• Good work with the rhetorical strategies assignments and CARS
quiz. I’ll hand them back on Tuesday.
• You’ve done some challenging “genre-bending,” or “remixing.”
• For some light relief:
http://rhetoric.pbwiki.com/Remix+Writing+&+Literacy
• Genre bending – is one of the first things many film school students
do. You learn the strategies, the “moves” that go into different
genres. Machinina is big right now.
• I just happen to be teaching a course that examines such texts (aka
your daily dose of blatant self promotion) – RWS 511
http://rhetoric.sdsu.edu/minor/flyer_08.gif
Paper 4 review
•
•
•
PART 1: introduction
- select a topic from one of the major issues studied in class, and establish its
significance;
- orient readers to the topic and indicate how the paper will proceed
(metadiscourse)
PART 2 - review and analysis of “conversation”
- describe how others have talked about this topic/problem by providing accounts
for 2 or 3 texts that adopt contrasting yet “representative” accounts of it;
- describe and evaluate rhetorical strategies used (if relevant – more general
analysis, or establishing the existence of a gap, shortcoming, limitation, etc. are
also OK).
PART 3 –Your argument and conclusion
- present an argument that “joins the conversation” by clarifying, illustrating,
extending or complicating existing views as represented by the 2 or 3 texts you
review and then present and support your argument (“research”)
- draw from your review of research and from your own argument and comment in
your conclusion about what your research suggests and what should
happen/change from your research;
Notes on assignment
• You may have done quite a bit of this work in paper 2 –
discussed one of Moore’s claims, and how other texts
relate to this. You may be able to extend this - evaluate
texts and add to the conversation; refine, extend,
support, clarify, complicate or “fill in the gap.”
• You contribution can be modest – you don’t have to
solve the health care issue. You don’t have to say
something completely original, just represent some
aspect of the conversation, do some analysis of it, and
add your voice (supported where possible by some
research)
• Anyone already have some ideas for assignment topics?
Homework for Tuesday
• Homework for Tuesday: write an outline
for your paper and post to the Blackboard
discussion board.
A few paper ideas
•
•
•
Focus on solutions
Few people disagree with Moore's argument that there are significant
problems with our current system. However, a number disagree with his
proposed solution. You could decide to focus on solutions. So, describe 2 or
3 of the main alternative solutions authors have proposed. Do some
analysis and evaluation - create a niche for your work. Then, present an
argument that adds something to this conversation.
Example: some people basically argue we should keep the existing system,
but try to find ways of expanding coverage. Others want to look to an
overseas model (some suggest Japan, Germany, Taiwan, etc - the Frontline
documentary explores this). Some suggest "Medicare for all" (Hacker
describes it as "the not-so-secret weapon in the campaign for affordable
health care for all"). You could evaluate these, describe the solution you
prefer, and argue for it. You contribution might be to extend one of these
solutions, locate additional evidence/research to support it, add to it, etc.
See also
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/lesson
s.html
More paper ideas…
• What criteria should we use to assess health care systems?
Moore focuses on life expectancy, infant mortality, WHO rankings
and general harm in the form of things like bankruptcy, lack of
access, and humiliation. Supporters of the current system focus on
other criteria – things like the absence of waiting lists, survival rates
of cancer and other diseases, and technological innovation.
You could contribute to this discussion – what criteria do you think
are most important? How should we measure the health of a
society? How should we rank equity, access, choice, etc.? Is the
ranking of 37th for the U.S. realistic, and if not, what would make a
better measure? Should we define health care as a human right,
and if we do, how should we build this principle into our health care
system? (see Frontline documentary – wealthy and healthy pay
more in other rich democracies).
More paper ideas…
• What versions of universal health care that exist
in other countries might be useful models for the
U.S. given our current situation, our culture,
history, etc.? Moore says England, France and
Canada. Gawande and Sick Around the World
suggest other comparisons. Which do you think
is best?
