Writing Arguments A Rhetoric With Readings 11th Edition

• 9,207,455 livres livres
• 84,837,646 articles articles
• Accueil ZLibrary
• Page d'accueil

Page d'accueil Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, 11th Ed.

Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, 11th Ed.

John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, June Johnson

Avez-vous aimé ce livre?

Quelle est la qualité du fichier téléchargé?

Veuillez télécharger le livre pour apprécier sa qualité

Quelle est la qualité des fichiers téléchargés?

Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings has sustained its reputation as a leader in argumentation through 10 editions, and that's no coincidence. Authors Ramage, Bean, and Johnson present argument as a process of inquiry and a means of persuasion — not as a pro/con debate with winners and losers. This, in turn, promotes the essential critical-thinking skills needed for writing effective arguments. In the 11th Edition, you'll continue to find all the signature strengths — major assignment chapters that focus on one or two stases; discussion prompts and end-of-chapter writing assignments that reinforce concepts; comprehensive coverage of research and documentation; and a logical, yet flexible, approach. But now, you'll also find a book that promises to increase understanding of the value of argument and help them negotiate the rhetorical divisiveness in today's world.

Editeur::

Pearson Education

Le fichier sera envoyé à votre adresse de courriel dans 1 à 5 minutes.

Le fichier sera envoyé votre Kindle dans 1 à 5 minutes.

Remarque: Vous devez valider chaque livre avant de l'envoyer à Kindle. Veuillez vérifier votre messagerie pour voir la lettre avec la confirmation par Amazon Kindle Support.

