An Introduction to
Argumentation
Participating in Academic Discourse
Intro to Argument
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Argument Survey (3)
Why study argument? (4)
Argument vs. Persuasion: Appeals (7)
Logical Appeals (10)
Common Fallacies (16)
Methods of Logical Argument (19)
Emotional Appeals (25)
Ethical Appeals (28)
2
Argument Survey
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Answer the following questions on your own paper.
What is the purpose of argumentation?
How are argument and exposition related?
How are argument and persuasion related?
How are argument and research related?
How does an author appeal to an audience?
What is a logical fallacy?
What are the characteristics of a strong argument?
What are different methods of “arguing”?
3
Why study argument?
•
•
•
•
University professors, frustrated with first-year
students’ inability to craft a balanced, reasoned
argument, have observed that many students:
confuse argument with opinion, writing self-oriented
rather than reader-based papers;
were black and white thinkers, unable or unwilling to
address the complexities of an issue;
jump on the bandwagon, going with the first authority
they find without considering other points of view;
Defend weak arguments simply because “it’s my
opinion and I have a right to it.”
4
From
“Everything’s an Argument”
All language has an argumentative edge
that aims to make a point. From bumper
stickers, to signage, to the statement “This
won’t hurt a bit,” visual and verbal messages all
contain arguments. Some argue that every text
is an argument, designed to influence readers.
It’s important to realize that argument isn’t just
about winning, it can also be about informing,
convincing, exploring, and making decisions.
5
From
“Everything’s an Argument”
There is a distinction between argument and
persuasion. The point of argument is to discover
some version of the truth, using evidence. Argument
leads audiences towards conviction, an
understanding that the claim is reasonable. The
point of persuasion is to change a point of view in
order to move others from conviction to action. In
other words, writers or speakers argue to find truth,
and persuade others when they think they already
know a truth.
Argument (discover a truth) -> conviction
Persuasion (know a truth) -> action
6
Argumentation continuum
FORMAL
ARGUMENT
 To explain/defend a
credible conclusion to
a general audience
based on synthesis of
multiple perspectives
 Clearly stated
assertions/premises
 Definition
 Logical appeals only
 Fair consideration of
multiple perspectives
ELEMENTS
Purpose and
Audience
Content
PERSUASION
 To convince a
specific audience to
accept an opinionthesis (reject an
antithesis) or take
action
 Assertions often
implied
 Connotation
 Balance of appeals
 Direct refutation of
opposing positions7
FORMAL
ARGUMENT
 Establishes relevance
of
proposition/conclusion
 Linear organization
based on reasoning or
development method
 Formal diction/word
choice
 Objective tone (attempt
to appear as unbiased
as possible)
 Summary of
premises/conclusion
ELEMENTS
Organization
Style
Conclusion
PERSUASION
 Hooks reader into a
clearly stated
position
 Builds in emotional
intensity to a high
point
 Level of diction
relative to
audience/purpose
 Subjective tone
(persuasive but not
antagonistic)
 Call to action
8
Types of Appeals
• Logical Appeal (Logos): An appeal based on logic that
presents reasons for an opinion or conclusion and
evidence to support them. (Appeal to the HEAD)
• Emotional Appeal (Pathos): appeals to the feelings of
readers to drive them to action. (Appeal to the HEART)
• Ethical Appeal (Ethos): reflects the image you as the
writer projects to the audience to gain their support; asks
the audience to trust or believe you based on the
transparency of your actions. (Appeal to the GUT)
9
The Logical Appeal
The Language of Argument
Adapted from Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
An opinion is something you have … it is an
individual judgment made on personal beliefs. An
argument is something you construct. While
opinions don’t always have bases (these are often
referred to as prejudices), arguments are a form of
discourse and must be built through logical
reasoning supported by evidence.
• Discourse: a formal treatment of a subject
communicating key ideas or information
10
The Logical Appeal
The Language of Argument
A formal argument states a proposition, develops
that proposition with premises, and based on the
connection of the premises comes to a conclusion.
• Proposition: What you are trying to
show/prove
• Premise: Statements of reason used to
support a conclusion
• Conclusion: The end result based on
reasoning/evidence
11
The Logical Appeal
The Language of Argument
Formal arguments are constructed through logical reasoning.
• Reasoning: the process by which premises are
connected/related to construct an argument
• Inductive: going from specific examples to general
conclusions (scientific method, analogy)
• Deductive: specific conclusion inferred from
general premises (syllogism)
• Analogy: conclusions drawn from shared
characteristics based on an extended comparison
12
The Logical Appeal
The Language of Argument
Logical reasoning is supported by evidence.
1. FACTS: Information that no one can seriously dispute.
– CAUTION: Don’t overwhelm your reader. Be concise and
precise.
2. AUTHORITIES: Views held by recognized experts in a particular
field.
– CAUTION: Beware of biased opinions. Establish the credibility
and reliability of your source first.
3. PRIMARY SOURCES: Documents and materials produced by
those directly involved with the issue or conclusions reached through
your own investigative efforts.
– CAUTION: Make sure you are representing the original
information accurately and fairly.
13
The Logical Appeal
The Language of Argument
4.
STATISTICS: Collected data used to make generalizations or
support a point, usually answering questions such as how much, how
many, or how often.
– CAUTION: These are often misused, or misrepresented, and
therefore may be distrusted. Check for size of data samples,
relevance of results, credibility of sources, and currency of data.
5.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: Using the experiences and
observations of yourself and others to support a position.
– CAUTION: These first-hand accounts may be seen as atypical or
trivial, so should be used to support other forms of evidence.
14
The Logical Appeal
The Language of Argument
For arguments to be valid, the reasoning they
are constructed upon must be free of
fallacies.