• You can use Sick Around the World as a text
•
•
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/talk/
See the discussion section – note how many contributors make the moves we have
talked about – they mention things left out of the documentary, evidence that could be
added, how it could be extended, etc.
• Are aspects of health care being left out of the
current debate? E.g., are there wider public
health issues that are ignored? Could we
change aspects of our environment, health
education, or social conditions and achieve
better outcomes?
• Example – England stresses public health and
prevention (spends little). Japan has best
outcomes in world, and spends half what we do yet perhaps more due to diet and lifestyle?
• The presidential health care plans
These lend themselves pretty nicely to the assignment.
Easy to introduce the topic, make a centrality claim, and
summarize the main features of each plan (or
candidate’s statements on some aspect of the issue.)
You can then discuss some strengths and weaknesses,
and use the texts we've read over the semester to
address some aspect of the plan you prefer - say by
adding to it, extending it, refining it, filling in a gap, etc.
• The presidential plans and other links are all on
Blackboard.
• VERY HELPFUL – Sick round the world PBS links
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/links.html
• Additional assignment ideas are on Blackboard.
Criteria for analyzing arguments
• Rhetoric is centrally concerned with the
production, interpretation analysis and
evaluation of argument. Since Aristotle,
countless books have written on the
subject.
• There are many criteria for evaluation. The
handout lists some common ones (there’s
a larger file on Blackboard that lists more).
• Here are a few:
Elements of argument & their
analysis/evaluation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Evidence
Appeals (logos, ethos, pathos)
Acknowledge & refute opposition
Chains of reasoning (GASCAP)
Assumptions and implications
Vulnerability to counterexamples and
counterarguments
7. Nuance (qualifications/author’s use of
distinctions? Think of Moore and UHC)
8. Audience and context of debate
Evidence
• Evidence/Support for Claim:
Consists of evidence, examples, experience, data, quotations,
reports, testimony, statistics etc. that underwrite the claim.
• Evaluation: Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of
evidence from statistical, textual, an authority, or from experiential
realms to support claim. In each case, there are criteria that
determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable
and relevant; the experience is reasonably typical and relevant. The
statistics are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched, involve
controls, etc. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to
date, and verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The
evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency, typicality,
scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim.
STAR – criteria for evaluating
evidence
• STAR criteria = useful rule of thumb for
evaluating evidence – stands for sufficiency,
typicality, accuracy and relevance.
Evidence –
Sufficiency
• Sufficiency: there should be enough evidence to
support the claim(s). The amount of evidence required
depends on context, audience, genre, etc., plus the
nature of your claims.
• The stronger the claim (in terms of scope, generality,
etc.) the more evidence often required. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.
• An audience likely to disagree with your position may
need more evidence than one that agrees with you.
• Why would an author arguing for the validity of alien
abduction stories require more evidence than one
arguing against their validity? (also - burden of proof)
• NOTE: few critics go after Moore on this ground
Evidence –



Typicality
Typicality: evidence should be representative – not
selected merely to fit a narrow interpretation. The
examples, expert opinions etc. you include should be
“typical” rather than “cherry picked.” In statistics, we
expect a random sample (e.g. select evidence of U.S.
educational quality from “Jaywalking” episodes - or
Nobel prizes - or UN stats).
If you argue against global warming, you shouldn’t just
select evidence from sources or year ranges that
support your view, or quote only authorities from the
Discovery Institute.
Critics of Moore question the typicality of the evidence
he selects – they claim it is not representative (cherry
picks data, and leaves out important information).
Ignani claims he relies on “anecdotes,” i.e. evidence
that is not representative.
Evidence – Accuracy



Accuracy: evidence is stronger if it is accurate,
up-to-date, carefully selected, properly
documented, draws on recognized authorities,
etc.
Faith in the accuracy of a writer’s data is one
function of ethos.
