (consistent with Mencken’s definition of conscience as “the inner voice which warns us
that someone might be looking”). Many experiments on who helps whom, who likes whom, who punishes
whom and who feels guilty about what have confirmed these predictions.
[38] Community, the very different emotion that prompts people to share and sacrifice without an expectation
of payback, may be rooted in nepotistic altruism, the empathy and solidarity we feel toward our relatives (and
which evolved because any gene that pushed an organism to aid a relative would have helped copies of itself
sitting inside that relative). In humans, of course, communal feelings can be lavished on nonrelatives as well.
Sometimes it pays people (in an evolutionary sense) to love their companions because their interests are
yoked, like spouses with common children, in-laws with common relatives, friends with common tastes or
allies with common enemies. And sometimes it doesn’t pay them at all, but their kinship-detectors have been
tricked into treating their groupmates as if they were relatives by tactics like kinship metaphors (blood
brothers, fraternities, the fatherland), origin myths, communal meals and other bonding rituals.
Juggling the Spheres
[39] All this brings us to a theory of how the moral sense can be universal and variable at the same time. The
five moral spheres are universal, a legacy of evolution. But how they are ranked in importance, and which is
brought in to moralize which area of social life — sex, government, commerce, religion, diet and so on —
depends on the culture. Many of the flabbergasting practices in faraway places become more intelligible when
you recognize that the same moralizing impulse that Western elites channel toward violations of harm and
fairness (our moral obsessions) is channeled elsewhere to violations in the other spheres. Think of the
Japanese fear of nonconformity (community), the holy ablutions and dietary restrictions of Hindus and
Orthodox Jews (purity), the outrage at insulting the Prophet among Muslims (authority). In the West, we
believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and
41
cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible — what heartless creep would favor a perfect
stranger over his own brother?
[40] The ranking and placement of moral spheres also divides the cultures of liberals and conservatives in the
United States. Many bones of contention, like homosexuality, atheism and one-parent families from the right,
or racial imbalances, sweatshops and executive pay from the left, reflect different weightings of the spheres.
In a large Web survey, Haidt found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while
playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all
five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base
and unprincipled.
[41] Reassigning an activity to a different sphere, or taking it out of the moral spheres altogether, isn’t easy.
People think that a behavior belongs in its sphere as a matter of sacred necessity and that the very act of
questioning an assignment is a moral outrage. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has shown that the mentality of
taboo — a conviction that some thoughts are sinful to think — is not just a superstition of Polynesians but a
mind-set that can easily be triggered in college-educated Americans. Just ask them to think about applying the
sphere of reciprocity to relationships customarily governed by community or authority. When Tetlock asked
subjects for their opinions on whether adoption agencies should place children with the couples willing to pay
the most, whether people should have the right to sell their organs and whether they should be able to buy
their way out of jury duty, the subjects not only disagreed but felt personally insulted and were outraged that
anyone would raise the question.
[42] The institutions of modernity often question and experiment with the way activities are assigned to moral
spheres. Market economies tend to put everything up for sale. Science amoralizes the world by seeking to
understand phenomena rather than pass judgment on them. Secular philosophy is in the business of
scrutinizing all beliefs, including those entrenched by authority and tradition. It’s not surprising that these
institutions are often seen to be morally corrosive.
Is Nothing Sacred?
[43] And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the
moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them.
Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to
show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a
Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different
spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of
another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And
the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be
demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.
[44] In reality, none of these fears are warranted, and it’s important to see why not. The first
misunderstanding involves the logic of evolutionary explanations. Evolutionary biologists sometimes
anthropomorphize DNA for the same reason that science teachers find it useful to have their students imagine
the world from the viewpoint of a molecule or a beam of light. One shortcut to understanding the theory of
selection without working through the math is to imagine that the genes are little agents that try to make
copies of themselves.
[45] Unfortunately, the meme of the selfish gene escaped from popular biology books and mutated into the
idea that organisms (including people) are ruthlessly self-serving. And this doesn’t follow. Genes are not a
reservoir of our dark unconscious wishes. “Selfish” genes are perfectly compatible with selfless organisms,
because a gene’s metaphorical goal of selfishly replicating itself can be implemented by wiring up the brain of
42
the organism to do unselfish things, like being nice to relatives or doing good deeds for needy strangers.
When a mother stays up all night comforting a sick child, the genes that endowed her with that tenderness
were “selfish” in a metaphorical sense, but by no stretch of the imagination is she being selfish.
[46] Nor does reciprocal altruism — the evolutionary rationale behind fairness — imply that people do good
deeds in the cynical expectation of repayment down the line. We all know of unrequited good deeds, like
tipping a waitress in a city you will never visit again and falling on a grenade to save platoonmates. These
bursts of goodness are not as anomalous to a biologist as they might appear.