• Fallacy: any violation of or lapse in
logical reasoning (usually expressed in
an annoying Latin phrase)
15
The Logical Appeal
Common Fallacies
There are many logical fallacies, but here are the twelve
you will need to know!
• Hasty generalization: The writer bases his/her argument
on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
• Non sequitur: Means “it doesn’t follow”; the writer’s
conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of the facts.
• Begging the question: The writer presents as truth what is
supposed to be proven by the argument.
• Red herring: The writer introduces an irrelevant point to
divert the readers’ attention from the main issue.
16
The Logical Appeal
Common Fallacies
• Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Means “after this, therefore
because of this”; writer assumes that because one event
follows another in time, the first event caused the second.
• Ad hominem: Means “to the man”; the writer attacks the
opponent’s character rather than the argument.
• Ad populum: Means “to the people”; the writer evades the
issues by appealing to readers’ emotional reactions to
certain subjects.
• Circular reasoning: The writer uses statements that
restate what is already implied; the “evidence” being used is
actually a restatement of the problem.
17
The Logical Appeal
Common Fallacies
• Card stacking: Using only evidence to support one
opinion or side and ignoring other perspectives.
• Quick Fix: The writer relies on catchy phrases or slogans
that may not hold up under cross- examination.
• Either/Or: The writer tries to convince the readers that
there are only two sides to an issue—one right and one
wrong.
• Faulty use of authority: The writer relies on testimony
from an “expert” speaking about something that is not from
his/her field of expertise.
18
The Logical Appeal
Methods of “Arguing”
Adapted from Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
Arguments are constructed through logical
reasoning, the process by which premises are
connected/related to construct an argument.
Arguments identify major perspectives and
viewpoints, then collect evidence to support
and/or refute those viewpoints in an effort to reach
the best possible conclusion.
Common fallacies: hasty generalization, quick fix,
either/or
19
The Logical Appeal
Methods of “Arguing”
By Example: offer examples to support
generalizations
• Use multiple, representative examples
• Provide background information
• Test using counterexamples
Common rhetorical strategies: narration, description,
illustration, definition
Common fallacies: card stacking, begging the
question, circular thinking
20
The Logical Appeal
Methods of “Arguing”
By Analogy: use an extended comparison
emphasizing points of similarity
• Pick analogous example based on points of
similarity
• Insure analogy is relevant to conclusions
Common rhetorical strategies: comparison/contrast,
classification/division
Common fallacies: faulty analogy, non sequitur,
either/or
21
The Logical Appeal
Methods of “Arguing”
By Authority: incorporate information from
sources to support conclusions
• Cite sources completely and correctly.
• Seek informed, credible, impartial sources.
• Verify information from sources.
Common rhetorical strategies: illustration, definition
Common fallacies: faulty use of authority, ad
hominem, red herring
22
The Logical Appeal
Methods of “Arguing”
By Causes: look for causal relationships in
correlations
• Explain how cause leads to effect; identify direction
of causality
• Propose most likely cause; recognize causes may be
complex
• Recognize correlated events may be coincidental or
have common causes
Common rhetorical strategies: process analysis,
causal analysis
Common fallacies: post hoc, non sequitur
23
The Logical Appeal
Methods of “Arguing”
By Deduction: derive conclusions from
relevant generalizations/premises
• Verify that individual premises are true
• Verify that form is logical and valid
Common rhetorical strategies: illustration, definition
Common fallacies: non sequitur, begging the
question, circular reasoning
24
The Emotional Appeal
Appealing to the Heart
We think with our heads, but we act with our
hearts. If you want your audience to do
something, make them feel something first.
Propaganda is a means of “propagating,” or
spreading, ideas to a large audience. Most
propaganda uses emotional appeals to
encourage an audience to think or act in a
certain way.
Common fallacies: card stacking, hasty generalization
25
The Emotional Appeal
Propaganda Methods
1. Bandwagon: “Everyone else is doing it/believing
it/thinking it, so you should, too!”
• Common fallacy:ad populum
2. Testimonial: Using people (often famous) to endorse
a product or idea to show why it is the best choice.
• Common fallacy: faulty use of authority
3. Loaded Language: Using specific language that taps
into particular human feelings.
• Common fallacies: quick fix, red herring
26
The Emotional Appeal
Propaganda Methods
4. Glittering generalities: Using non-specific
superlatives to make a product or idea seem
particularly special.
• Common fallacies: quick fix, hasty generalization
5. Name calling: Pegging or pigeonholing people or
ideas using names or stereotypes.
• Common fallacy: ad hominem
6. Association: Connecting an idea with a particular
group of people/attitude (plain folks or snob appeal)
• Common fallacies: begging the question, ad populum
27
The Ethical Appeal
A Question of Values
• VALUES are what we hold to be important.
These are based on our MORALS, beliefs we use
to identify good and bad and distinguish between
right and wrong. ETHICS is the process by which
we apply our values to make CHOICES when
values come into CONFLICT. It is not a question
of legality or morality, but the careful
consideration of options based on what we hold to
be important.
28
The Ethical Appeal
Know Your Audience
Who is your audience? What do they value?
Why do they hold these values? How do they
see the issue you are presenting?
• Commonplace: Values or beliefs shared by the
audience, the starting point of effective argument.
• Framing: Defining the parameters of an issue so
your audience sees it your way.
• Redefinition: Giving a “new” meaning to an “old”
idea in order to change your audience’s perspective.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You For Arguing. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007.
29
The Ethical Appeal
Know How They See You
How does your audience relate to you?
How have you established rapport with them?
Why should they “believe in you”?
• Reputation: How your audience judges your
character. Are you credible, trustworthy, and
transparent?
• Decorum: Latin “fit” or “suitable.” Do you meet your
audience’s expectations?
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You For Arguing. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007.
30