Accuracy is something critics of Moore focus
on. E.g. Ignani charges that he presents
scandals from the past that have been
corrected (Dr Pino).
Evidence – Relevance


Relevance: evidence should be pertinent to the
argument being made. There should be a
close “fit” between the argument and the
evidence provided, a strong connection
between the evidence and what it is offered to
prove. If you cite an authority for support, that
authority should be relevant (Michael Crichton
on global warming?)
On this ground we might question Ignani’s use
of poll data showing that 87% of Americans are
satisfied with the quality of their healthcare.
Analysis as a way of finding a gap
and entering the conversation
• If you can find weaknesses in one of these
aspects of the evidence presented, this may be
a clue that there is some shortcoming in an
author’s argument – some gap, limitation or flaw.
• Pointing this out may complicate the argument,
and point to a possible extension or revision of
the argument.
• Locating such a weakness may provide a space
for you to enter the conversation – to make a
contribution.
You’re a STAR baby
• Although mainly used to talk about
evidence, the STAR criteria can be applied
to other aspects of argument.
• For example, we can consider STAR in
appeals to authority, and claims based on
analogy
Authority
• Do we have a sufficient number of
authoritative sources, who are
representative (typical), accurately cited
with relevant knowledge (relevant to the
issue, context and audience)?
• To what degree does an authority exhibit
logos, pathos and ethos (good sense,
good character and good will)?
Analogy
• Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and
outcome of a similar situation or event. An argument based on
parallels between two cases or situations. Arguing from a specific
case or example to another example, reasoning that because the
two examples are alike in many ways they are also alike in one
further specific way. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based
reasoning used in legal discourse.
• Moore argues by analogy when he shows us developed
democracies and their systems of health care. He suggests that if
they can achieve UHC, then so can we, and that the same levels of
efficiency, coverage and fairness can be achieved.
• Moore also uses an analogy when he shows all the socialized
services we currently enjoy – schools, police, libraries, firemen, etc.
He suggests that socialized health care would be similar to other
socialized systems we currently use and value.
Examples of argument by analogy
• Gay marriage. Supporters use the analogy of equal rights for
African Americans (and the injustice of anti-miscegenation laws).
Opponents use the analogy of polygamy.
• Gun control and analogies with Japan/Switzerland.
• Iraq: Threat posed by Hussein analogous to Hitler, or other
annoying dictators like Ghadaffi, Nasser, Khomeini, who were
successfully contained?
• “War on terror” analogous to the cold war (containment +
international alliances), a problem to be combated primarily via
police/crime framework, or something entirely new, more dangerous,
requiring pre-emption.
• Occupation of Iraq will be analogous to a) “quagmires” such as
Vietnam/Algeria, or postwar Germany/Japan/Yugoslavia?
Evaluation
• Evaluation: what is important here is the extent to which
relevant similarities can be established between 2
contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant
similarities?
• If the analogy is based on similarities between two
examples, we need to consider whether
counterexamples exist. How strong is the claim? (The
stronger the claim, the tighter the analogy must be). Are
there counter-analogies that refute the original argument
from analogy? Are there differences between the two
situations that undermine the force of the similarity cited?
How willing is the audience likely to be in accepting that
the two different examples/cases/situations you present
are really similar?
Analogy
• Some critics question the analogy Moore draws between
countries with UHC shown in Sicko, and a system of
UHC that will work in the U.S. They argue that England,
Canada and France have forms of UHC that are very
different from the current situation in the U.S., and would
be hard to implement. They suggest it’s better to make
analogies with countries such as Switzerland, Israel and
Denmark.
• Other critics suggest Moore should use Medicare as the
model, since a) people are already familiar with it, and b)
it’s less “exotic” and foreign.