[47] In his classic 1971 article, Trivers, the biologist, showed how natural selection could push in the
direction of true selflessness. The emergence of tit-for-tat reciprocity, which lets organisms trade favors
without being cheated, is just a first step. A favor-giver not only has to avoid blatant cheaters (those who
would accept a favor but not return it) but also prefer generous reciprocators (those who return the biggest
favor they can afford) over stingy ones (those who return the smallest favor they can get away with). Since
it’s good to be chosen as a recipient of favors, a competition arises to be the most generous partner around.
More accurately, a competition arises to appear to be the most generous partner around, since the favor-giver
can’t literally read minds or see into the future. A reputation for fairness and generosity becomes an asset.
[48] Now this just sets up a competition for potential beneficiaries to inflate their reputations without making
the sacrifices to back them up. But it also pressures the favor-giver to develop ever-more-sensitive radar to
distinguish the genuinely generous partners from the hypocrites. This arms race will eventually reach a logical
conclusion. The most effective way to seem generous and fair, under harsh scrutiny, is to be generous and
fair. In the long run, then, reputation can be secured only by commitment. At least some agents evolve to be
genuinely high-minded and self-sacrificing — they are moral not because of what it brings them but because
that’s the kind of people they are.
[49] Of course, a theory that predicted that everyone always sacrificed themselves for another’s good would
be as preposterous as a theory that predicted that no one ever did. Alongside the niches for saints there are
niches for more grudging reciprocators, who attract fewer and poorer partners but don’t make the sacrifices
necessary for a sterling reputation. And both may coexist with outright cheaters, who exploit the unwary in
one-shot encounters. An ecosystem of niches, each with a distinct strategy, can evolve when the payoff of
each strategy depends on how many players are playing the other strategies. The human social environment
does have its share of generous, grudging and crooked characters, and the genetic variation in personality
seems to bear the fingerprints of this evolutionary process.
Is Morality a Figment?
[50] So a biological understanding of the moral sense does not entail that people are calculating maximizers
of their genes or self-interest. But where does it leave the concept of morality itself?
[51] Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are
products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference
between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of
flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different
ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction
between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the
distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils
like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?
[52] Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work
of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as
43
immoral? If not — if his dictates are divine whims — why should we take them seriously? Suppose that God
commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons
to resist? And if, on the other hand, God was forced by moral reasons to issue some dictates and not others —
if a command to torture a child was never an option — then why not appeal to those reasons directly?
[53] This throws us back to wondering where those reasons could come from, if they are more than just
figments of our brains. They certainly aren’t in the physical world like wavelength or mass. The only other
option is that moral truths exist in some abstract Platonic realm, there for us to discover, perhaps in the same
way that mathematical truths (according to most mathematicians) are there for us to discover. On this
analogy, we are born with a rudimentary concept of number, but as soon as we build on it with formal
mathematical reasoning, the nature of mathematical reality forces us to discover some truths and not others.
(No one who understands the concept of two, the concept of four and the concept of addition can come to any
conclusion but that 2 + 2 = 4.) Perhaps we are born with a rudimentary moral sense, and as soon as we build
on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some conclusions but not others.
[54] Moral realism, as this idea is called, is too rich for many philosophers’ blood. Yet a diluted version of the
idea — if not a list of cosmically inscribed Thou-Shalts, then at least a few If-Thens — is not crazy. Two
features of reality point any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction. And they could provide
a benchmark for determining when the judgments of our moral sense are aligned with morality itself.
[55] One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better
off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we
share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared
with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding
like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you
played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both
end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to
conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet
projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature
of things.
[56] The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the
egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me — to get off my
foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car — then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my
interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously.
Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I
can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you
that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.
[57] Not coincidentally, the core of this idea — the interchangeability of perspectives — keeps reappearing in
history’s best-thought-through moral philosophies, including the Golden Rule (itself discovered many times);
Spinoza’s Viewpoint of Eternity; the Social Contract of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke; Kant’s Categorical
Imperative; and Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance. It also underlies Peter Singer’s theory of the Expanding Circle —
the optimistic proposal that our moral sense, though shaped by evolution to overvalue self, kin and clan, can
propel us on a path of moral progress, as our reasoning forces us to generalize it to larger and larger circles of
sentient beings.
Doing Better by Knowing Ourselves
[58] Morality, then, is still something larger than our inherited moral sense, and the new science of the moral
44
sense does not make moral reasoning and conviction obsolete. At the same time, its implications for our
moral universe are profound.
