Home

Introduction
  One of Those
   Days

Chapter 1
  Introduction to the Program

Chapter 2
  Teaching in the Program

Chapter 3
  Teaching 1301

Chapter 4
  Teaching 1302

Chapter 5
  Evaluating
    Writing

Addendum I
   ESL Issues

Addendum II
   Computers and
   Writing

Addendum III
   Academic
   Integrity

Syllabus Templates
  1301  1302

Editing Credits

Downloadable Formats
   PDF Format
   Word Format

<<<   >>>

chapter 4 section b

B. Teaching Toulmin, Claims, Proofs, and Fallacies

B1. Aristotle’s Means of Persuasion

1. Ethos—establishing personal credibility by:

a. being knowledgeable about the topic at hand

b. establishing common ground with the audience, by respecting differing views

c. demonstrating fairness and even-handedness

2. Pathos—enlisting the audience’s emotional support through:

a. description

b. concrete language

c. figurative language (metaphors, analogies, etc.)

d. appeal shaped to the audience

3. Logos—appealing to logic through:

a. examples and precedents

b. authority and testimony

c. cause and effect

d. inductive and deductive reasoning

B2. Five-Part Classical Speech

The parts of a classical speech can be adapted to written argument. (NOTE: this is NOT the 5-paragraph theme)

1. Introduction

a. gains audience’s attention and interest

b. establishes your qualifications to speak about your topic

c. establishes common ground with audiences

d. demonstrates fairness

e. states or implies your thesis

2. Background

a. establishes the reasons for speaking

b. gives necessary background information to begin the argument

3. Lines of argument

a. presents logical, ethical, and emotional reasons to support thesis

b. presents reasons in order of importance (from least to most)

c. demonstrates ways your argument is in the audience’s best interests

4. Refutation of opposing arguments

a. considers opposing points of view

b. notes both advantages and disadvantages of opposing views

5. Conclusion

a. summarizes the argument

b. elaborates on the implications of your thesis

c. makes clear what you want readers to think or do

d. makes a strong ethical or emotional appeal

B3. Exam on Argument Theory: Applications / Analyses

Note to instructors: Substitute whatever short essays or articles you desire for those listed in the exam questions below.

This part of the exam is worth the bulk of your grade, so do it carefully and thoroughly. We’ve been doing these types of things all semester, so these questions shouldn’t be new to you. Remember that in the case of the proof and claims analyses a line or two justifying your choices can only help you. If you can persuade me that your interpretation is a valid one, I will give you the points. I am much more likely to be persuaded if I know where you’re coming from. Keep that in mind.

1. Your first task is to take the article/essay entitled and generate a Toulmin model from it. Read the article / essay all the way through, and then find the claims. Focus on the main claim as a whole, if you’d like.

2. Read the article and analyze it in terms of the 5 types of claims. That is, find at least one example of each of the 5 types in the article. You may simply mark them in the article and label them, and provide your explanations in the margins.

3. Read the essay called and analyze it with respect to proofs. Show me one example of ethos, one example of pathos, and several examples of logos. You are required to give demonstrations of 5 of the 7 types of logical proofs (SICDADS) in order to receive full points for this part of the exam, not all seven. You may do more than five, but you will not receive extra credit for doing so—you may want to err on the side of caution, though. If you do six, and one of them is wrong, I will still give you full credit for the five that are right.

Good luck on this. When you are finished, turn in your work—make sure your name is on all sheets.

—Collin Brooke

B4. Using Music and Film to Teach Toulmin, etc.

As a conclusion to the time students spend analyzing arguments in print (articles, essays, advertisements, and so on), I spend a week devoted to argument in the media. One class period is spent on music and two on television.

Music : On day one, I provide students with argumentative songs lyrics to three or four songs and bring a CD / tapeplayer to listen to the music. (Sting, Tracy Chapman, Pink Floyd and Bob Marley are just a few possibilities.) I also invite them to find and bring in their own lyrics that present arguments. In groups, students examine one song by completing a Toulmin and / or proofs analysis (ethos, pathos, logos). They are then directed to consider the following questions: How do the rhythm, tone, beat, and color of the music affect the lyrics. What might have motivated the artist to produce such a song? What are some examples of songs that do not present arguments? We also talk about the fact that many times we are attracted to the music of a song and often do not notice or even understand the lyrics. Is that a good or bad thing?