Cela peut vous intéresser Powered by Rec2Me

Mots Clefs

RENTAL EDITION - RENTAL ONLY, NOT FOR SALE  RENTAL EDITION NOT FOR SALE  RENTAL EDITION - RENTAL ONLY, NOT FOR SALE  RAMAGE BEAN JOHNSON  WRITING ARGUMENTS  ISBN-13: 978-0-13-475974-6 ISBN-10: 0-13-475974-5  9  Ramage_Complete_mech.indd 1  A RHETORIC WITH READINGS  www.pearson.com  ELEVENTH  9 0 0 0 0  EDITION  780134 759746  1/17/18 3:35 PM  Writing ­Arguments A Rhetoric with Readings Eleventh Edition  P1: OSO/OVY  P2: OSO/OVY  A01_CHART6753_04_SE_FM  QC: OSO/OVY PH03348-Chartrand  T1: OSO September 22, 2017  8:50  Char Count= 0  This page intentionally left blank  Writing ­Arguments A Rhetoric with Readings Eleventh Edition  John D. Ramage Arizona State University  John C. Bean Seattle University  June Johnson Seattle University  330 Hudson Street, NY NY 10013  Director of English: Karon Bowers Executive Producer and Publisher: Aron Keesbury Development Editor: Steven Rigolosi Marketing Manager: Nicholas Bolt Program Manager: Rachel Harbour Project Manager: Nathaniel J. Jones, SPi Global Cover Designer: Pentagram Cover Illustration: Christopher DeLorenzo Manufacturing Buyer: Roy L. Pickering, Jr. Printer/Binder: LSC Communications, Inc. Cover Printer: Phoenix Color/Hagerstown Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on pages 564–566, which constitute an extension of this copyright page. PEARSON, ALWAYS LEARNING, and Revel are exclusive trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries. Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners and any references to third-party trademarks, logos, or other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson's products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates, authors, licensees, or distributors. Catalogue-in-Publishing Data i; s on file with the Library of Congress Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information regarding permissions, request forms and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global Rights & Permissions Department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions/. 1  18  Rental Edition ISBN 10:		 0-134-75974-5 Rental Edition ISBN 13: 978-0-134-75974-6 A la Carte ISBN 10:		 0-134-76096-4 A la Carte ISBN 13: 978-0-134-76096-4 Access Code Card ISBN 10:		 0-134-80785-5 Access Code Card ISBN 13: 978-0-134-80785-0 Instructor Review Copy ISBN 10:		 0-134-77059-5 Instructor Review Copy ISBN 13: 978-0-134-77059-8  Brief Contents Part One Principles of Argument  1  1 2 3 4 5 6  Argument: An Introduction   The Core of an Argument : A Claim with Reasons  17 The Logical Structure of ­Arguments: Logos  32 Using Evidence Effectively  52  Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos   67  Responding to Objections and Alternative Views   Part Two E  ntering an ­ Argumentative Conversation   7 8  10  103  Argument as Inquiry: Reading, ­Summarizing, and Speaking Back  127  155  Making Visual and Multimodal Arguments   156  An Alternative to Argument: ­Collaborative Rhetoric   189  Part Four Arguments in Depth: Types of Claims   11  83  Analyzing Arguments ­Rhetorically 104  Part Three Expanding Our ­Understanding of ­Argument   9  2  An Introduction to the Types of Claims   211  12 13 14 15  Definition and Resemblance Arguments   221  Causal Arguments   250  Evaluation and Ethical ­ Arguments   280  Proposal Arguments   306  Part Five T  he Researched ­ Argument   16  341  Finding and Evaluating Sources   342  Incorporating Sources into Your Own Argument   360  Citing and Documenting Sources   375  Appendix Informal Fallacies   397  Part Six A  n Anthology of ­ Arguments   405  17 18  Choices for a Sustainable World   406  Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society?   431  Public Health   461  Challenges in Education   477  Self-Driving Cars   511  Immigration in the Twenty-First Century   532  Argument Classics   549  212 v  P1: OSO/OVY  P2: OSO/OVY  A01_CHART6753_04_SE_FM  QC: OSO/OVY PH03348-Chartrand  T1: OSO September 22, 2017  8:50  Char Count= 0  This page intentionally left blank  Detailed Contents Prefacexvii Acknowledgmentsxxiii  For Writing and Discussion: Reasonable ­Arguments Versus Pseudo-Arguments   25  Part One Principles of Argument  1  Frame of an Argument: A Claim Supported by ­Reasons  What Is a Reason?   25 26  1  Argument: An Introduction   2  What Do We Mean by Argument?  Argument Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel  Argument Is Not Pro-Con Debate  Arguments Can Be Explicit or Implicit   3 3 3 4  An Explicit ­Argument Opposing Legalization of Marijuana   5  For Writing and Discussion: Implicit and Explicit Arguments   5  Argument and the Problem of Truth in the 21st ­Century   12  For Writing and Discussion: Role-Playing ­Arguments   14  2  The Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reason   16  17  The Classical Structure of Argument   17  Classical Appeals and the Rhetorical Triangle   19  Issue Questions as the Origins of Argument  Difference between an Issue Question and an Information Question  How to Identify an Issue Question   21  For Writing and Discussion: Information ­Questions Versus Issue Questions  Difference between a Genuine Argument and a Pseudo-Argument   Expressing Reasons in Because Clauses   29  For Writing and Discussion: Developing Claims and Reasons   30  Conclusion   The Defining Features of Argument  8 Argument Requires Justification of Its Claims  8 Argument Is Both a Process and a Product  10 Argument Combines Truth-Seeking and ­Persuasion  10  Conclusion   For Writing and Discussion: Using Images to Support an Argument  27  21 22  Writing Assignment: An Issue Question and Working Thesis Statements   3  The Logical Structure of ­Arguments: Logos   23  30  32  An Overview of Logos: What Do We Mean by the "Logical Structure" of an Argument?  Formal Logic Versus Real-World Logic  The Role of Assumptions  The Core of an Argument: The Enthymeme  The Power of Audience-Based Reasons   32 33 33 34 35  For Writing and Discussion: I­dentifying ­Underlying Assumptions and Choosing ­Audience-Based Reasons   36  Adopting a Language for Describing Arguments: The Toulmin System  36 For Writing and Discussion: Developing Enthymemes with the Toulmin Schema  Using Toulmin's Schema to Plan and Test Your Argument  Hypothetical Example: Cheerleaders as Athletes  First Part of Chandale's Argument   22  30  41 42 42 43  Continuation of Chandale's Argument  44 Extended Student Example: Girls and Violent Video Games  45  vii  viii Contents Carmen Tieu (Student Essay), Why Violent Video Games Are Good for Girls  47 The Thesis-Governed "Self-Announcing" ­Structure of Classical Argument  49 For Writing and Discussion: Reasons, Warrants, and Conditions of Rebuttal   50  Conclusion   50  A Note on the Informal Fallacies   51  Writing Assignment: Plan of an Argument's Details   4  Using Evidence Effectively   51  52  Kinds of Evidence   52  The Persuasive Use of Evidence  Apply the STAR Criteria to Evidence  Establish a Trustworthy Ethos Be Mindful of a Source's Distance from Original Data   55 55 57  Rhetorical Understanding of Evidence  Angle of Vision and the Selection and Framing of Evidence   58  For Writing and Discussion: Creating Contrasting Angles of Vision   57  59  62 64  For Writing and Discussion: Using Strategies to Frame Statistical Evidence  65 Creating a Plan for Gathering Evidence   65  Conclusion   65  Writing Assignment: A Supporting-Reasons Argument   5  How to Create an Effective Ethos: The Appeal to Credibility   74 74  Kairos: The Timeliness and Fitness of Arguments   74  For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing an Argument from the Perspectives of Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos   76  Using Images to Appeal to Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos   76  For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing Images as Appeals to Pathos   77  Examining Visual Arguments: Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos   78  How Audience-Based Reasons Appeal to Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos   79  For Writing and Discussion: Planning an ­Audience-Based Argumentative Strategy   81  Writing Assignment: Revising a Draft for Ethos, Pathos, and Audience-Based Reasons   6  Responding to Objections and Alternative Views   82  82  83  One-Sided, Multisided, and Delayed-Thesis ­Arguments   84  Determining Your Audience's Resistance to Your Views   85  Appealing to a Supportive Audience: One-Sided Argument   86  68  Appealing to a Neutral or Undecided Audience: Classical Argument  Summarizing Opposing Views   87 87  69  For Writing and Discussion: Distinguishing Fair from Unfair Summaries   88  66  Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos  67  Logos, Ethos, and Pathos as Persuasive Appeals: An Overview   72 73  For Writing and Discussion: Incorporating Appeals to Pathos   Conclusion   60  Examining Visual Arguments: Angle of Vision  60 Rhetorical Strategies for Framing Evidence  Strategies for Framing Statistical Evidence   Use Specific Examples and Illustrations  Use Narratives  Use Words, Metaphors, and Analogies with Appropriate Connotations   How to Create Pathos: The Appeal to Beliefs and Emotions  70 Use Concrete Language  71  Refuting Opposing Views  Strategies for Rebutting Evidence  Conceding to Opposing Views   89 90 91  Contents  Example of a Student Essay Using Refutation Strategy  92 Trudie Makens (Student Essay), Bringing Dignity to Workers: Make the Minimum Wage a Living Wage   92  For Writing and Discussion: Refutation Strategies   94  Appealing to a Resistant Audience: Delayed-Thesis Argument  ALEXANDER CHANCELLOR, Oh, How I Will Miss the Plastic Bag  Writing a Delayed-Thesis Argument  Conclusion   Writing Assignment: A Classical Argument or a Delayed Thesis Argument  Reading  Lauren Shinozuka (Student Essay), The Dangers of Digital Distractedness   Part Two Entering an Argumentative Conversation   7  Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically   94 95 97 98  98 98 98  103 104 105  Reconstructing a Text's Rhetorical Context  Author, Motivating Occasion, and Purpose  Audience  Genre  Angle of Vision   105 105 107 107 108  8  Argument as Inquiry: Reading, Summarizing, and Speaking Back  127  Finding Issues to Explore  Do Some Initial Brainstorming  Be Open to the Issues All Around You  Explore Ideas by Freewriting   128 128 128 129  For Writing and Discussion: Responding to Visual Arguments About a Living Wage   131  Explore Ideas by Idea Mapping  Explore Ideas by Playing the Believing and Doubting Game   Summarizing a Stakeholder's Argument  JAMES SUROWIECKI, The Pay Is Too Damn Low  Thinking Steps for Writing a Summary  For Writing and Discussion: Does/Says Statements  Examples of Summaries  Responding to a Stakeholder's Argument  Practicing Believing: Willing Your Own Acceptance of the Writer's Views  Practicing Doubting: Willing Your Own Resistance to the Writer's Views   133 133 135 135 136 137 138 139 140 140 140  109  For Writing and Discussion: Raising Doubts About Surowiecki's Argument  141  111  Thinking Dialectically   142  For Writing and Discussion: Practicing Dialectic Thinking with Two Articles   143  Conducting a Rhetorical Analysis of a Source Text  KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ, Egg Heads   112 113  For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Rhetorical Features   116  Our Own Rhetorical Analysis of "Egg Heads"  116 Conclusion   121 122 123  Zachary Stumps (Student Essay), A Rhetorical ­Analysis Of Ellen Goodman's "Womb For Rent" 123  For Writing and Discussion: Playing the Believing and Doubting Game   Thinking Rhetorically about a Text   Asking Questions That Promote Rhetorical Thinking  For Writing and Discussion: Practicing Rhetorical Analysis   Readings  ELLEN GOODMAN, Womb for Rent  Critiquing "Womb for Rent"   ix  119  Writing Assignment: A Rhetorical Analysis  120  MICHAEL SALTSMAN, To Help the Poor, Move Beyond "Minimum" Gestures  Three Ways to Foster Dialectic Thinking   143 144  Conclusion   146  Writing Assignment: An Argument Summary or a Formal Exploratory Essay   146  x Contents Reading  Trudie Makens (Student Essay), Should Fast-Food Workers Be Paid $15 per Hour?   Part Three Expanding Our ­Understanding of ­Argument   9  Making Visual and Multimodal Arguments   148 148  155 156  Understanding Visual Design Elements in ­Multimodal Argument  Use of Type  Use of Space and Layout  Use of Color  Use of Images and Graphics   157 158 159 161 161  For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing an ­Advocacy Ad   164  The Compositional Features of Photographs and Drawings  165 Compositional Features to Examine in Photos and Drawings  166 An Analysis of a Multimedia Video Argument Using Words, Images, and Music  168 For Writing and Discussion: Thinking ­Rhetorically about Photos   171  The Genres of Multimodal Argument  Posters and Fliers  Public Affairs Advocacy Advertisements  Cartoons   172 172 174 175  For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing Posters Rhetorically   175  For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing Cartoons   177  Websites  Advocacy Videos   177 178  Constructing Your Own Multimodal Arguments 178 Guidelines for Creating the Visual Elements in Posters, Fliers, and Advocacy Ads  178 Guidelines for Creating Video Arguments  179 For Writing and Discussion: Developing Ideas for an Advocacy Ad or Poster Argument   180  Using Information Graphics in Arguments   180  How Tables Contain a Variety of Stories  Using a Graph to Tell a Story  Incorporating Graphics into Your Argument  A Note on How Graphics Frame Data ­Rhetorically   181 182 185  Conclusion   187  186  Writing Assignment: A Visual Argument ­Rhetorical Analysis, a Visual Argument, or a Short Argument Using Quantitative Data  188  10  An Alternative to Argument: ­Collaborative Rhetoric  189  The Appropriateness and Usefulness of ­Collaborative Rhetoric  The Principles of Collaborative Rhetoric  Practicing Nonjudgmental Listening  Identifying Values, Emotions, and Identities  Seeking Common Ground  Promoting Openness to Ongoing ­Communication and Change  For Writing and Discussion: Listening ­Empathically and Seeking Common Ground  Preparing for Collaborative Rhetoric Through Reflective Writing and Discussion  Preparing for Collaborative Rhetoric Through Reflective Writing  Practicing Collaborative Rhetoric in Discussion   190 191 192 192 193 194  194 196 196 197  For Writing and Discussion: Conducting a Collaborative Rhetoric Discussion   197  Writing an Open Letter as Collaborative Rhetoric   198  Colleen Fontana (Student Essay), An Open Letter to Robert Levy in Response to His Article "They Never Learn"   199  Conclusion   Writing Assignment: An Open Letter as Collaborative Rhetoric  Reading  Monica Allen (Student Essay), An Open Letter to Christopher Eide in Response to His Article "High-Performing Charter Schools Can Close the Opportunity Gap"   204  204 205  205  Contents  Part Four Arguments in Depth: Types of Claims   11  211  An Introduction to the Types of Claims  212  The Types of Claims and Their Typical Patterns of Development  213 For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Types of Claims   214  Using Claim Types to Focus an Argument and Generate Ideas: An Example  214 Writer 1: Ban E-Cigarettes  215 Writer 2: Promote E-Cigarettes as a Preferred Alternative to Real Cigarettes  216 Writer 3: Place No Restrictions on E-Cigarettes  217 Hybrid Arguments: How Claim Types Work Together in Arguments  Some Examples of Hybrid Arguments   217 217  For Writing and Discussion: Exploring Different Claim Types and Audiences   218  An Extended Example of a Hybrid Argument  219 ALEX HUTCHINSON, Your Daily Multivitamin May Be Hurting You  219  12  Definition and Resemblance Arguments   221  What Is at Stake in an Argument about Definition and Resemblance?  