[59] At the very least, the science tells us that even when our adversaries’ agenda is most baffling, they may
not be amoral psychopaths but in the throes of a moral mind-set that appears to them to be every bit as
mandatory and universal as ours does to us. Of course, some adversaries really are psychopaths, and others
are so poisoned by a punitive moralization that they are beyond the pale of reason. (The actor Will Smith had
many historians on his side when he recently speculated to the press that Hitler thought he was acting
morally.) But in any conflict in which a meeting of the minds is not completely hopeless, a recognition that
the other guy is acting from moral rather than venal reasons can be a first patch of common ground. One side
can acknowledge the other’s concern for community or stability or fairness or dignity, even while arguing that
some other value should trump it in that instance. With affirmative action, for example, the opponents can be
seen as arguing from a sense of fairness, not racism, and the defenders can be seen as acting from a concern
with community, not bureaucratic power. Liberals can ratify conservatives’ concern with families while
noting that gay marriage is perfectly consistent with that concern.
[60] The science of the moral sense also alerts us to ways in which our psychological makeup can get in the
way of our arriving at the most defensible moral conclusions. The moral sense, we are learning, is as
vulnerable to illusions as the other senses. It is apt to confuse morality per se with purity, status and
conformity. It tends to reframe practical problems as moral crusades and thus see their solution in punitive
aggression. It imposes taboos that make certain ideas indiscussible. And it has the nasty habit of always
putting the self on the side of the angels.
[61] Though wise people have long reflected on how we can be blinded by our own sanctimony, our public
discourse still fails to discount it appropriately. In the worst cases, the thoughtlessness of our brute intuitions
can be celebrated as a virtue. In his influential essay “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” Leon Kass, former chair
of the President’s Council on Bioethics, argued that we should disregard reason when it comes to cloning and
other biomedical technologies and go with our gut: “We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings
. . . because we intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully
hold dear. . . . In this age in which everything is held to be permissible so long as it is freely done . . .
repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are
the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.”
[62] There are, of course, good reasons to regulate human cloning, but the shudder test is not one of them.
People have shuddered at all kinds of morally irrelevant violations of purity in their culture: touching an
untouchable, drinking from the same water fountain as a Negro, allowing Jewish blood to mix with Aryan
blood, tolerating sodomy between consenting men. And if our ancestors’ repugnance had carried the day, we
never would have had autopsies, vaccinations, blood transfusions, artificial insemination, organ transplants
and in vitro fertilization, all of which were denounced as immoral when they were new.
[63] There are many other issues for which we are too quick to hit the moralization button and look for
villains rather than bug fixes. What should we do when a hospital patient is killed by a nurse who administers
the wrong drug in a patient’s intravenous line? Should we make it easier to sue the hospital for damages? Or
should we redesign the IV fittings so that it’s physically impossible to connect the wrong bottle to the line?
[64] And nowhere is moralization more of a hazard than in our greatest global challenge. The threat of
human-induced climate change has become the occasion for a moralistic revival meeting. In many
discussions, the cause of climate change is overindulgence (too many S.U.V.’s) and defilement (sullying the
atmosphere), and the solution is temperance (conservation) and expiation (buying carbon offset coupons). Yet
the experts agree that these numbers don’t add up: even if every last American became conscientious about
45
his or her carbon emissions, the effects on climate change would be trifling, if for no other reason than that
two billion Indians and Chinese are unlikely to copy our born-again abstemiousness. Though voluntary
conservation may be one wedge in an effective carbon-reduction pie, the other wedges will have to be morally
boring, like a carbon tax and new energy technologies, or even taboo, like nuclear power and deliberate
manipulation of the ocean and atmosphere. Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of
purity and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of doing the
right thing.
[65] Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see
through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and
defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.”
46
Aristotelian Appeals: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos
Whenever you read an argument, ask yourself, “Is this persuasive? Why?” There are many ways to
appeal to an audience. Among them are appealing to logos, ethos, and pathos. These appeals are
identifiable in almost all arguments.
To Appeal to LOGOS
(logic, reasoning)
: the argument itself; the
reasoning the author uses; logical
evidence
Types of LOGOS Appeals










Theories/scientific facts
Indicated meanings or
reasons (because…)
Literal or historical
analogies
Definitions
Factual data & statistics
Quotations
Citations from experts &
authorities
Informed opinions
Examples (real life
examples)
Personal anecdotes
Effect on Audience
Evokes a cognitive, rational
response. Readers get a sense of,
“Oh, that makes sense” or “Hmm,
that really doesn’t prove
anything.”