Television : I tape a TV show and bring the video to school for the class to watch. (I find Chicago Hope to be good since it is highly political and contains at least three or four arguments per episode.) On day two, while watching the tape, students are asked to identify the major story lines. On day three, students run through the various narratives, recalling the events of the TV show. In groups, they decide which of the storylines addressed controversial issues and current arguments. What is the claim of the argument? How is it supported? This is a good exercise because it allows students to analyze arguments interactively, not just through written papers or class presentations. We also talk about the fact that we may not consciously recognize some TV arguments (these claims may, however, affect our perceptions of the world at a subliminal level). What is the effect of not noticing certain argumentative claims?

I end the “Media Arguments” week with a freewriting and discussion session concerning the potential benefits and abuses of “technologized” argumentation.

—Beth Brunk

B5. Warrants

Warrants tend to be the most difficult element of the Toulmin Model to understand and identify. This is in part due to the fact that warrants are many and varied within every argument depending upon the writer and his or her audience.

Remember, warrants are those assumptions, opinions, and / or biases in an audience’s mind that the speaker / writer knows (consciously or unconsciously) can be used as a foundation for a line of reasoning. Warrants connect the grounds to the claim and are often unstated.

They originate with the writer of the argument, but they also exist in the minds of the listeners. Ask yourself, “What is it that allows me to make the logical jump from the grounds to the claim, or what is it I have to believe that would make the argument true?” If you do not believe the assumptions of the author, the argument will fail to convince you.

Think about what a “warranty” is—it is a guarantee that something will work. In your groups, identify the warrant(s) for the following claims and grounds:

C= No monsters are civilized.
G= Monsters don’t wear tuxedos.
W=

C= Cats should be taken out and shot.
G= Cats are stupid lazy animals.
W=

C= Mary’s grades are the pits
G= Mary doesn’t spend any time studying.
W=

C= Logic should be abolished
G= Logic interferes with the pleasures of football.
W=

(Make up your own that are relevant to your class)

B6. Fallacy Exercise: Editorial Wednesday

When asked at the end of the semester what is the most valuable aspect of 1302, the majority of students state that learning to recognize fallacies is the most valuable. For myself, learning fallacies wasn’t easy, since I had never taken an undergraduate argumentative writing course. Therefore, teacher and student learned together during my first 1302 semester, although they didn’t know that fact! To facilitate teaching fallacies to my students, I use Editorial Wednesday. (Though most of our argument texts, as well as the Troyka handbook, define and give examples of some fallacies, I use the longer section on fallacies in Barnett and Bedeau’s Current Issues, Enduring Questions, which I photocopy for students to purchase if I am not using the text itself in the course.)

My first mistake about fallacies (or pseudo claims) was to treat them as though they were a one-time theoretical application that I could wait to introduce during the second half of the semester—“Here it is; do a quick hands-on diddy”—and then stop discussing them (i.e., using them). A much better approach is to introduce fallacies by the 4th week and keep adding new ones to the curriculum via assigned editorials to detect them. (During week 5, have students locate advertisements with obvious fallacies, e.g., false needs, bandwagon appeal, and stacked evidence). By week 6, students feel more confident with their recognition skills.

Editorial Wednesday requires that on Monday you assign an editorial by Molly Ivins (or whomever) from the Tuesday Fort Worth Star-Telegram for class discussion on Wednesday. Students should come prepared to discuss fallacies and back up their reasons for identifying statements as particular fallacies (if someone has trouble, I ask a volunteer to define a particular fallacy for clarity). Although most journalists / editors avoid blatant use of fallacies, detection becomes more obvious to the trained student. Therefore self-preparation is the key to this activity. Within a few weeks, watch how students take over the discussion and readily debate among themselves. (Initially, I draw names to avoid looking like I am “picking” on the quiet ones so that everyone can get a chance to “teach.”) At this stage you can incorporate other strategies via questions such as: what is the claim? what type of claim is it? who is the audience? where would Rogerian theory help? what type of proof is dominant; where is the backing? Fallacy work makes students not only shrewder readers but also more intelligent writers and reviewers of their own work. —D. Lynn Atkinson

B7. Debate: Toulmin / Logos-Ethos-Pathos / Proofs (SICDADS)

Debate is a useful way for getting students involved in argumentation through friendly competition. The topic to be debated should be something nonthreatening but fun and engaging such as, “Which makes a better pet, a cat or a dog?” Debate can be set up as follows:

1. Have your students freewrite their position (either pro-cat or pro-dog) for 10 minutes.

2. Divide into three groups: a pro-cat group, a pro-dog group, and a neutral group that will serve as judges for the debate.