222 Consequences Resulting from Categorical Claims  223 The Rule of Justice: Things in the Same Category Should Be Treated the Same Way  223 For Writing and Discussion: Applying the Rule of Justice   224  Types of Categorical Arguments  Simple Categorical Arguments   225 225  For Writing and Discussion: Supporting and Rebutting Simple Categorical Claims   225  Definition Arguments  Resemblance Argument Using Analogy   226 226  For Writing and Discussion: Developing Analogies  Resemblance Arguments Using Precedent   227 228  xi  For Writing and Discussion: Using Claims of Precedent  229 Examining Visual Arguments: Claim about ­Category (Definition)   229  The Criteria-Match Structure of Definition ­Arguments  230 Overview of Criteria-Match Structure  230 Toulmin Framework for a Definition Argument 2 31 For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Criteria and Match Issues   232  Creating Criteria Using Aristotelian Definition  232 For Writing and Discussion: Working with ­Criteria  Creating Criteria Using an Operational ­Definition  Conducting the Match Part of a Definition ­Argument   234 234 234  Idea-Generating Strategies for Creating Your Own Criteria-Match Argument  Strategy 1: Research How Others Have Defined the Term  Strategy 2: Create Your Own Extended ­ Definition   236  For Writing and Discussion: Developing a ­Definition   238  235 235  Writing Assignment: A Definition Argument  239 Exploring Ideas  Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake  Organizing a Definition Argument  Questioning and Critiquing a Definition ­Argument  Readings  Arthur Knopf (Student Essay), Is Milk a Health Food?  Alex Mullen (Student Essay), A Pirate But Not a Thief: What Does "Stealing" Mean in a Digital Environment?  MARK OPPENHEIMER, How Do We Define Adulthood?   13  Causal Arguments   An Overview of Causal Arguments  Kinds of Causal Arguments   239 240 240 240 242 242  245 247  250 251 252  xii Contents Toulmin Framework for a Causal Argument  254 For Writing and Discussion: Developing Causal Chains   256  Two Methods for Arguing That One Event Causes Another  256 First Method: Explain the Causal Mechanism Directly  257 Second Method: Infer Causal Links Using ­Inductive Reasoning  258 For Writing and Discussion: Developing ­Plausible Causal Chains Based on Correlations   259  Examining Visual Arguments: A Causal Claim  259 Key Terms and Inductive Fallacies in Causal ­Arguments  A Glossary of Key Terms  Avoiding Common Inductive Fallacies That Can Lead to Wrong Conclusions   260 260 261  For Writing and Discussion: Brainstorming Causes and Constraints   262  Writing Assignment: A Causal Argument   262  Exploring Ideas  Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake  Organizing a Causal Argument  Questioning and Critiquing a Causal Argument   262 263 264 265  Readings  Jesse Goncalves (Student Essay), What Causes Math Anxiety?  KRIS SAKNUSSEMM, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Are We Really Here at All? Can We Tell?  Carlos Macias (Student Essay), "The Credit Card Company Made Me Do It!"—The Credit Card Industry's Role in Causing Student Debt   14  Evaluation and Ethical ­Arguments   An Overview of Categorical and Ethical Evaluation Arguments  Constructing a Categorical Evaluation Argument  Criteria-Match Structure of Categorical ­Evaluations   266 267 273  275  280 282 282 283  Developing Your Criteria  Making Your Match Argument   284 285  Examining Visual Arguments: An Evaluation Claim   286  For Writing and Discussion: Developing Criteria and Match Arguments   287  Constructing an Ethical Evaluation Argument  Consequences as the Base of Ethics  Principles as the Base of Ethics  Example Ethical Arguments Examining Capital Punishment   288 288 289 289  For Writing and Discussion: Developing an ­Ethical Argument   291  Common Problems in Making Evaluation ­Arguments   291  Writing Assignment: An Evaluation or Ethical Argument   292  Exploring Ideas  Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake  Organizing an Evaluation Argument  Questioning and Critiquing a Categorical ­Evaluation Argument  Critiquing an Ethical Argument   292  Readings  Lorena Mendoza-Flores (Student Essay), Silenced and Invisible: Problems of Hispanic ­Students at Valley High School  Hadley Reeder (Student Essay), A Defective and Detrimental Dress Code  JUDITH DAAR AND EREZ ALONI, Three Genetic Parents—For One Healthy Baby  SAMUEL AQUILA, The "Therapeutic Cloning" of Human Embryos   295  15  Proposal Arguments   293 293 293 294  295 299 302 303  306  The Special Features and Concerns of Proposal Arguments  308 Practical Proposals Versus Policy Proposals  308 Toulmin Framework for a Proposal Argument  308 Special Concerns for Proposal Arguments  309 Developing a Proposal Argument   310  Contents  Examining Visual Arguments: A Proposal Claim  Convincing Your Readers That a Problem Exists  Explaining the Proposed Solution: Showing the Specifics of Your Proposal  Offering a Justification: Convincing Your Readers That the Benefits of Your Proposal ­Outweigh the Costs   311 311 312  313  Using Heuristic Strategies to Develop Supporting Reasons for Your Proposal  The Claim Types Strategy  The Stock Issues Strategy   313 314 315  For Writing and Discussion: Generating Ideas Using the Claim Types Strategy   316  For Writing and Discussion: Brainstorming Ideas for a Proposal   317  Proposal Arguments as Advocacy Posters or ­Advertisements   317  Writing Assignment: A Proposal Argument   318  Exploring Ideas  Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake  Organizing a Proposal Argument  Designing a One-Page Advocacy Poster or Advertisement  Designing PowerPoint Slides or Other Visual Aids for a Speech  Questioning and Critiquing a Proposal ­Argument  Readings  Megan Johnson (Student Essay), A Practical ­Proposal  Ivan Snook (Student Essay), Flirting with ­Disaster: An Argument against Integrating Women into the Combat Arms  Sandy Wainscott (Student Essay), Why ­McDonald's Should Sell Meat and Veggie Pies: A Proposal to End Subsidies for Cheap Meat  MARCEL DICKE AND ARNOLD VAN HUIS, The Six-Legged Meat of the Future   320 320 321 322 322 323 323 324  328  336 338  Part Five The Researched Argument   16  Finding and Evaluating Sources   Formulating a Research Question Instead of a Topic   xiii  341 342 343  Thinking Rhetorically About Kinds of Sources  343 Identifying Kinds of Sources Relevant to Your Question  343 Approaching Sources Rhetorically  343 For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Types of Sources  Finding Sources  Conducting Interviews  Gathering Source Data from Surveys or Questionnaires  Finding Books and Reference Sources  Using Licensed Databases to Find Articles in Scholarly Journals, Magazines, and News Sources  Finding Cyberspace Sources: Searching the World Wide Web   347 348 348 349 349  350 350  Selecting and Evaluating Your Sources and Taking Purposeful Notes  Reading with Rhetorical Awareness  Evaluating Sources  Criteria for Evaluating a Web Source   351 351 353 355  For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing the ­Rhetorical Elements of Two Websites   357  Taking Purposeful Notes   357  Conclusion   359  17  Incorporating Sources into Your Own Argument   360  Using Sources for Your Own Purposes  360 Writer 1: A Causal Argument Showing ­Alternative Approaches to Reducing Risk of Alcoholism  361 Writer 2: A Proposal Argument Advocating ­Vegetarianism  362  xiv Contents Writer 3: An Evaluation Argument Looking Skeptically at Vegetarianism   362  For Writing And Discussion: Using a Source for Different Purposes   363  Using Summary, Paraphrase, and Quotation  Summarizing  Paraphrasing  Quoting   363 363 363 365  Punctuating Quotations Correctly  366 Quoting a Complete Sentence  366 Quoting Words and Phrases  366 Modifying a Quotation  367 Omitting Something from a Quoted Passage  367 Quoting Something That Contains a Quotation 368 Using a Block Quotation for a Long Passage  368  Appendix Informal Fallacies  397  The Difference Between Formal and Informal Logic   397  An Overview of Informal Fallacies  Fallacies of Pathos  Fallacies of Ethos  Fallacies of Logos   398 399 400 401  For Writing And Discussion: Persuasive or ­Fallacious?   403  Part Six An Anthology of Arguments   405  Choices for a Sustainable World   406  Creating Rhetorically Effective Attributive Tags  369 Attributive Tags versus Parenthetical Citations 369 Creating Attributive Tags to Shape Reader Response  370  JOSEPH ALDY, "Curbing Climate Change Has a ­Dollar Value — Here's How and Why We Measure It"   407  JAMES A. BAKER, "The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax and Dividends"   409  Avoiding Plagiarism  Why Some Kinds of Plagiarism May Occur Unwittingly  Strategies for Avoiding Plagiarism   371  DAVID ROBERTS, "Putting a Price on Carbon is a Fine Idea. It's Not the End-All Be-All"   411  371 372  JULIAN CRIBB, "Our Human Right Not to Be ­Poisoned"   416  374  ALEX HALLATT, "I Stopped Wearing Leather . . . "   419  BILL MCKIBBEN, "The Question I Get Asked the Most"   419  CHELSEA M. ROCHMAN, "Ecologically Relevant Data Are Policy-Relevant Data"   422  For Writing And Discussion: Avoiding Plagiarism  Conclusion   18  Citing and Documenting Sources   374  375  The Correspondence between In-Text Citations and the End-of-Paper List of Cited Works  375 MLA Style  In-Text Citations in MLA Style  Works Cited List in MLA Style  MLA Works Cited Citation Models  MLA-Style Research Paper   377 377 379 379 389  APA Style  In-Text Citations in APA Style  References List in APA Style  APA References Citation Models  APA-Style Research Paper   389 390 390 391 396  Conclusion   396  BEN ADLER, "Banning Plastic Bags is Great for the World, Right? Not So Fast"  424 SUN SENTINEL EDITORIAL BOARD, "Plastic Bag Ban: Let's Not Get Carried Away"  427 For Writing and Discussion: Choices for a ­Sustainable World   429  Writing Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis   430  Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society?   431  DAVID UBERTI, "The Real History of Fake News"   432  EUGENE KIELY AND LORI ROBERTSON, "How to Spot Fake News"   437  Contents  KARSTEN SCHLEY, "Warning!! This Newspaper May Contain Traces of Journalism"  JACK SHAFER, "The Cure for Fake News Is Worse Than the Disease; Stop Being Trump's Twitter Fool"  ROBERT P. GEORGE AND CORNEL WEST, "Sign the Statement: Truth-Seeking, Democracy, and Freedom of Thought and Expression"   442  442  445  PETER WAYNE MOE, "Teaching Writing in a ­Post-Truth Era"   449  MARCUS DU SAUTOY, "Why Aren't People ­Listening to Scientists?"   450  JEFF HESTER, "The Hermeneutics of Bunk: How a Physicist Gave Postmodernism a Black Eye"   452  TIMOTHY CAULFIELD, "Blinded by Science: ­Modern-Day Hucksters Are Cashing In on ­Vulnerable Patients"   454  For Writing and Discussion: Dealing with ­Misinformation, Fake News, and Misconceptions   459  Writing Assignment: Researched Proposal Speech on Understanding and Evaluating ­Scientific Claims   460  DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE EDITORIAL BOARD, "Keep Up Fight against Childhood ­Obesity"  SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD, "Fed or Fed Up? Why We Support Easing School Lunch Rules"   461  462  463  CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND ­PREVENTION, "Tips for Parents—Ideas to Help Children Maintain a Healthy Weight"  463 JULIA BELLUZ AND JAVIER ZARRACINA, "We Need to Call American Breakfast What It Often Is: Dessert"   471  HARTFORD COURANT EDITORIAL BOARD, "Soda Tax Is Nanny-State Overreach"  473  LUCIANO FLORIDI, "Fake News and a 400-Year-Old Problem: We Need to Resolve the "Post-Truth" Crisis"  446  Public Health   SARAH WILSON, "I've Heard All the Arguments against a Sugar Tax. I'm Still Calling for One in Australia"   xv  468  SIGNE WILKINSON, "More Jobs Lost to Soda Taxes!"   474  LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD, "Are We Subsidizing a Public Health Crisis by Allowing the Poor to Buy Soda with Food Stamps?"   474  For Writing and Discussion: Public Health   476  Writing Assignment: Multimodal Argument: A Storyboard or Cartoon   476  Challenges in Education  RACHEL M. COHEN, "Rethinking School ­Discipline"   477 478  RICHARD ULLMAN, "Restorative Justice: The Zero-Tolerance-Policy Overcorrection"  487 CASSADY ROSENBLUM, "Take It From a New Orleans Charter School Teacher: Parents Don't Always Get School Choice Right"  489 PAUL FELL, "Educators Try to Keep Public ­Education away from School Vouchers and Charter Schools"   491  DOUGLAS N. HARRIS, "Why Managed ­Competition Is Better Than a Free Market for Schooling"   492  RACHEL LAM, "Separate but Unequal"   501  RAFAEL WALKER, "How Canceling Controversial Speakers Hurts Students"   503  GINA BARRECA, "I'm Not Giving Students "Trigger Warnings""   505  ONNI GUST, "I Use Trigger Warnings—But I'm Not Mollycoddling My Students"   507  For Writing and Discussion: Challenges in ­Education   509  Writing Assignment: A Researched Evaluation Argument on an Educational Policy   510  xvi Contents  Self-Driving Cars  ROBIN CHASE, "Self-Driving Cars Will Improve Our Cities, If They Don't Ruin Them"   511  512  SCOTT SANTENS, "Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck"   519  DREW HENDRICKS, "Five Reasons You Should Embrace Self-Driving Cars"   526  THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, "Would You Buy a Self-Driving Future from These Guys?"  528 For Writing and Discussion: Self-Driving Cars   530  Writing Assignment: A Researched Argument on a Subissue Related to Self-Driving Cars   531  Immigration in the Twenty-First ­Century  MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, "Fact Checker: The White House's Claim that "Sanctuary" Cities Are Violating the Law"   JEFF DANZIGER, "Coming Soon to a House Like Yours"   STEVEN P. BUCCI, "We Must Remain Vigilant through Responsible Refugee Policies"   544  RICH STEARNS, "Facing Responsibility: The Face of a Refugee Child"   545  For Writing and Discussion: Immigration in the Twenty-First Century   547  Writing Assignment: White Paper Summarizing the Arguments about a Policy Proposal   548  Argument Classics   532  533  KENT LUNDGREN, "Stop Immigration Processing as Leverage against Sanctuaries?"   