To Develop ETHOS
(character, ethics)
: how an author builds credibility
& trustworthiness
Ways to Develop ETHOS










Author’s profession/
background
Author’s publication
Appearing sincere, fair
minded, knowledgeable
Conceding to opposition
where appropriate
Morally/ethically likeable
Appropriate language for
audience and subject
Appropriate vocabulary
Correct grammar
Professional format
Knowledgeable
Effect on Audience
Helps reader to see the author as
reliable, trustworthy, competent,
and credible. The reader might
respect the author or his/her
views.
How to Talk About It
How to Talk About It
The author appeals to logos by
defining relevant terms and then
supports his claim with numerous
citations from authorities.
Through his use of scientific
terminology, the author builds his
ethos by demonstrating expertise.
The author’s use of statistics and
expert testimony are very
convincing logos appeals.
The author’s ethos is effectively
developed as readers see that he is
sympathetic to the struggles
minorities face.
47
To Appeal to PATHOS
(emotion)
: words or passages an author uses
to activate audience emotions
Types of PATHOS Appeals






Emotionally loaded
language
Vivid descriptions
Emotional examples
Anecdotes, testimonies, or
narratives about
emotional experiences or
events
Figurative language
Emotional tone (humor,
sarcasm, disappointment,
excitement, etc.)
Effect on Audience
Evokes an emotional response.
Persuasion by emotion.
(usually evoking fear, sympathy,
empathy, anger,)
How to Talk About It
When referencing 9/11, the
author is appealing to pathos.
Here, he is eliciting both sadness
and anger from his readers.
The author’s description of the
child with cancer was a very
persuasive appeal to pathos.
Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies
Writers don’t just randomly sit down and talk about a topic. They first consider the point that they
want to make—the argument. Next, they consider their audience. Finally, they consider the best way
to put forth that argument to that particular audience.
What types of evidence will they use? What tone will they adopt? What strategies will be most
persuasive to that audience?
Rhetorical strategies are tools that help writers craft language so as to have an effect on readers.
Strategies are means of persuasion, a way of using language to get readers’ attention and agreement.
At times, a professor may ask you to discuss the rhetorical strategies used within a text. In
that case, it’s not enough to simply identify those strategies and to state that they are there.
In your writing or your discussion, you will need to ask and answer certain questions. Why
does the author choose to use that strategy in that place? What does he or she want to evoke
in the reader? How do these strategies help the author build his or her argument? How do
these strategies emphasize the claims the author makes or the evidence he or she uses?
When describing why a strategy is used, you may also want to consider alternative strategies,
and think about how they would work differently. It might be helpful to consider what would
happen if the strategy were left out – what difference would it make to the argument? This may
help you figure out why the particular strategy was chosen.
When Discussing Rhetorical Strategies, Remember to:
1. Identify rhetorical strategies in the text
2. Describe how they work
3. Describe why they are used – what purpose do they accomplish?
4. Always include a discussion of how this strategy helps the author develop and support the
argument.
The following is a list of commonly used strategies and questions that will help you consider
why the author may have chosen to use those strategies.
Authorities or “big names” – Frequently an author will quote from a famous person or wellknown authority on the topic being discussed.
 How does this appeal to authority build trust in her argument that the consensus can be
trusted?
 How does this appeal tap into assumptions about scientific method
Cause and effect analysis: Analyzes why something happens and describes the consequences
of a string of events.
 Does the author examine past events or their outcomes?
 Is the purpose to inform, speculate, or argue about why an identifiable fact happens the
way it does?
48
Commonplaces – Also known as hidden assumptions, hidden beliefs, and ideologies.
Commonplaces include assumptions, many of them unconscious, that groups of people hold in
common.
 What hidden assumptions or beliefs does the speaker have about the topic? How is the
speaker or author appealing to the hidden assumptions of the audience?
 Who is the intended audience of this piece? What are some assumptions of this
intended audience?
Comparison and contrast: Discusses similarities and differences.
 Does the text contain two or more related subjects?
 How are they alike? different?
 How does this comparison further the argument or a claim?
Definition –When authors define certain words, these definitions are specifically formulated
for the specific purpose he or she has in mind. In addition, these definitions are crafted uniquely
for the intended audience.
 Who is the intended audience?
 Does the text focus on any abstract, specialized, or new terms that need further
explanation so the readers understand the point?
 How has the speaker or author chosen to define these terms for the audience?
 What effect might this definition have on the audience, or how does this definition help
further the argument?
Description: Details sensory perceptions of a person, place, or thing.
 Does a person, place, or thing play a prominent role in the text?
 Does the tone, pacing, or overall purpose of the essay benefit from sensory details?
 What emotions might these details evoke in the audience? (See Pathos)
 How does this description help the author further the argument?