3. The neutral group should begin discussing and projecting the debate, and developing guidelines for judging. Consider these tools: Toulmin and Logos / Ethos / Pathos, and whether they have been used effectively. Someone in this group will need to be timekeeper for the debaters.

4. Once in their pro-cat or pro-dog groups, have the students divide their tasks like this: Three presenters, one for introduction of the argument (about four minutes), one for rebuttal (about two minutes), and one for conclusion (about two minutes). Supporting staff, who will keep time and make records for the three presenters.

5. Debate.

6. Judges return their decision by popular vote of the neutral group and based upon their criteria.

7. Follow up the debate with a general class discussion of the judge’s decision and the debate tactics. Dissect the debate using Toulmin and Aristotle’s Logos / Ethos / Pathos.

In another class period the cat / dog debate can be used to teach claims / grounds / warrants and types of proofs. Here are some examples:

Dogs and Cats and Proofs (using SICDADS)

SIGN:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: Dogs bark to protect you.
Warrant: Barking is a sign of protection.

INDUCTION:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats because dogs can be trained.
Support: Fred, the dog, is trained. Joe, the dog, is trained. Ginger, the dog, is trained.
Warrant: There are enough examples in the support for you to believe the claim.

CAUSE:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: Dogs have been more carefully bred than cats.
Warrant: Breeding causes better characteristics in animals.

DEDUCTION:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: Dogs are friendly.
Warrant: Friendly animals make better pets.

ANALOGY / Literal:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats because you can’t trust cats.
Support: Cats, like tigers, attack people.
Warrant: Cats are like tigers.

ANALOGY / Figurative:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: A dog is your best friend.
Warrant: All the ways dogs are similar to best friends.

ANALOGY / Historical:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats because cats carry pestilence.
Support: In 1912, pestilence carried by cats destroyed Dogville.
Warrant: What happened in 1912 could happen again.

DEFINITION:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats because dogs are friendly.
Support: Friendliness is companionship.
Warrant: Dogs provide companionship.

STATISTICS:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: 99 out of 100 vets say dogs are better than cats.
Warrant: The statistics prove the claim.

MOTIVATION:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: You can walk a dog.
Warrant: You need an animal you can walk.
Backing: This will allow you to get exercise.

VALUE:

Claim: Dogs are better than cats.
Support: Dogs are cuter.
Warrant: You value an animal that is cute.

—Jacque Lambiase and Barbara Chiarello

B8. The Burden of the Proofs

Some of the most important concepts in argumentative writing are the proofs: ethos, pathos, and logos. Yet there are two big mistakes that we teachers often make when covering these concepts:

The first mistake is to “cover and run,” where you cover the material, and then run to the next unit. This is an easy mistake to make. In comparison to the Toulmin model, rhetorical situation, and Rogerian rhetoric, the proofs are relatively straightforward. This is good, because it allows students to quickly grasp a major rhetorical foundation. However, students need enough time to critically examine a number of different texts in terms of ethos, pathos, and logos. (More on this in the assignment below.)

The second mistake is to shortchange ethos and pathos in favor of logos. If you take a look at persuasive writing in the real world—advertisements, political speeches, resumes, proposals—you’ll notice that logos is rarely the predominant mode of proof. Remember the “Wazzup!” commercials? The Gap dancing ads? The Sally Struthers ads with pictures of starving children? All these arguments heavily rely on pathos. Likewise, political speeches, resumes, and proposals would not get very far without good ethos—even if their arguments contained no logical fallacies. (Just think of the 2000 presidential election! We heard about Gore’s garish make-up, Nader’s cheap suits, Bush’s drunk-driving arrest, Lieberman’s religious habits, Gore’s lying habit, etc.)

With these things in mind, I offer the assignment in handout form on p. 90. This was designed to work in a computer classroom. The best websites to use are usually policy related—e.g., Greenpeace, NOW, NAACP, etc. Go to <http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/ Issues_and_Causes> for a list of such websites. Students usually find a mix of “good” and “awful” sites to analyze, which is perfect. To be thorough, this assignment takes at least a week to complete (for a MWF class).