535  DARLENE NICGORSKI, "Convicted of the Gospel"   537  LUPE VALDEZ, ED GONZALEZ, AND JAVIER SALAZAR, "Enforcement in Sanctuary Cities Should Be Feds' Job, Not Local Police"  539  540  SALIL SHETTY, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, "Foreword to Tackling the Global Refugee Crisis: From Shirking to Sharing Responsibility"  541  549  JONATHAN SWIFT, "A Modest Proposal: For ­Preventing the Children of Poor People in ­Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public"   549  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, "The ­ Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions Seneca Falls ­Conference" (1848)   555  MARGARET SANGER, "The Morality of Birth ­Control"   559  For Writing and Discussion: Argument Classics   563  Writing Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis   563  Credits Index  564 567  Preface  T  hrough ten editions, Writing Arguments has sustained its reputation as a leading college textbook in argumentation. By focusing on argument as a collaborative search for the best solutions to problems (as opposed to pro/ con debate), Writing Arguments treats argument as a process of inquiry as well as a means of persuasion. Users and reviewers have consistently praised the book for teaching the critical thinking skills needed for writing arguments: how to analyze the occasion for an argument; how to analyze arguments rhetorically; how to ground an argument in the values and beliefs of the targeted audience; how to develop and elaborate an argument; and how to respond sensitively to objections and alternative views. We are pleased that in this eleventh edition, we have improved the text in key ways while retaining the text's signature strengths.  What's New in the Eleventh Edition? Based on our continuing research into argumentation theory and pedagogy and on our own experiences as classroom teachers, we have made significant improvements in the eleventh edition that will increase students' understanding of the value of argument and help them negotiate the rhetorical divisiveness in today's world. Here are the major changes in the eleventh edition: • Use of Aristotle's "provisional truths" to address post-truth, post-fact ­challenges to argument. This edition directly engages the complexity of conducting reasoned argument in a public sphere that is often dominated by ideological camps, news echo chambers, and charges of fake news. A revised Chapter 1 uses Aristotle's view of probabilistic or provisional truths to carve out a working space for argument between unachievable certainty and nihilistic relativism. Chapter 1's view of argument as both truth-seeking and persuasion is carried consistently throughout the text. This edition directly tackles the challenges to reasoned argument posed by dominant ideological perspectives, siloed echo chambers, and a dependence on social media as a source of news. • A reordering, refocusing, and streamlining of chapters to create better pedagogical sequencing and coherence. The previous edition's C ­ hapter 2, which focused on argument as inquiry combining summary writing and exploratory response, has been refocused and moved to Chapter 8. Previous Chapter 2 material on the genres of argument has now been placed in an expanded Chapter 7 on rhetorical analysis. This new sequencing allows students to focus first on understanding the principles of argument (Chapters 1-6) and then to switch to the critical thinking process of joining an argumentative conversation through reading and strong response. (See "Structure of the Text" later in this preface for further explanation.)  xvii  xviii Preface • A new chapter on collaborative rhetoric as a bridge-building alternative to persuasion. Chapter 10, new to this edition, blends ideas from R ­ ogerian communication with practices from conflict resolution to help prepare ­students for their roles in private, public, and professional life amidst clashing values and views. Explanations, guidelines, and exercises emphasize nonjudgmental listening, self-reflection, a search for common ground, and suggestions for encouraging ongoing problem-solving through learning, ­listening, and respectful use of language. • A substantially revised chapter on visual and multimodal arguments. Chapter 9 on visual and multimodal rhetoric now includes a new example and guidelines for making persuasive videos as well as a new exercise to apply image analysis in the construction of visual arguments. • A revised chapter on rhetorical analysis. Chapter 7, "Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically," has been expanded by consolidating rhetorical instruction from several chapters into one chapter and linking it to the critical thinking skills required for joining an argumentative conversation. • Updated or streamlined examples and explanations throughout the text along with many new images. Instructors familiar with previous editions will find many new examples and explanations ranging from a new dialog in Chapter 1 to illustrate the difference between an argument and a quarrel to a streamlined appendix on logical fallacies at the end. New images, editorial cartoons, and graphics throughout the text highlight current issues such as legalizing marijuana, plastics in the ocean, graffiti in public places, a soda tax, cultural and religious diversity, refugees, travel bans, and cars' carbon footprints. • Two new student model essays, one illustrating APA style. One new student model essay evaluates gender bias in a high school dress code, and the other, illustrating APA style, explores the causes of math anxiety in children. • A handful of lively new professional readings in the rhetoric section of the text. New readings ask students to think about a ban on plastic bags, the social definition of adulthood, and the psychological effect of not recognizing ourselves in videos. • A thoroughly revised and updated anthology. updated units as well as four entirely new units.  The anthology features  • A new unit on self-driving cars explores the legal, economic, and societal repercussions of this new technological revolution in transportation. • A unit on the post-truth, post-fact era examines the difficulties of consuming news and evaluating the factual basis of news and scientific claims in the era of ideological siloes and of news as entertainment via social media. • A new unit on the public health crisis explores the personal and societal consequences of excessive consumption of sugar, the need to establish healthy eating habits in children, and the controversy over a soda tax. • A unit on challenges in education examines three areas of controversy: disciplinary policy in K-12 classrooms (restorative justice versus zero-tolerance); the voucher system and charter schools as alternatives to public school; and, at the college level, trigger warnings and divisive speakers on campus.  Preface  • An updated unit on sustainability examines the carbon tax and the environmental damage caused by the use and disposal of plastic bottles and plastic bags. • The unit on immigration has been updated to explore the controversy over sanctuary cities and the American response to refugees. • A brief argument classics unit offers some famous stylized historical arguments.  What Hasn't Changed? The Distinguishing Strengths of Writing Arguments The eleventh edition of Writing Arguments preserves the text's signature strengths praised by students, instructors, and reviewers: • Argument as a collaborative search for "best solutions" rather than as procon debate. Throughout the text, Writing Arguments emphasizes both the truth-seeking and persuasive dimensions of argument—a dialectic tension that requires empathic listening to all stakeholders in an argumentative conversation and the seeking of reasons that appeal to shared values and beliefs. For heated arguments with particularly clashing points of view, we show the value of Rogerian listening and, in this eleventh edition, point to collaborative rhetoric as a shift from making arguments to seeking deeper understanding and common ground as a way forward amid conflict. • Argument as a rhetorical act. Writing Arguments teaches students to think rhetorically about argument: to understand the real-world occasions and contexts for argument, to analyze the targeted audience's underlying values and assumptions, to understand how evidence is selected and framed by an angle of vision, to appreciate the functions and constraints of genre, and to employ the classical appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos. • Argument as critical thinking. When writing an argument, writers are forced to lay bare their thinking processes. Focusing on both reading and writing, Writing Arguments emphasizes the critical thinking that underlies reasoned argument: active questioning, empathic reading and listening, believing and doubting, asserting a contestable claim that pushes against alternative views, and supporting the claim with a logical structure of reasons and evidence—all while negotiating uncertainty and ambiguity. • Consistent grounding in argumentation theory. To engage students in the kinds of critical and rhetorical thinking that argument demands, we draw on four major approaches to argumentation: • The enthymeme as a rhetorical and logical structure. This concept, especially useful for beginning writers, helps students "nutshell" an argument as a claim with one or more supporting because clauses. It also helps them see how real-world arguments are rooted in assumptions granted by the audience rather than in universal and unchanging principles. • The three classical types of appeal—logos, ethos, and pathos. These concepts help students place their arguments in a rhetorical context focusing on audience-based appeals; they also help students create an effective voice and style.  xix  xx Preface • Toulmin's system of analyzing arguments. Toulmin's system helps students see the complete, implicit structure that underlies an enthymeme and develop appropriate grounds and backing to support an argument's reasons and warrants, thus helping students tailor arguments to audiences. Toulmin analysis highlights the rhetorical, social, and dialectical nature of argument. • Stasis theory concerning types of claims. This approach stresses the heuristic value of learning different patterns of support for different types of claims and often leads students to make surprisingly rich and full arguments. • Effective writing pedagogy. This text combines explanations of argument with best practices from composition pedagogy, including exploratory writing, sequenced and scaffolded writing assignments, class-tested "For Writing and Discussion" tasks, and guidance through all stages of the writing process. To help students position themselves in an argumentative conversation, the text teaches the skills of "summary/strong response"—the ability to summarize a source author's argument and to respond to it thoughtfully. The moves of summary and strong response teach students to use their own critical and rhetorical thinking to find their own voice in a conversation. • Rhetorical approach to the research process. Writing Arguments teaches students to think rhetorically about their sources and about the ways they might use these sources in their own arguments. Research coverage includes guidance for finding sources, reading and evaluating sources rhetorically, taking purposeful notes, integrating source material effectively (including rhetorical use of attributive tags), and citing sources using two academic citation systems: MLA (8th edition) and APA. The text's rhetorical treatment of plagiarism helps students understand the conventions of different genres and avoid unintentional plagiarism. • Extensive coverage of visual rhetoric. Chapter 9 is devoted entirely to visual and multimodal rhetoric. Additionally, many chapters include an "Examining Visual Rhetoric" feature that connects visual rhetoric to the ­chapter's instructional content. The images that introduce each part of the text, as well as images incorporated throughout the text, provide opportunities for visual analysis. Many of the text's assignment options include visual or multimodal components, including advocacy posters or speeches supported with presentation slides. • Effective and engaging student and professional arguments. The professional and student arguments, both written and visual, present voices in current social conversations, illustrate types of argument and argument strategies, and provide fodder to stimulate discussion, analysis, and writing.  