Division and classification: Divides a whole into parts or sorts related items into categories.
 Is the author trying to explain a broad and complicated subject?
 Does it benefit the text to reduce this subject to more manageable parts to focus the
discussion?
Exemplification: Provides examples or cases in point.
 What examples, facts, statistics, cases in point, personal experiences, or interview
questions does the author add to illustrate claims or illuminate the argument?
 What effect might these have on the reader?
Ethos – Aristotle’s term ethos refers to the credibility, character or personality of the speaker
or author or someone else connected to the argument. Ethos brings up questions of ethics and
trust between the speaker or author and the audience. How is the speaker or author building
49
credibility for the argument? How and why is the speaker or author trying to get the audience
to trust her or him? See the discussion on Aristotelian Appeals in the textbook.
 Aristotle says that a speaker builds credibility by demonstrating that he or she is fair,
knowledgeable about a topic, trustworthy, and considerate.
 What specifically does the author do to obtain the reader’s trust? How does he or she
show fairness? Understanding of the topic? Trustworthy? Considerate of the reader’s
needs?
 How does she construct credibility for her argument?
Identification – This is rhetorician Kenneth Burke’s term for the act of “identifying” with
another person who shares your values or beliefs. Many speakers or authors try to identify
with an audience or convince an audience to identify with them and their argument.
 How does the author build a connection between himself or herself and the audience?
Logos – Loosely defined, logos refers to the use of logic, reason, facts, statistics, data, and
numbers. Very often, logos seems tangible and touchable, so much more real and “true” than
other rhetorical strategies that it does not seem like a persuasive strategy at all. See the
discussion on Aristotelian Appeals in the textbook.
 How and why does the author or speaker chose logos?
 How does the author show there are good reasons to support his or her argument?
 What kinds of evidence does he or she use?
Metadiscourse – Metadiscourse can be described as language about language. It announces to
the reader what the writer is doing, helping the reader to recognize the author’s plan.
(Example: In my paper . . .) Metadiscourse can be used both to announce the overall project or
purpose of the paper and to announce its argument. It also provides signposts along the way,
guiding the reader to what will come next and showing how that is connected to what has
come before. See the discussion of Metadiscourse in the textbook for more details.
 Metadiscourse can signal the tone the author wants to convey. What is the author’s
voice in this paper? How does she enter in and guide the reader through the text?
 What role does she adopt? What voice does she use?
Metaphors, analogies, similes –An analogy compares two parallel terms or situations in
which the traits of one situation are argued to be similar to another—often one relatively firm
and concrete, and the other less familiar and concrete. This allows the author to use concrete,
easily understood ideas, to clarify a less obvious point.
Similarly, metaphors and similes assign help an author frame the argument, to pay attention to
some elements of a situation and ignore others or to assign the characteristics of one thing to
another. For example, see “The Power of Green” by Thomas Friedman in this reader.
 What two things are being compared?
 How does this comparison help an audience view the argument in a new way? How
does this frame shape the argument?
50
Motive – Sometimes an author may reference the motives of his or her opponents.
 Why we should or shouldn’t trust someone’s argument –(ex. if the CEO of Krispy
Kreme doughnuts argues against nutritional information on product packaging)
Narration: Recounts an event.
 Is the narrator trying to report or recount an anecdote, an experience, or an event? Is it
telling a story?
 How does this narrative illustrate or clarify the claim or argument?
 What effect might this story have on the audience?
 How does this narrative further the argument?
Pathos – Pathos refers to feelings. The author or speaker wants her audience to feel the same
emotions she is feeling, whether or not they agree on the actual topic. That way, because they
feel the same emotions, they are more likely to agree with the author later on. See the
discussion on Aristotelian Appeals in the textbook.
 What specific emotions does the author evoke?
 How does she do it?
 How does the author use these emotions as a tool to persuade the audience?
Precedent – When an author or speaker argues from precedent, he or she references a previous
situation, one that can be compared to the author’s situation.
 Does the author reference any historic instances that he or she claims are similar to the
one being discussed?
 What details about this historic situation help the author’s argument?
Prolepsis – Anticipating the opposition’s best argument and addressing it in advance.
 Readers interact with the texts they read, and often that interaction includes
disagreement or asking questions of the text.
 Authors can counter disagreement by answering anticipating the opposition and
introducing it within the text. Authors then respond to it.
Process analysis: Explains to the reader how to do something or how something happens.
 Were any portions of the text more clear because concrete directions about a certain
process were included?
 How does this help the author develop the argument?
Questions –
Rhetorical question – A question designed to have one correct answer. The author leads you
into a position rather than stating it explicitly.
 What is the most obvious answer to this question?