Sample analysis
• Mair charges that Moore ignores problems with the NHS. In
particular, he ought to have considered evidence presented in
“stories in 2005 about the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant MRSA
infections being spread throughout the National Health Service due
to poor hygiene in NHS hospitals, and which in 2005 were blamed
for 20 percent of the 5,000 deaths occurring each year in British
hospitals. Or maybe even one 2006 story from a Glasgow
newspaper that indicated that despite the supposed wonders of the
NHS, average life expectancy in one part of the city was just 53
years.”
(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hospitals-and-superbugs)
• Mair writes that Moore’s account of the English health care system
ignores problems in the NHS. A prime example is that in “September
2006 more than 6,000 patients in eastern England had to wait more
than 20 weeks to begin treatment already prescribed by their
doctors.”
Sample analysis…
•
•
•
•
•
Karen Ignagni, spokesperson for insurance companies, argues that Moore’s
movie is flawed. Here are some of her main criticisms:
“To make his case, he relies on one-sided anecdotes — some dating back
to the 1980s — that grossly distort the role of health insurance plans in
providing access to care to more than 200 million people.”
To counter Moore’s claims, Ignani cites a survey that reports “87% of
insured respondents said their coverage gives them access to good medical
care at an affordable cost.”
Ignani states that Moore wants “a total government takeover of health care,”
and that this would inevitably lead to “rationed care, long waits for care,
underpaid doctors and delayed adoption of new technologies.”
She writes, “That's not to pretend that any part of the system is flawless. In
every doctor's office, hospital and health plan, things sometimes go wrong.
Yet our system of coverage and care leads the world in many important
quality measures, including survival rates after diagnosis and treatment of a
wide range of life-threatening conditions.”
Why We Fight!
(for you to write, argue and analyze well)
• The ability to interpret arguments, locate claims and
evidence, analyze moves and strategies, and evaluate
arguments are crucial skills.
• They are central to business, law, professional life, and
to academic study (including graduate school).
• You will be tested for these skills in the WPA, the LSAT,
GMAT, and GRE – all the gateways to professional life.
• Consider the GRE…
Skills Measured in General Test:
Analytical Writing Section
• Articulate complex ideas clearly and effectively
• Examine claims and accompanying evidence
• Support ideas with relevant reasons and
examples
• Sustain a well-focused, coherent discussion
• Control the elements of standard written English
Analytical Writing Tasks
• Present Your Views on an Issue (45 minutes,
choice of 2 topics)
• Analyze an Argument (30 minutes)
• Each essay is scored on a 0-6 scale using holistic
scoring
– Two scores for each essay
• GRE Website presents directions, actual topics,
scoring guide, and sample essays for both the
Issue and Argument tasks
(www.gre.org/gentest.html)
Research Tips
• There is no one way to find things, no one tool or methodology that
will work consistently.
• Instead, there are a set of tools and resources that you will need to
adapt to your task, and which work well, or less well, depending on
the topic/your discipline.
• Example: http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/ GOOD place to start.
• Works well for some disciplines, not so well for others. Compare
entries for rhetoric and writing studies,
http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/sub.php?id=112 and biology,
http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/sub.php?id=11
• Best place to start? Leave the matrix and go visit the brick and
mortar library. Talk to a research librarian. Have them guide you
through a key word search – show you slick librarian tricks
• Another good place to start? Talk to your
professor. Ask her what some of the key
journals or databases are in your discipline. Ask
her if she knows any journals or academic
publications that are particularly good for
undergraduates
• Nicole’s sample:
–
–
–
–
The Journal of Nutrition
Journal Of Nutrition Education & Behavior
Nutrition Business Journal
Nutrition & Food Science
• The extra credit exercise is still available…
• You still want to take the red pill?
• Online research is an important skill but it’s tricky
– you can end up down a rabbit hole.
• Often, typing keywords into one of the
major databases (e.g. Ebscohost) doesn’t
help much – e.g. “rhetoric and linguistics”
• It can be more useful to search books,
google scholar, or journals, and to try the
search from several different angles.
• We’ll practice some in class today.
• http://rhetoric.pbwiki.com/research-tools-page