Structure of the Text Writing Arguments provides a coherent sequencing of instruction while giving instructors flexibility to reorder materials to suit their needs. • Part One focuses on the principles of argument: an overview of argument as truth-seeking rather than pro-con debate (Chapter 1); the logos of argument including the enthymeme (Chapter 2); Toulmin's system for analyzing  Preface  arguments (Chapter 3) and the selection and framing of evidence (Chapter 4); the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos (Chapter 5); and acknowledging and responding to alternative views (Chapter 6). • Part Two shifts to the process of argument—helping students learn how to enter an argumentative conversation by summarizing what others have said and staking out their own position and claims. Chapter 7 consolidates instruction on rhetorical analysis to help students think rhetorically about an argumentative conversation. Chapter 8 focuses on argument as inquiry, teaching students the groundwork skills of believing and doubting, summarizing a source author's argument and speaking back to it with integrity. • Part Three expands students' understanding of argument. Chapter 9 focuses on visual and multimodal argument. Chapter 10, new to the eleventh edition, teaches the powerful community-building skill of collaborative rhetoric as an alternative to argument. It focuses on mutual understanding rather than persuasion. • Part Four (Chapters 11-15) introduces students to stasis theory, showing the typical structures and argumentative moves required for different claim types: definition, resemblance, causal, evaluation, and proposal arguments. • Part Five (Chapters 16-18) focuses on research skill rooted in a rhetorical understanding of sources. It shows students how to use sources in support of an argument by evaluating, integrating, citing, and documenting them properly. An appendix on logical fallacies is a handy section where all the major informal fallacies are treated at once for easy reference. • Part Six, the anthology, provides a rich and varied selection of professional arguments arranged into seven high-interest units, including self-driving cars, immigration, sustainability, education, public heath, and public media in an age of fake news and alternative facts. It also includes a unit on ­classic arguments. Many of the issues raised in the anthology are first raised in the rhetoric so that students' interest in the anthology topics will already be piqued.  Revel Revel is an interactive learning environment that deeply engages students and prepares them for class. Media and assessment integrated directly within the authors' narrative lets students read, explore interactive content, and practice in one continuous learning path. Thanks to the dynamic reading experience in Revel, students come to class prepared to discuss, apply, and learn from instructors and from each other. Learn more about Revel http://www.pearson.com/revel  Supplements Make more time for your students with instructor resources that offer effective learning assessments and classroom engagement. Pearson's partnership with educators does not end with the delivery of course materials; Pearson is there with you on the first day of class and beyond. A dedicated team of local Pearson representatives will work with you not only to choose course materials but also  xxi  xxii Preface to integrate them into your class and assess their effectiveness. Our goal is your goal—to improve instruction with each semester. Pearson is pleased to offer the following resources to qualified adopters of Writing Arguments. Several of these supplements are available to instantly download from Revel or on the Instructor Resource Center (IRC); please visit the IRC at www.pearsonhighered.com/irc to register for access. • INSTRUCTOR'S RESOURCE MANUAL, by Hannah Tracy (Seattle ­University). Create a comprehensive roadmap for teaching classroom, online, or hybrid courses. Designed for new and experienced instructors, the Instructor's Resource Manual includes learning objectives, lecture and discussion suggestions, activities for in or out of class, research activities, participation activities, and suggested readings, series, and films as well as a Revel features section. Available within Revel and on the IRC. • POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. Make lectures more enriching for ­students. The PowerPoint Presentation includes a full lecture outline and photos and figures from the textbook and Revel edition. Available on the IRC.  Acknowledgments We are happy for this opportunity to give public thanks to the scholars, teachers, and students who have influenced our approach to composition and argument. For this edition, we owe special thanks to our long-time teammate and colleague at Seattle University, Hilary Hawley, who aided us in researching public controversies and finding timely, available readings on these issues. Hilary wrote the framing introductions, the headnotes, and the critical apparatus for many of the anthology units. Her experience teaching argument, especially he public ­controversies over sustainability, food, immigration, and health, shaped these units. We are also grateful to another of our Seattle University colleagues, Hannah Tracy, for writing the Instructor's Resource Manual, a task to which she brings her knowledge of argumentation and her experience teaching civic and academic argument. We thank Stephen Bean for his research on self-driving cars and on issues related to legalizing marijuana. Finally, we thank Kris Saknussemm and Janie Bube for their design contributions to several of the visual arguments in this edition. We are particularly grateful to our talented students—Jesse Goncalves (argument on math anxiety), Hadley Reeder (argument on high school dress codes) and Camille Tabari (PSA video "It's a Toilet, Not a Trash Can")—who contributed to this edition their timely arguments built from their intellectual curiosity, ideas, personal experience, and research. Additionally, we are grateful to all our students whom we have been privileged to teach in our writing classes and to our other students who have enabled us to include their arguments in this text. Their insights and growth as writers have inspired our ongoing study of rhetoric and argumentation. We thank too the many users of our texts who have given us encouragement about our successes and offered helpful suggestions for improvements. Particularly we thank the following scholars and teachers who reviewed the previous edition of Writing Arguments and whose valuable suggestions informed this new edition: Max Hohner, Eastern Washington University Jeff Kosse, Iowa Western Community College Jeremy Meyer, Arizona State University Jennifer Waters, Arizona State University We wish to express our gratitude to our developmental editor Steven Rigolosi for his skill, patience, diligence, and deep knowledge of all phases of textbook production. Steve's ability to provide timely guidance throughout the production process made this edition possible. As always, we thank our families, who ultimately make this work possible. John Bean thanks his wife, Kit, also a professional composition teacher, and his children Matthew, Andrew, Stephen, and Sarah, all of whom have grown to adulthood since he first began writing textbooks. Our lively conversations at family dinners, which now include spouses, partners, and grandchildren, have kept him  xxiii  xxiv Acknowledgments engaged in arguments that matter about how to create a just, humane, and sustainable world. June Johnson thanks her husband, Kenneth Bube, a mathematics professor and researcher, and her daughter, Janie Bube. Ken and Janie have played major roles in the ongoing family analysis of argumentation in the public sphere on wide-ranging subjects. Janie's knowledge of environmental issues and digital design and Kenneth's of mathematical thinking and the public perception of science have broadened June's understanding of argument hotspots. They have also enabled her to meet the demands and challenges of continuing to infuse new ideas and material into this text in each revision. John C. Bean June Johnson  Writing ­Arguments A Rhetoric with Readings Eleventh Edition  P1: OSO/OVY  P2: OSO/OVY  A01_CHART6753_04_SE_FM  QC: OSO/OVY PH03348-Chartrand  T1: OSO September 22, 2017  8:50  Char Count= 0  This page intentionally left blank  PART ONE  Principles of Argument 1 Argument: An Introduction 2 The Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reasons 3 The Logical Structure of Argument: Logos 4 Using Evidence Effectively 5 Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos 6 Responding to Objections and Alternative Views  Factory farming, the mass production of animals for meat on an industrial model, shown in this photo, is a network of controversial issues, including cruelty to animals, healthfulness of meat diets, disconnection of people from their food, strain on environmental resources, and economic effects on small farming.  1  Chapter 1  Argument: An Introduction Learning Objectives In this chapter you will learn to: 1.1 Explain common misconceptions about the meaning of argument. 1.2 Describe defining features of argument. 1.3 Understand the relationship of argument to the process of  truth-seeking and inquiry.  This book is dedicated to the proposition that reasoned argument is essential for the functioning of democracies. By establishing a separation of powers and protecting individual rights, the U. S. Constitution places argument at the center of civic life. At every layer of democracy, government decisions about laws, regulations, right actions, and judicial outcomes depend on reasoned argument, which involves l­istening to multiple perspectives. As former Vice President Al Gore once put it, "Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—was and remains the central premise of American democracy."1 Yet, many public intellectuals, scholars, and journalists have written that we are now entering a post-truth era, where the "best evidence available" becomes unmoored from a shared understanding of reality. How citizens access information and how they think about public issues is increasingly complicated by the unregulated freedom of the Internet and the stresses of a globalized and ethnically and religiously diverse society. Many citizens now focus on the entertainment dimension of news or get their news from sources that match their own political leanings. One source's "news" may be another source's "fake news." In fact, the concept of argument is now entangled in post-truth confusions about what an argument is. What, then, do we mean by reasoned argument, and why is it vital for ­coping with post-truth confusion? The meaning of reasoned argument will become clearer in this opening chapter and throughout this text. We hope your study of 1  2  Al Gore, Assault on Reason. New York: Penguin, 2007, p. 2.  Argument: An Introduction  reasoned argument will lead you to value it as a student, citizen, and professional. We begin this chapter by debunking some common misconceptions about argument. We then examine three defining features of argument: It requires writers or speakers to justify their claims; it is both a product and a process; and it combines elements of truth-seeking and persuasion. Finally, we look closely at the tension between truth-seeking and persuasion to encourage you to use both of these processes in your approach to argument.  What Do We Mean by Argument? 1.1  Explain common misconceptions about the meaning of argument.  Let's begin by examining the inadequacies of two popular images of argument: fight and debate.  Argument Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel To many, the word argument connotes anger and hostility, as when we say, "I just had a huge argument with my roommate," or "My mother and I argue all the time." We picture heated disagreement, rising pulse rates, and an urge to slam doors. Argument imagined as fight conjures images of shouting talk-show guests, flaming bloggers, or fist-banging speakers. But to our way of thinking, argument doesn't imply anger. In fact, arguing is often pleasurable. It is a creative and productive activity that engages us at high levels of inquiry and critical thinking, often in conversation with people we like and respect. When you think about argument, we invite you to envision not a shouting match on cable news but rather a small group of reasonable people seeking the best solution to a problem. We will return to this image throughout the chapter.  Argument Is Not Pro-Con Debate Another popular image of argument is debate—a presidential debate, perhaps, or a high school or college debate tournament. According to one popular dictionary, debate is "a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition." Although formal debate can develop critical thinking, it has a key weakness: It can turn argument into a game of winners and losers rather than a process of cooperative inquiry. For an illustration of this weakness, consider one of our former students, a champion high school debater who spent his senior year debating the issue of prison reform. Throughout the year he argued for and against propositions such as "The United States should build more prisons" and "Innovative alternatives to prison should replace prison sentences for most crimes." We asked him, "What do you personally think is the best way to reform prisons?" He replied, "I don't know. I haven't thought about what I would actually choose." Here was a bright, articulate student who had studied prisons extensively for a year. Yet nothing in the atmosphere of pro-con debate had engaged him in truth-seeking inquiry. He could argue for and against a proposition, but he hadn't experienced the wrenching process of clarifying his own values and taking a  3  4 Chapter 1 personal stand. As we explain throughout this text, argument entails a desire for truth-seeking; it aims to find the best solutions to complex problems. We don't mean that arguers don't passionately support their own points of view or expose weaknesses in views they find faulty. Instead, we mean that their goal isn't to win a game but to find and promote the best belief or course of action.  Arguments Can Be Explicit or Implicit Before we examine some of the defining features of argument, we should note also that arguments can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit arguments (either ­written or oral) directly state their contestable claims and support them with reasons and evidence. Implicit arguments, in contrast, may not look like arguments at all. They may be bumper stickers, billboards, posters, photographs, cartoons, vanity license plates, slogans on a T-shirt, advertisements, poems, or song lyrics. But like explicit arguments, they persuade their audience toward a certain point of view. Consider the poster in Figure 1.1—part of one state's recent citizen campaign to legalize marijuana. The poster's comparative data about "annual deaths," its beautiful green marijuana leaves, and its cluster of peanuts make the implicit argument that marijuana is safe—even safer than peanuts. The poster's intention is to persuade voters to approve the state initiative to legalize pot. But this poster is just one voice in a complex conversation. Does  Figure 1.1 An implicit argument favoring legalization of marijuana  Argument: An Introduction  5  marijuana have dangers that this poster makes invisible? Would children and adolescents have more access or less access to marijuana if the drug were legalized? Is marijuana a "gateway drug" to heroin and other, harder drugs? How would legalization of marijuana affect crime, drug trafficking, and prison populations? What would be the cultural consequences if marijuana became as socially acceptable as alcohol? In contrast to the implicit argument made in Figure 1.1, consider the following explicit argument—a letter to the editor submitted by student writer Mike Overton. As an explicit argument, it states its claim directly and supports it with reasons and evidence.  