51

Why is it important to have the reader answer this question? How does it help the
author persuade the audience?
Transitional questions – Lead the reader into a new subject area or area of argument.
 What role do these questions play? How do these questions lead the direction of the
argument?
 How is this helpful for the reader?
Structure and Organization
It is important to consider the organization of information and strategies in any text.
 How does this structure or organization help strength the argument?
 What headings or titles does the author use? How do these strengthen the argument?
Some elements of structure to consider:
Type of Organization:





Topical: The argument is organized according to subtopics, like describing a baby’s bubble
bath first in terms of the soap used, then the water conditions, and lastly the type of towels.
Chronological: The argument is organized to describe information in time order, like a
baseball game from the first pitch to the last at-bat.
Spatial: The argument follows a visual direction, such as describing a house from the inside
to the outside, or a person from their head down to their toes.
Problem – Solution: The argument presents a problem and a possible solution, such as
making coffee at home to avoid spending extra money.
Cause and effect: Describes the relationship between the cause or catalyst of an event and
the effect, like identifying over-consumption of candy as the cause of tooth decay.
Logical Order of Information:





Inductive: Moving from one specific example to draw a general conclusion.
Deductive: Moving from a generalized theory or assumption to decide the causes or
characteristics of a specific example or event.
Linear: The argument is told in linear order, scaffolding information or reasoning.
Circular: Supporting the argument using assumptions or information from the argument
itself.
Recursive: The text consistently moves forward, but circles back on specific points in the
process.
*Portions of this discussion modified from “Rhetorical Strategies for Essay Writing,”
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/rhetoric.htm
52
Sample Rhetorical Strategy Papers
Sometimes it’s helpful to take a look at how other students write about strategies. Here
are some excerpts from papers that analyze rhetorical strategies in Rifkin’s “A Change
of Heart about Animals.”
Rhetorical Analysis of Rifkin’s use of Rebuttals
In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” a 2003 editorial published in the Los Angeles
Times, Jeremy Rifkin argues that new research calls into question many of the
boundaries commonly thought to exist between humans and other animals, and as a
consequence humans should expand their empathy for animals and treat them better.
To support this argument Rifkin points to studies suggesting that animals can acquire
language, use tools, exhibit self-awareness, anticipate death, and pass on knowledge
from one generation to the next. One strategy Rifkin employs to persuade his readers is
to describe some of the most common objections typically raised against the idea that
animals and humans share essential traits, along with rebuttals to these objections. For
example, Rifkin notes that “philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that
other animals are not capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of
individualism.” He acknowledges that “scientists have long believed” that unlike
humans, animals cannot comprehend their death, and that “until very recently”
scientists assumed animal behavior was based on instinct rather than learned
experience. Rifkin responds to these objections, presenting counter evidence and
counter claims based on new studies that he suggests undermine previous
understandings of animals.
This is an important strategy, for Rifkin likely knows that many of his readers come to
his article assuming that fundamental differences exist between humans and animals,
and when presented with an argument suggesting otherwise, would raise precisely the
objections Rifkin describes. By making objections to his argument a prominent part of
his text, and spending so much space responding to them, Rifkin is better able to win
over his audience. Dealing with common assumptions and objections to his position is
crucial to getting his audience to accept his main argument. It removes what would
otherwise be a major obstacle to his audience accepting his claims. If he did not include
this strategy, it is likely that these objections would occur to many readers, and they
might reject his argument. Spending so much time considering opposing points of view
also makes Rifkin appear balanced and fair minded, and thus may incline readers to trust
him. Lastly, the way Rifkin presents objections to his argument is important
strategically. Rifkin presents opposing views almost exclusively in terms of “past
research” that has been superseded by more up to date work. It seems likely that some
contemporary research exists that is at odds with Rifkin’s position, yet Rifkin does not
discuss this, instead presenting disagreement in terms of old, outdated studies versus
new, correct ones. Since many readers are likely to assume that the more up to date
scientific research is, the more likely it is to be true, then associating objections with
past research increases the likelihood they are seen as invalid.
