ENG 100

Reread, rethink and rewrite the text in bold on page 66
quoting material by Nancy Mairs, "On Being a
Cripple." taking on the voice of someone either
"crippled" or not, who uses I much less frequently than
Mairs does - perhaps not at all.
OR

Reread, rethink, and rewrite the text in bold on page 6162 quoting the material "Here Comes theGroom" from a
personal, subjective viewpoint, taking on the voice (the
character) of someone who is gay or has gay friends or
family members and using the pronoun I if appropriate.
Using your textbook, read Chapter Four,
“Arguments Based on Facts and Reason: Logos,”
pages 69-93. Mark the text and/or take notes as
you read. Complete Reading Response Journal.
Once finished, complete #5 on page 94.
Finish as homework, as necessary.
Intro
pg. 1-20
Part 1
pg. 23-58, Ch. 1-2
Part 2
pg. 61-161, Ch. 3-5
Part 3
pg. 165-244, Ch. 6-7
Part 4
pg. 247 – 276, Ch. 8
Conclusion
pg. 277-292
Discuss 09/06
Discuss 09/11
Discuss 09/21
Discuss 10/01
Discuss 10/03
Discuss 10/05
1. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
2. Drunk drivers are involved in more than 50
percent of traffic deaths.
3. DNA tests of skin found under the victim’s
fingernails suggest that the defendant was
responsible for the assault.
1. Polls suggest that a slim majority of Americans favor
a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage.
2. A psychologist testified that teenage violence could
not be blamed on video games.
3. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
1. History proves that cutting tax rates increases
government revenues because people work harder
when they can keep more of what they earn.
2. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
3. Air bags ought to be removed from vehicles because
they can kill young children and small-frame adults.



logical argument involving three propositions: a
formal deductive argument made up of a major
premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.
"All birds have feathers, penguins are birds,
therefore penguins have feathers."
deductive reasoning: reasoning from the general
to the specific
example of deduction: an example of deductive
reasoning

A figure of reasoning in which one or more
statements of a syllogism (a three-pronged
deductive argument) is/are left out of the
configuration; an abbreviated syllogism or truncated
deductive argument in which one or more premises,
or, the conclusion is/are omitted. There are various
kinds of syllogisms and the formal treatment of
them is rather technical. However, all syllogisms are
similar in that they contain at least three statements
-- two premises followed by a conclusion.
Ex1:
- All humans are mortal. (major premise)
- Michael is human. (minor premise)
-Michael is mortal. (conclusion)

The syllogism above would be rendered an enthymeme
simply by maintaining that "Michael is mortal because
he's human" (leaving out the major premise). Or put
differently, "Since all humans are mortal, Michael is
therefore mortal" (leaving out the minor premise).
Statements may be strategically excluded in an
enthymeme because they are too obvious or
because revealing them might damage the force of
the argument. Yet another reason to exclude a
premise or conclusion is to let the audience infer it.
The idea here is that audiences who have to draw
out premises or conclusions for themselves are
more likely to be persuaded by the overall
argument.
Ex2:
- Those who study rhetoric speak eloquently. (major
premise)
- Susan studies rhetoric. (minor premise)
-Susan speaks eloquently. (conclusion)

The enthymeme here might do well to exclude the
conclusion and let the audience infer it if the goal of
the argument were to convince the audience that
Susan speaks eloquently.
Take a look at comedian Rita Rudner's fairly complicated
enthymematic argument:
I was going to have cosmetic surgery until I noticed that the
doctor's office was full of portraits of Picasso.
Working with the other students in your row (front of row
to back), analyze this enthymeme and answer the
following questions:
1. What information is left implicit?
2. What inference or conclusion does Rudner ask us to
draw from this enthymeme?
3. What causes the humor in this statement?
Using your textbook, read Chapter Seventeen,
“Fallacies of Argument,” pages 515-534. Mark the
text and/or take notes as you read. Complete
Reading Response Journal.
Complete the exercise on page 519 of your
textbook, answering all questions. Be prepared
to discuss.








Ad Hominem
Bandwagon
Begging the Question
Dogmatism
Either/Or
Equivocation
False Authority
Faulty Analogy







Faulty Causality
Hasty Generalization
Non Sequitur
Scare Tactic
Sentimental Appeal
Slippery Slope
Strawman
What do you know about this
slogan?
“Leave no child
behind.”
(George Bush
policy and
slogan)
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
What do you know about this
slogan?
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
“It’s the economy,
stupid.”
(sign on the wall at
Bill Clinton’s
campaign
headquarters)
What do you know about this
slogan?
“Nixon’s the
one.”
(campaign
slogan)
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
What do you know about this
slogan?
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
“Remember
the Alamo.”
(battle cry)
What do you know about this
slogan?
“Make love,
not war.”
(antiwar slogan
during the
Vietnam War)
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
What do you know about this
slogan?
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
“A chicken in
every pot.”
(campaign
slogan)
What do you know about this
slogan?
“No taxation
 Is it a fallacy?
without
 Which one?
representation.”
(American
colonial slogan)
What do you know about this
slogan?
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
“Loose lips
sink ships.”
(slogan from
World War II)
What do you know about this
slogan?
“Guns don’t kill,
people do.”
(NRA slogan)
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
What do you know about this
slogan?
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?
“If you can’t stand
the heat, get out
of the kitchen.”
(attributed to Harry
S. Truman)
What do you know about this
slogan?
“We are the ones
we’ve been
waiting for We
are the change
that we seek.”
(Obama campaign
statement)
 Is it a fallacy?
 Which one?