An Explicit Argument Opposing Legalization of Marijuana LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY STUDENT MIKE OVERTON  Proponents of legalizing marijuana claim that pot is a benign drug because it has a low risk of overdose and causes few deaths. Pot is even safer than peanuts, according to a recent pro-legalization poster. However, pot poses grave psychological risks, particularly to children and adolescents, that are masked if we focus only on death rate. Several studies have shown adverse effects of marijuana on memory, decision making, and cognition. In one study, Duke University researchers examined IQ scores of individuals taken from childhood through age 38. They found a noticeable decline in the IQ scores of pot smokers compared with nonusers, with greater declines among those who smoked more. Daily pot smokers dropped, on average, eight IQ points. There is also a clear link between pot usage and schizophrenia. Many studies have shown an increased risk of schizophrenia and psychosis from pot usage, particularly with regular use as an adolescent. Studies find that regular pot smokers who develop schizophrenia begin exhibiting symptoms of the disease earlier than nonusers, with the average diagnosis occurring 2.7 years earlier than for nonusers. These are devastating mental illnesses that cut to the core of our well-being. We need to be sure our policies on marijuana don't ignore the documented mental health risks of pot, particularly to adolescents in the critical phase of brain development. I urge a "no" vote on legalizing marijuana in our state.  For Writing And Discussion Implicit and Explicit Arguments Any argument, whether implicit or explicit, tries to influence the audience's stance on an issue, with the goal of moving the audience toward the arguer's claim. Arguments work on us psychologically as well as cognitively, triggering emotions as well as thoughts and ideas. Each of the implicit arguments in Figures 1.2–1.4 makes a claim on its audience, trying to get viewers to adopt its position, perspective, belief, or point of view on an issue. (continued)  6 Chapter 1  Figure 1.2 Early 1970s cover of the  controversial social protest magazine Science for the People, which has recently been revived  Figure 1.3 Image from website promoting education in prisons (HTTP://WWW.PRISONEDUCATION.COM/)  Argument: An Introduction  7  Figure 1.4 Cartoon on social etiquette and digital media (continued)  Individual task: For each argument, answer the following questions: 1. Observe each argument carefully and then describe it for someone who hasn't seen it. 2. What conversation do you think each argument joins? What is the issue or controversy? What is at stake? (Sometimes "insider knowledge" might be required to understand the argument. In such cases, explain to an outsider the needed background information or cultural context.) 3. What is the argument's claim? That is, what value, perspective, belief, or position does the argument ask its viewers to adopt? 4. What is an opposing or alternative view? What views is the argument pushing against? 5. How do the visual details of each argument contribute to the persuasive effect? 6. Convert the implicit argument into an explicit argument by stating its claim and supporting reasons in words. How do implicit and explicit arguments work differently on the brains or hearts of the audience?  Group task: Working in pairs or as a class, share your answers with classmates.  8 Chapter 1  The Defining Features of Argument 1.2  Describe defining features of argument.  We now examine arguments in more detail. (Unless we say otherwise, by argument we mean explicit arguments that attempt to supply reasons and evidence to support their claims.) This section examines three defining features of such arguments.  Argument Requires Justification of Its Claims To begin defining argument, let's turn to a humble but universal area of disagreement: the conflict between new housemates over house rules. In what way and in what circumstances do such conflicts constitute arguments? AVERY: (grabbing his backpack by the door) See you. I'm heading for class. DANIEL: (loudly and rapidly) Wait. What about picking up your garbage all over the living room?—that pizza box, those cans, and all those papers. I think you even spilled Coke on the rug. AVERY: Hey, get off my case. I'll clean it up tonight. With this exchange, we have the start of a quarrel, not an argument. If ­ aniel's anger picks up—suppose he says, "Hey, slobface, no way you're leavD ing this house without picking up your trash!"—then the quarrel will escalate into a fight. But let's say that Daniel remains calm. The dialogue then takes this turn. DANIEL:  Come on, Avery. We had an agreement to keep the house clean.  Now we have the beginnings of an argument. Fleshed out, Daniel's r­ easoning goes like this: You should clean up your mess because we had an agreement to keep the house clean. The unstated assumption behind this argument is that people should live up to their agreements. Now Avery has an opportunity to respond, either by advancing the argument or by stopping it cold. He could stop it cold by saying, "No, we never agreed to anything." This response pushes Avery's hapless housemates into a post-truth world where there is no agreement about reality. Unless stakeholders have a ­starting place grounded in mutually accepted evidence, no argument is possible. Their dispute can be decided only by power. But suppose that Avery is a reasonable person of good will. He could advance the argument by responding this way: AVERY: Yes, you are right that we had an agreement. But perhaps our agreement needs room for exceptions. I have a super-heavy day today. Now a process of reasonable argument has emerged. Avery offers a reason for rushing from the house without cleaning up. In his mind his argument would go like this: "It is OK for me to wait until tonight to clean up my mess because I have a super-heavy day." He could provide evidence for his reason by explaining his heavy schedule (a group project for one course, a paper due in another, and his agreement with his boss to work overtime at his barista job throughout the afternoon). This reason makes sense to Avery, who is understandably immersed in his own perspective. However, it might not be persuasive to Daniel, who responds this way:  Argument: An Introduction  DANIEL: I appreciate your busy schedule, but I am planning to be at home all day, and I can't study in this mess. It is unfair for me to have to clean up your stuff. Fleshed out, Daniel's argument goes like this: "It is not OK for you to leave trash in the living room, because your offer to clean your mess tonight doesn't override my right to enjoy a clean living space today." The dialogue now illustrates what is required for reasonable argument: (1) a set of two or more c­ onflicting claims ("it is OK / is not OK to leave this mess until tonight") and (2) the attempt to justify the claims with reasons and evidence. The first defining feature of argument, then, is the attempt to justify claims with reasons and evidence. Avery and Daniel now need to think further about how they can justify their claims. The disagreement between the housemates is not primarily about facts: Both disputants agree that they had established house rules about cleanliness, that Avery is facing a super-heavy day, and that Avery's mess disturbs Daniel. The dispute is rather about values and fairness—principles that are articulated in the unstated assumptions that undergird their reasons. Avery's assumption is that "unusual circumstances can temporarily suspend house rules." Daniel's assumption is that "a temporary suspension—to be acceptable—cannot treat other housemates unfairly." To justify his claim, therefore, Avery has to show not only that his day is super-heavy but also that his cleaning his mess at the end of the day isn't unfair to Daniel. To plan his argument, Avery needs to anticipate the questions his argument will raise in Daniel's mind: Will today's mess truly be a rare exception to our house rule, or is Avery a natural slob who will leave the house messy almost every day? What will be the state of the house and the quality of the living situation if each person simply makes his own exceptions to house rules? Will continuing to spill food and drinks on the carpet affect the return of the security deposit on the house rental? In addition, Daniel needs to anticipate some of Avery's questions: Are temporary periods of messiness really unfair to Daniel? How much does Daniel's neat-freak personality get in the way of house harmony? Would some flexibility in house rules be a good thing? The attempt to justify their assumptions forces both Avery and Daniel to think about the degree of independence each demands when sharing a house. As Avery and Daniel listen to each other's points of view (and begin realizing why their initial arguments have not persuaded their intended audience), we can appreciate one of the earliest meanings of the term to argue, which is "to clarify." As arguers clarify their own positions on an issue, they also begin to clarify their audience's position. Such clarification helps arguers see how they might accommodate their audience's views, perhaps by adjusting their own position or by developing reasons that appeal to their audience's values. Thus Avery might suggest something like this: AVERY: Hey, Daniel, I can see why it is unfair to leave you with my mess. What if I offered you some kind of trade-off? Fleshed out, Avery's argument now looks like this: "It is OK for me to wait until the end of the day to clean up my mess because I am willing to offer you a satisfactory trade-off." The offer of a trade-off immediately addresses Daniel's sense of being treated unfairly and might lead to negotiation on what this tradeoff might be. Perhaps Avery agrees to do more of the cooking, or perhaps there are other areas of conflict that could become part of a trade-off bargain—noise levels, sleeping times, music preferences. Or perhaps Daniel, happy that Avery  9  10 Chapter 1 has offered a trade-off, says it isn't necessary: Daniel concedes that he can live with occasional messiness. Whether or not Avery and Daniel can work out a best solution, the preceding scenario illustrates how the need to justify one's claims leads to a clarification of facts and values and to the process of negotiating solutions that might work for all stakeholders.  Argument Is Both a Process and a Product As the preceding scenario revealed, argument can be viewed as a process in which two or more parties seek the best solution to a question or problem. Argument can also be viewed as a product, with each product being any person's contribution to the conversation at a given moment. In an informal discussion, the products are usually short pieces of conversation. In more formal settings, an orally delivered product might be a short, impromptu speech (say, during an open-mike discussion of a campus issue) or a longer, carefully prepared formal speech (as in a PowerPoint presentation at a business meeting or an argument at a public hearing for or against a proposed city project). Similar conversations occur in writing. Roughly analogous to a small-group discussion is an exchange of the kind that occurs regularly online through informal chat groups or more formal blog sites. In an online discussion, participants have more thinking time to shape their messages than they do in a real-time oral discussion. Nevertheless, messages are usually short and informal, making it possible over the course of several days to see participants' ideas shift and evolve as conversants modify their initial views in response to others' views. Roughly equivalent to a formal speech would be a formal written argument, which may take the form of an academic argument for a college course; a grant proposal; an online posting; a guest column for the op-ed* section of a newspaper; a legal brief; a letter to a member of Congress; or an article for an organizational newsletter, popular magazine, or professional journal. In each of these instances, the written argument (a product) enters a conversation (a process)—in this case, a conversation of readers, many of whom will carry on the conversation by w ­ riting their own responses or by discussing the writer's views with others. The goal of the community of writers and readers is to find the best solution to the problem or issue under discussion.  Argument Combines Truth-Seeking and Persuasion In thinking about argument as a product, writers will find themselves continually moving back and forth between truth-seeking and persuasion—that is, between questions about the subject matter (What is the best solution to this problem?) and about audience (What do my readers already believe or value? What reasons and * Op-ed stands for "opposite-editorial." It is the generic name in journalism for a signed argument that voices the writer's opinion on an issue, as opposed to a news story that is supposed to report events objectively, uncolored by the writer's personal views. Op-ed pieces appear in the editorial-opinion section of newspapers, which generally features editorials by the resident staff, opinion pieces by syndicated columnists, and letters to the editor from readers. The term op-ed is often extended to syndicated columns appearing in newsmagazines, advocacy websites, and online news services.  