53
Rhetorical Analysis of Rifkin’s Word Choice
One strategy Rifkin employs to build the argument that animals should be treated more
like humans is his subtle use of animal names when introducing data. When he offers
new research about the problem solving abilities of New Caledonian crows, for example,
Rifkin cleverly describes how “Abel, the more dominant male…stole Betty’s hook” in
order to obtain a better feeding tool. Rifkin, of course, could have chosen to ignore the
bird’s test-subject names – which in all likelihood, were arbitrarily assigned by lab
technicians and remain of little importance to the conclusions of the experiment – but
by including them he bestows a human quality to the animals beyond what the data
suggests. He repeats this technique twice more to the same effect, once when
introducing “Koko, the 300 pound gorilla,” who displays close-to-human intelligence
and an impressive sign language vocabulary, and again when describing an “Orangutan
named Chantek,” whose use of a mirror displays human-like self awareness. Surely the
data alone make the argument that animals are, by turns, capable of human qualities of
problem-solving, communication, learning, and self-awareness. By offering the names of
the test animals, though, he imbues them with greater individuality, personality and
dignity. Giving the animals human names invites readers to think of them in terms
usually reserved only for human beings. This strategy establishes a relationship of
similarity between the animals mentioned and ourselves. The more human animals
seem, the more it follows that they should be treated with the empathy and dignity we
assume all humans deserve. This strategy thus helps advance Rifkin’s claim that we
should “expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures
with whom we share the earth.”
54
The Rhetorical Strategy of Metadiscourse
Many forms of academic writing utilize metadiscourse. These are moments in the text
when the author explicitly TELLS you how to interpret her words.



In academic texts, metadiscourse occurs when the author stops arguing, stands
back and tells you how to interpret the argument.
In this moment, the author reflects on what he or she is saying. This may involve
making explicit the strategies (the strategy of explaining a strategy).
Metadiscourse is similar to the project statement or thesis in your papers.
Practicing writing metadiscourse is useful. It helps you develop your ideas, generate
more text, and get a better sense of both your paper’s structure and how you might
change direction.
In clarifying things for your reader, you also clarify things for yourself. Gerald Graff
describes the way this works in his article, “How to Write an Argument: What Students
and Teachers Really Need to Know,” found in this reader. For specific examples, see They
Say/I Say p. 126-30.
Authors use metadiscourse to:
1. Ward off potential misunderstandings.
2. Anticipate and respond to objections.
3. Orient the reader by providing a “map”– where the argument is going,
where it has gone, etc.
4. Forecast & review structure and purpose
5. Qualify the nature, scope or extent of an argument
6. Alert readers to an elaboration of a previous idea.
7. Move from a general claim to a specific example.
8. Indicate that a claim is especially important
55
Examples of Metadiscourse from Amusing Ourselves to Death
Neil Postman, media theorist and professor of media ecology at New York University, utilized
metadiscourse throughout his academic writing.
In this example of metadiscourse from his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in
the Age of Show Business, you can see how metadiscourse might work in your own essays.
It is my intention in this book to show that a great . . . shift has taken place in
America, with the result that the content of much of our public discourse has become
dangerous nonsense.
In this example, Postman outlines both the project and the purpose of his book.
With this in view, my task in the chapters ahead is straightforward. I must, first,
demonstrate how, under the governance of the printing press, discourse in America
was different from what it is now – generally coherent, serious and rational; and then
how, under the governance of television, it has become shriveled and absurd.
Here, the he forecasts the organization of the arguments and maps out what will happen in the
book.
But to avoid the possibility that my analysis will be interpreted as standard-brand
academic whimpering, a kind of elitist complaint against “junk” on television, I must
first explain that . . . I appreciate junk as much as the next fellow, and I know full
well that the printing press has generated enough of it to fill the grand canyon to
overflowing. Television is not old enough to have matched printing’s output of junk.
First, Postman clarifies what he is about to do, and then he identifies anticipated objections to
his argument. Next, he deals with the objection and once again clarifies his position.
56
Describing relationships between texts
How texts “extend,” “complicate,” “illustrate,” “challenge,” or “qualify” other texts
Academic writing requires that you build arguments using multiple texts. To do this
effectively, you will want to describe the relationships between these different texts.
Extend: When a source advances, develops, expands, or take further some element of an
existing argument, we say that the source extends an argument.
 Extending an argument involves presenting additional evidence or reasons that are in
line with the original argument but go beyond it.
Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source extends a text include:
Gives additional evidence, develops, elaborates, expands, extrapolates, teases out, advances,
takes further, provides additional evidence/support, supplements, etc.
Complicate: When a source presents evidence, arguments or claims that are at odds with
an author’s position, suggesting that the position needs to be qualified, we say that one text
complicates another.
 Complicating an author’s argument is not quite the same as disagreeing with it,
although disagreement may be involved.
 It usually involves suggesting that an author has not dealt with the full complexity of
an issue, has failed to consider relevant evidence, or that there is a gap, shortcoming
or limitation in an author’s account.
 Complicating an argument may involve exposing problems, contradictions, or
presenting counterexamples and counterarguments that challenge some part of the
argument.
Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source complicates a text include:
challenges, contradicts, disagrees, locates problems with, identifies shortcomings, notes that
X fails to account for, notes that X ignores A, suggests that X’s account is exaggerated, is
vulnerable to counterarguments/counterexamples, rests on several highly questionable
assumptions
Qualify: When a source presents evidence/claims that suggest an author’s argument goes
too far, is too strong, or overgeneralizes, we say it qualifies the author’s argument. When a
source limits the scope or extent of claims in an argument, we say that the source qualifies
the argument.
Example of unqualified argument: All video games incite violence and should be banned.
Qualified argument: Miller asserts that certain extreme video games may desensitize
impressionable young people to violence and advocates a ban on these types of games.
However, Jenkins points to evidence from MIT demonstrating that most games are innocent
fun and may even teach useful skills. Nevertheless, he acknowledges Miller’s concerns and
suggests that only games that realistically simulate murder should be banned. In addition, he
limits the ban to children under the age of 14. Thus, Jenkins qualifies Miller’s claims.
57
Challenge: when a source directly contradicts or challenges an author’s position.
Illustrate: When a source provides examples, additional evidence, cases or arguments that
help explain a position we say that the source illustrates an argument.
 Illustrating an argument means to present additional examples that illustrate or
support a claim or argument. The illustration may not be explicitly mentioned by the
original author.
Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source clarifies or illustrates a text
include: illuminates, exemplifies, explicates, confirms, supports, etc.
NOTE: As with most sets of terms, there is some overlap between them. For example,
something that illustrates an argument may also clarify it. An element of an argument can
thus do more than one thing. The important thing is to try to figure out the general
relationship between texts/parts of texts.
EXAMPLE: While Chua sees conflict between ethnicities in developing countries as driven
largely by globalization and democratization, others believe that poor government is the main
culprit. In “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict,” John Bowden argues that many countries
composed of diverse ethnic groups have avoided conflict because their governments have
created “multiethnic coalitions” which encourage different groups to “seek the large electoral
middle ground.” The countries he uses as examples are all democracies. Bowden thus
complicates Chua’s argument by suggesting that democracy, properly run, can prevent
ethnic violence, and that the solution is thus renewed commitment to democracy rather than a
retreat from it. This contrasts with Chua, who believes that in countries where there is a
“market dominant minority,” popular majorities always tend toward ethnocentrism, and some
form of “backlash” is very likely. Bowden, on the other hand, believes that ethnic conflict
exists only when ethnicities are left out of the power structure, or when destructive “political
choices” are made. He acknowledges that cultural diversity does present challenges to peace,
and that certain other factors can make conflict likely. …However, Bowden insists that
democracy and globalization do not lead inevitably to the kind of problems Chua
outlines, and that we must focus on the underlying factors that are the real drivers of violence.
Bowden thus complicates Chua’ argument in several ways; firstly, he presents evidence
that is at odds with Chua’s thesis, and which can be read as questioning the extent to
which it is true. Secondly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua’s position is overstated and
needs to be severely qualified. Lastly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua has failed to
deal with the full complexity of what causes ethnic violence in developing countries.
58
APPENDIX
Classmate Contact Info
Please write down the email address and/or phone number of three of your classmates. If you miss class,
or can’t remember what was assigned for homework, contact your classmates before asking me.
NAME:________________________________CONTACT:____________________________
NAME:________________________________CONTACT:____________________________
NAME:________________________________CONTACT:_____________________________
59
Agreement on Plagiarism
Policy statements and tutorials on plagiarism are provided by SDSU on these web pages:
http://infotutor.sdsu.edu/plagiarism/consequences.cfm?p=graphic
http://infotutor.sdsu.edu/plagiarism/index.cfm?p=graphic
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/conduct1.html
I understand that teachers are required by SDSU policy to report cases of plagiarism. I understand that I
must clearly mark other people's ideas and words within my paper. I understand it is unacceptable to do
any of the following:
 Submit an essay written in whole or part by another person, and to present this as if it were my
own.
 Download an essay from the internet, then quote or paraphrase from it, in whole or in part,
without acknowledging the original source.
 Reproduce the substance of another writer's argument without acknowledging the source.
 Copy another student/person’s homework and submit this as the product of my own work.
I understand that the consequences for committing any of the above acts can include failure in the class, a
note on my permanent record, and even expulsion from the university. I will not plagiarize or cheat.
Name (Print Legibly): ______________________________
Date ____________________________________________
(Signature) _______________________________________
Use of Student Work
Your teacher may occasionally wish to share sample student writing in class. She may also wish to share
sample student writing as part of her teacher training. For example, your teacher may wish to show an
example of a strong introduction, or discuss ways of revising a conclusion. Student writing will be made
anonymous (student names will be removed). Is it OK to use your writing in this way?
YES
NO
Name: ______________________________
60