Argumentation: to communicate a position you support. Requires support for your position (outside sources, personal experience, etc) and serious consideration for opposing views. You must establish your expertise.
Requirements for both:
1. Assertion/proposition
2. Appeals to reader (ethical, emotional, logical/rational)
Other fun things to know:
Inductive reasoning (moving from particular to general) vs deductive reasoning (moving from general to particular)
What to avoid: FALLACIES! (inappropriate emotional appeals and flaws in reasoning)
- Hasty generalization: this is how stereotypes are formed; including ALL instances in an assertion. All athletes are stupid. All MA students are artsy.
- Oversimplification: ignoring complexities in the evidence which weakens the conclusion. I didn't get into Cal because I don't row.
- Begging the question: assuming a conclusion in the statement of an argument. We can trust the governor not to neglect the homeless because she is compassionate.
- Ignoring the question: shifting the argument away from the real issue; offering emotional appeal as a logical appeal. The musician was poorly fired from a job he so loved, so we should not blame him for stealing the violin.
- Ad hominem: ignoring the question and attacking the opponents instead of the arguments (really popular in politics). Romney doesn't pay as much in taxes as the average American citizen, so his proposals on financial reforms shouldn't be taken seriously.
- Either-or: requiring the reader to choose between two sides, especially when there are lots more options. Either you get kicked out of MA or you don't go to college.
- Non-sequitor: drawing a conclusion that is illogical and, many times, erroneous. Young children are too immature to engage in drinking, so they shouldn't be taught about it.
- Post-hoc: assuming that because one thing preceded another, it must have caused the other. After New York City banned smoking inside, the incidence of bar fights went down.
No comments:
Post a Comment