Argument: An Introduction  11  evidence will most persuade them?). Writers weave back and forth, alternately absorbed in the subject of their argument and in the audience for that argument. Neither of the two focuses is ever completely out of mind, but their relative importance shifts during different phases of the development of an argument. Moreover, different rhetorical situations place different emphases on truth-seeking versus persuasion. We can thus place arguments on a continuum that measures the degree of attention a writer gives to subject matter versus audience. (See F ­ igure 1.5.) At the full truth-seeking (left) end of the continuum might be an exploratory piece that lays out several alternative approaches to a problem and weighs the strengths and weaknesses of each with no concern for persuasion. At the other (persuasion) end of the continuum would be outright propaganda, such as a p ­ olitical advertisement that reduces a complex issue to sound bites and distorts an opponent's position through out-of-context quotations or misleading use of data. (At its most blatant, propaganda obliterates truth-seeking; it will use any tool, including bogus evidence, distorted assertions, and outright lies, to win over an audience.) In the middle ranges of the continuum, writers shift their focuses back and forth between inquiry and persuasion but with varying degrees of emphasis. As an example of a writer focusing primarily on truth-seeking, consider the case of Kathleen, who, in her college argument course, addressed the definitional question "Is American Sign Language (ASL) a 'foreign language' for purposes of meeting the university's foreign language requirement?" Kathleen had taken two years of ASL at a community college. When she transferred to a four-year college, the chair of the foreign languages department would not allow her ASL coursework to count toward Kathleen's foreign language requirement. "ASL isn't a language," the chair said summarily. "It's not equivalent to learning French, German, or Japanese." Kathleen disagreed, so she immersed herself in developing her argument. While doing research, she focused almost entirely on the subject matter, s­ earching for what linguists, neurologists, cognitive psychologists, and sociologists have said about the language of deaf people. Immersed in her subject matter, she was only tacitly concerned with her audience, whom she thought of primarily as her classmates and the professor of her argument class—people who were friendly to her views and interested in her experiences with the deaf community. She wrote a well-documented paper, citing several scholarly articles, that made a good case to her classmates (and the professor) that ASL is indeed a distinct language. Proud of the A she received on her paper, Kathleen decided for a subsequent assignment to write a second paper on ASL—but this time aiming it directly at the chair of the foreign languages department and petitioning her to accept ASL proficiency for the foreign language requirement. Now her writing task fell closer to the persuasive end of our continuum. Kathleen once again immersed herself in  Figure 1.5 Continuum of arguments from truth-seeking to persuasion Truth Seeking Exploratory essay Essay examining all sides of an issue and possibly not arriving at a conclusive answer  Persuasion Delayed thesis argument  Classical argument  One-sided argument  Argument as inquiry; asking audience to think out the issue with the writer  Argument, aimed at a neutral or skeptical audience, that shows awareness of different views  Argument aimed at a friendly audience (often for fundraising or calls to action)  Outright propaganda Aggressive onesided argument that simply delivers a message  12 Chapter 1 research, but this time she focused not on subject matter (whether ASL is a distinct language) but on audience. She researched the history of the foreign language requirement at her college and discovered some of the politics behind it (the foreign language requirement had been dropped in the 1970s and reinstituted in the 1990s, partly—a math professor told her—to boost enrollments in foreign language courses). She also interviewed foreign language teachers to find out what they knew and didn't know about ASL. She discovered that many teachers thought ASL was "easy to learn," so that accepting ASL would give students a Mickey Mouse way to avoid the rigors of a "real" foreign language class. Additionally, she learned that foreign language teachers valued immersing students in a foreign culture; in fact, the foreign language requirement was part of her college's effort to create a multicultural curriculum. This increased understanding of her target audience helped Kathleen reconceptualize her argument. Her claim that ASL is a real language (the subject of her first paper) became only one section of her second paper, much condensed and abridged. She added sections showing the difficulty of learning ASL (to counter her audience's belief that learning ASL is easy), showing how the deaf community forms a distinct culture with its own customs and literature (to show how ASL would meet the goals of multiculturalism), and showing that the number of transfer students with ASL credits would be negligibly small (to allay fears that accepting ASL would threaten enrollments in language classes). She ended her argument with an appeal to her college's public emphasis (declared boldly in its mission statement) on eradicating social injustice and reaching out to the oppressed. She described the isolation of deaf people in a world where almost no hearing people learn ASL, and she argued that the deaf community on her campus could be integrated more fully into campus life if more students could talk with them. Thus the ideas included in her new argument—the reasons selected, the evidence used, the arrangement and tone—all were determined by her primary focus on persuasion. Our point, then, is that all along the continuum, writers attempt both to seek truth and to persuade, but not necessarily with equal balance. Kathleen could not have written her second paper, aimed specifically at persuading the chair of the foreign languages department, if she hadn't first immersed herself in truthseeking research that convinced her that ASL is indeed a distinct language. Note that we are not saying that Kathleen's second argument was better than her first. Both arguments fulfilled their purposes and met the needs of their intended audiences. Both involved truth-seeking and persuasion, but the first focused primarily on subject matter whereas the second focused primarily on audience.  Argument and the Problem of Truth in the 21st Century 1.3  Understand the relationship of argument to the process of truth-seeking and inquiry.  The tension that we have just examined between truth-seeking and persuasion raises an ancient issue in the field of argument: Is the arguer's first obligation to truth or to winning the argument? And just what is the nature of the truth to which arguers are supposed to be obligated?  Argument: An Introduction  Early Greek rhetoricians and philosophers—particularly the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—all wrestled with this tension. In Plato's Dialogues, these questions were at the heart of Socrates' disagreement with the Sophists. The Sophists were professional rhetoricians who specialized in training orators to win arguments. Socrates, who valued truth-seeking over persuasion and believed that truth could be discovered through philosophic inquiry, opposed the Sophists. For Socrates (and Plato), Truth resided in the ideal world of forms, and through philosophic rigor humans could transcend the changing, shadowlike world of everyday reality to perceive the world of universals where Truth, Beauty, and Goodness resided. Through his method of questioning, Socrates would gradually peel away layer after layer of false views until Truth was revealed. The good person's duty, Socrates believed, was not to win an argument but to pursue this higher Truth. Socrates and Plato distrusted professional rhetoricians because these professionals were interested only in the power and wealth that came from persuading audiences to the orator's views. In contrast, Plato's pupil Aristotle maintained Plato's commitment to ethical living but valued rhetoric as a way of reaching conclusions or what he called "probable truth" in the realm of everyday living—the best answers available to people who were willing to think deeply and argue reasonably about a problem. Aristotle taught rhetoric and argument as collective inquiry in search of new understanding—probable truths and best solutions supported persuasively by reasons and evidence that could be shared and agreed upon. Let's apply these perspectives to a modern example. Suppose your community is divided over the issue of raising environmental standards versus keeping open a job-producing factory that doesn't meet new guidelines for waste discharge. In a dispute between jobs and the environment, which is the best course? The Sophists would train you to argue any side of this issue on behalf of any lobbying group willing to pay for your services. This relativism and willingness to manipulate language led over time to the term sophistry being associated with trickery in argument. If, however, you applied Aristotle's practical concern for "probable truth," you would be inspired to listen to all sides of the dispute, peel away unsatisfactory arguments through reasonable inquiry, and commit yourself to a course of action that you have come to believe is the best for as many stakeholders as possible. In sum, Plato was concerned with absolute truths residing in the spiritual world of forms, while Aristotle valued rhetoric's focus on probable truths in our messy human world. Aristotle's view is thus close to that expressed by Al Gore at the beginning of this chapter. Aristotle and Gore would agree that truth—the search for best solutions—is messy and complicated and needs to be negotiated in an ongoing spirit of argument. Every day we face complex questions with multiple stakeholders. Do sanctuary cities make citizens safer, as many sheriffs and police departments argue, or do they shelter criminals and endanger citizens, as some people contend? Should all controversial speakers be allowed to speak on college campuses, or should universities carefully monitor and restrict these public forums? There are no simple or clear-cut answers to these questions, but one thing is certain: People can't carry on productive argument if they retreat to siloed echo chambers where they encounter only those views with which they already agree. Daniel the neat freak has to encounter Avery the slob; otherwise, no growth is possible. Argument works only if we are willing to question and clarify our own positions and engage in dialogue with those stakeholders with whom we disagree.  13  14 Chapter 1 This truth-seeking approach to argument helps us combat various traps that we may fall into. A first trap is that we might become intellectually lazy, failing to question easily found or sensationalist information and views. We might succumb to "desirability bias"2–the tendency to accept information that "we want to believe." Or we might cling to what political scientist Morgan Marietti calls "sacred values"3—religious or secular beliefs that are so central to our worldviews and identities that we accept them as absolute, unquestionable, and inviolable. For example, for some persons a woman's right to control her own body is a sacred value; for others, an unborn fetus's right to life is a sacred value. Because we hesitate to question our sacred values, our emotional adherence to them can create a network of beliefs that interpret the world for us. Emerging from our own siloed echo chambers is the best way to seek a shareable reality in what otherwise might seem a post-truth world. However, as we have seen, truth-seeking takes intellectual work and ethical commitment. To restore the value of argument as truth-seeking, we must accept the world as pluralistic, recognizing that others may not value what we value. If we accept this pluralistic view of the world, do we then endorse the ­Sophists' radical relativism, freeing us to argue any side of any issue? Or do we doggedly pursue some modern equivalent of Aristotle's "probable truth"? If your own sympathies are with argument as truth-seeking, then you must admit to a view of truth that is tentative, cautious, and conflicted, and you must embrace argument as process. In the 21st century, truth-seeking does not mean finding the "right answer" to a disputed question, but neither does it mean a valueless relativism in which all answers are equally good. Seeking truth means taking responsibility for determining the "best answer" or "best solution" to the question; it means considering the good of the entire community when taking into consideration the interests of all stakeholders. It means making hard decisions in the face of uncertainty. Viewed in this way, argument cannot "prove" your claim, but only make a reasonable case for it. Even though argument can't provide certainty, learning to argue effectively has deep value for society and democracy: It helps communities settle conflicts in a rational and humane way by finding, through the exchange of ideas, the best solutions to problems without resorting to violence.  For Writing and Discussion Role-Playing Arguments On any given day, the media provide evidence of the complexity of living in a pluralistic culture. Issues that could be readily decided in a completely homogeneous culture raise questions in a society that has fewer shared assumptions. Choose one of the following cases as the subject for a "simulation game" in which class members present the points of view of the people involved.  2 Ben Tappin, Leslie van der Leer, and Ryan McKay define "desirability bias" in their op-ed piece, "Your Opinion Is Set in Stone." The New York Times, May 28, 2017, SR 8. 3 Morgan Marietta, "From My Cold, Dead Hands: Democratic Consequences of Sacred Rhetoric." The Journal of Politics Vol. 70, No. 3, July 2008.  Argument: An Introduction  15  Case 1 : Political Asylum for a German Family Seeking the Right to H ­ omeschool Their Children In 2010 an Evangelical Christian family from Germany, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their five children, moved to the United States seeking asylum from political persecution. At the U.S. immigration hearings, the couple argued that if they remained in Germany their decision to homeschool their children would result in fines, possible arrest, and even forced separation from their children. German law forbids homeschooling on the grounds that failure to attend recognized schools will create "parallel societies" whose members will fail to integrate into Germany's open and pluralistic culture. In early 2011, a U.S. federal immigration judge granted political asylum to the family, denouncing the German government's policy against homeschooling. He called it "utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans." However, in 2013 the Sixth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the original decision and revoked the family's status as political refugees. Stating that the United States cannot give political asylum to every victim of perceived unfairness in another country's laws, the court declared that Germany's ban on homeschooling did not constitute political persecution. The decision led to international debate about the role of homeschooling in a pluralistic society and about the definition of political persecution. In the United States, the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association urged that the case be heard by the United States Supreme Court and sponsored a petition drive supporting the Romeike family.  Your task: Imagine a public hearing on this issue where all stakeholders are invited to present their points of view. The U.S. Immigration website offers the following definition of refugee status: Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.  Your goal isn't to make your own decision about this case but rather to bring to imaginative life all the viewpoints on the controversy. Hold a mock public hearing in which classmates play the following roles: (a) A U.S. parent advocating homeschooling; (b) a U.S. teacher's union representative opposing homeschooling; (c) an attorney arguing that the Romeike family meets the criteria for "refugee status"; (d) an attorney arguing that the Romeike family does not meet the criteria for refugee status; (e) a German citizen supporting the German law against homeschooling; (f) a Romeike parent arguing that the family would be persecuted if the family returned to Germany; (g) other roles that are relevant to this case. Case 2 : HPV Vaccines for Sixth Grade Girls (and Boys) In 2007 the pharmaceutical company Merck developed a vaccine against the sexually transmitted HPV virus (human papillomavirus), some strains of which can cause cervical cancer as well as genital warts. The company launched an extensive television campaign promoting the vaccine (which would bring substantial profits to Merck) and advised that girls should get the vaccine before they reach puberty. Following recommendations from doctors and medical researchers, several states passed laws mandating that the HPV vaccine for girls be included among the other vaccinations required of all children for entry into the sixth or seventh grades (depending on the state). These laws sparked public debate about the bene­ fits versus potential adverse effects of vaccines, and about the state's versus parents' role in determining what vaccines a child should get. (continued)  16 Chapter 1 Your task: Imagine a public hearing addressing what your state's laws should be concerning HPV vaccinations for prepubescent children. Your goal isn't to make your own decision about this case but rather to bring to imaginative life all the viewpoints in the controversy. Hold a mock hearing in which classmates play the following roles: (a) a cancer specialist who supports mandatory HPV vaccination for girls; (b) a public health specialist who supports expanding the requirement to include boys; (c) a skeptical person concerned about the potential adverse effects of vaccines in general; (d) a religiously conservative parent who believes in abstinence and monogamy and opposes the cultural message of the HPV vaccination.  Conclusion In this chapter we explored the complexities of argument, showing that argument is not a fight or win-lose debate but rather a process of rational inquiry in search of the best solution to a problem shared by stakeholders. Good argument requires justification of its claim, is both a process and product, and combines truth-­seeking with persuasion. We also showed that argument does not seek absolute truth (in Plato's and Socrates' sense) but messy probable truth (in Aristotle's sense). The best defense against the post-truth doubts that make argument impossible is to emerge from siloed echo chambers in order to seek views different from your own, and to treat these views respectfully. Although like the Sophists you can use the skills of argument to support any side of any issue, we hope you won't. We hope that, like Aristotle, you will use argument for inquiry and discovery and that you will consequently find yourself, on at least some occasions, changing your position on an issue while writing a rough draft (a sure sign that the process of arguing has complicated your views). At the deepest level, we believe that the skills of reason and inquiry developed through writing arguments can help you get a clearer sense of who you are. If our culture sets you adrift in pluralism, argument can help you take a stand, based on truth-seeking, listening, and reasoning. In this text we will not tell you what position to take on any given issue. But as a responsible being, you will often need to take a stand, to define yourself, to say, "Here are the reasons that choice A is better than choice B, not just for me but for you also." If this text helps you base your commitments and actions on reasonable grounds, then it will be successful.  Chapter 2  The Core of an Argument A Claim with Reasons Learning Objectives In this chapter you will learn to: 2.1 Describe the key elements of classical argument. 2.2 Explain the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos. 2.3 Distinguish between issue and information questions and  between genuine and pseudo-arguments.  2.4 Describe the basic frame of an argument. In Chapter 1 we explained that argument is best viewed not as a quarrel or as a pro-con debate, but rather as a conversation of reasonable stakeholders seeking the best solution to a shared problem or issue. As a conversation of stakeholders, argument is both a process and a product. The rest of Part One provides an overview of the parts of an argument along with the general principles that make arguments effective. This chapter focuses on the core of an argument, which is a structure of claim, reasons, and evidence. The remaining chapters of Part One cover the same territory with more elaboration and detail.  The Classical Structure of Argument 2.1  Describe the key elements of classical argument.  The core of an argument can best be understood by connecting it to the ancient pattern of classical argument revealed in the persuasive speeches of ancient Greek and Roman orators. Formalized by the Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian, the parts of the argument speech even had special names: the exordium, in which the speaker gets the audience's attention; the narratio, which provides needed background; the propositio, which is the speaker's claim or thesis; the partitio,  17  18 Chapter 2 which forecasts the main parts of the speech; the confirmatio, which presents the speaker's arguments supporting the claim; the confutatio, which summarizes and rebuts opposing views; and the peroratio, which concludes the speech by summing up the argument, calling for action, and leaving a strong, lasting impression. (Of course, you don't need to remember these tongue-twisting Latin terms. We cite them only to assure you that in writing a classical argument, you are joining a time-honored tradition that links back to the origins of democracy.) Let's go over the same territory again using more contemporary terms.­ ­Figure 2.1 provides an organization plan showing the structure of a classical argument, which typically includes these sections: • The introduction. Writers of classical argument typically begin by connecting the audience to the issue by showing how it arises out of a current event or by using an illustrative story, memorable scene, or startling statistic—something that grabs the audience's attention. They continue the introduction by focusing the issue—often by stating it directly as a question or by briefly  Figure 2.1 Organization plan for an argument with classical structure Organization Plan for an Argument with a Classical Structure • Attention grabber (often a memorable scene)  • Exordium • Narratio • Propositio  Introduction (one to several paragraphs)  • Explanation of issue and needed background • Writer's thesis (claim) • Forecasting passage  • Partitio  • Main body of essay  • Confirmatio  Presentation of writer's position  • Presents and supports each reason in turn  Summary of opposing views  • Summary of views differing from writer's (should be fair and complete)  • Confutatio  • Each reason is tied to a value or belief held by the audience  • Refutes or concedes to opposing views  Response to opposing views  • Shows weaknesses in opposing views • May concede to some strengths  • Brings essay to closure • Often sums up argument  • Peroratio  Conclusion  • Leaves strong last impression • Often calls for action or relates topic to a larger context of issues  The Core of an Argument  summarizing opposing views—and providing needed background and context. They conclude the introduction by presenting their claim (thesis statement) and forecasting the argument's structure. • The presentation of the writer's position. The presentation of the writer's own position is usually the longest part of a classical argument. Here writers ­present the reasons and evidence supporting their claims, typically choosing reasons that tie into their audience's values, beliefs, and assumptions. Usually each reason is developed in its own paragraph or sequence of paragraphs. When a paragraph introduces a new reason, writers state the reason directly and then support it with evidence or a chain of ideas. Along the way, writers guide their readers with appropriate transitions. • The summary and critique of alternative views. When summarizing and responding to opposing views, writers have several options. If there are several opposing arguments, writers may summarize all of them together and then compose a single response, or they may summarize and respond to each argument in turn. As we explain in Chapter 6, writers may respond to opposing views either by refuting them or by conceding to their strengths and shifting to a different field of values. • The conclusion. Finally, in their conclusion, writers sum up their argument, often restating the stakes in the argument and calling for some kind of action, thereby creating a sense of closure and leaving a strong final impression. In this organization, the body of a classical argument has two major s­ ections—one presenting the writer's own position and the other summarizing and responding to alternative views. The organization plan in Figure 2.1, and the discussion that follows, have the writer's own position coming first, but it is possible to reverse that order. For all its strengths, an argument with a classical structure may not always be your most persuasive strategy. In some cases, you may be more effective by delaying your thesis, by ignoring alternative views altogether, or by showing great sympathy for opposing views (see Chapter 6). In some cases, in fact, it may be better to abandon argument altogether and simply enter into a empathic conversation with others to bridge the gaps between opposing points of view (see Chapter 10 on collaborative rhetoric as an alternative to classical argument). In most cases, however, the classical structure is a useful planning tool. By calling for a thesis statement and a forecasting statement in the introduction, it helps you see the whole of your argument in miniature. And by requiring you to summarize and consider opposing views, the classical structure alerts you to the limits of your position and to the need for further reasons and evidence. As we will show, the classical structure is particularly persuasive when you address a neutral or undecided audience.  Classical Appeals and the Rhetorical Triangle 2.2  Explain the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.  Besides developing a template or structure for an argument, classical rhetoricians analyzed the ways that effective speeches persuaded their audiences. They identified three kinds of persuasive appeals, which they called logos, ethos, and  19  20 Chapter 2  Figure 2.2 The rhetorical triangle Message LOGOS: How can I make the argument internally consistent and logical? How can I find the best reasons and support them with the best evidence?  Audience PATHOS: How can I make the reader open to my message? How can I best appeal to my reader's values and interests? How can I engage my reader emotionally and imaginatively?  Writer or Speaker ETHOS: How can I present myself effectively? How can I enhance my credibility and trustworthiness?  pathos. These appeals can be understood within a rhetorical context illustrated by a triangle with points labeled message, writer or speaker, and audience (Figure 2.2). Effective arguments pay attention to all three points on this rhetorical triangle. As Figure 2.2 shows, each point on the triangle corresponds to one of the three persuasive appeals: • Logos (Greek for "word") focuses attention on the quality of the message— that is, on the internal consistency and clarity of the argument itself and on the logic of its reasons and support. The impact of logos on an audience is referred to as its logical appeal. • Ethos (Greek for "character") focuses attention on the writer's (or speaker's) character as it is projected in the message. It refers to the writer's c­ redibility. Ethos is often conveyed through the writer's investment in his or her claim; through the fairness with which the writer considers alternative views; through the tone and style of the message; and even through the message's professional appearance on paper or screen, including correct grammar, flawless proofreading, and appropriate formats for citations and bibliography. In some cases, ethos is also a function of the writer's reputation for honesty and expertise independent of the message. The impact of ethos on an audience is

Writing Arguments A Rhetoric With Readings 11th Edition

Source: https://fr.b-ok.as/book/4979099/6519a6

Posted by: smithsuand1943.blogspot.com

Share this post