—Jenny Edbauer

B9. Handouts for Teaching Toulmin, Claims, Proofs, and Fallacies

In-Class Writing Assignment: Proof Analysis of Policy Websites

I’d like you to analyze three policy related websites using the proofs as a guide. Be prepared to show the class what you found next time! Write in response to the following questions:

• What major arguments are these sites making? Do they want you to buy something? Join their organizations? Agree with them? Change your mind about a certain topic? Something else…?

• In your reasoned opinion, how do they visually establish good (or bad) ethos? What kinds of pictures—if any—do they have? Do the sites look professional? Are they easy to use?

• What kinds of links do they have? How do these links help to establish their ethos? Do their links hurt their ethos? (Think about broken links and links to non-credible sources…)

• How do these sites rely on pathos?

5. What kinds of logos, or logical support, do these site use? Do they use statistics? Studies? Identify any logical fallacies you find.

Induction and Deduction

Induction and deduction can be confusing because they are two sides of the same coin and can be very similar to the use of analogies; however, consciously-used induction and deduction increase the logical surety of your argument and, therefore, are worth the time spent getting them straight.

Let’s take the example of capital punishment. Imagine you are a lawyer. You have just been assigned to a client who has already been found guilty of a heinous murder. You feel your client is innocent, and want to stay the execution so you will have time to do more research and prepare an appeal. Your claim is, “Executing John Doe now would be unjust.”

Now, you could just make this argument through an analogy. For instance: “John Doe’s case is just like the case of Jack Doe. After Jack’s execution, DNA evidence proved he was innocent. We should not allow the same thing to happen to John Doe.”

This is a literal analogy. For it to be persuasive, the audience has to accept that the two cases are similar enough to warrant the analogy. Focusing on one bad use of the death penalty will probably generate pathos (make them feel the injustice), but it does not seem very “scientific.” So, in order to provide more support, it is probably worthwhile to also perform some induction and deduction.

The purpose of induction is to establish a principle or general claim using many specific examples. In this case, you might want to get your audience to accept, beyond just the case of Jack Doe, “DNA evidence is proving, in a general, widespread fashion, that the death penalty is being unjustly used.” So you don’t just speak about the case of Jack Doe; you gather hundreds of examples or find a reputable study that has already compiled statistics that support this general claim. Induction requires many examples because you are trying to prove something general. Just because Jack Doe was wrongly put to death doesn’t mean it is a common problem. That is why medical and social studies must have many “subjects” in their study for the study to be persuasive.

Once you have established that “the death penalty is commonly used unjustly” through induction, you will now want to use this general principle as a warranting assumption for your specific claim that “executing John Doe now would be unjust.” This is deduction, and it requires support that shows your client fits into this category. If your warranting principle is sound, and it truly applies to your specific case, you have a good chance of persuading an audience willing to listen to reason. You must support this by showing that John Doe’s execution would fit in this category of unjust executions; you could say that John Doe’s previous lawyer did not have access to DNA tests, and it would be a travesty to use the ultimate punishment without bringing in this evidence and making sure. Notice how this seems much more logically substantial than the analogy.

Remember: In induction, your claim is more general than your supports; in deduction, your claim is more specific than your warranting principle and your support must show your principle applies in this case.

Literal analogy is faster than going through the process of induction and deduction. It is great for moving the audience; however, it does not work well with skeptics and logicians, who can just argue that the cases are too different to compare. So, to come closer to really proving something, you may have to resort to the more difficult process of induction and deduction.

Induction

Deduction

--Matt Levy

Worksheet for Using Deduction and Induction to Argue Your Issue

1. Determine whether your argument requires induction or deduction.

• State your claim:
• Does your claim make a specific assertion that you will warrant with a general principle? (Example Claim: We should ban the game “Mortal Combat.”) If so, jump to #2.
• Is your claim a general assertion that requires many specific supports? (Example Claim: Violent video games lead to violence in schools.) If so, jump to #3.

2. Deduction

• What warranting principle will you try to use to argue your specific claim?
• Will your audience already believe your principle is true? If not, you will also want to do #3, to back your principle with induction.
• Does your principle truly apply to your claim? How will you argue that your claim fits into the category created by your principle? (Ex: If your claim is that civil unions between same-sex couples should be legal and your warranting principle is the separation of church and state, you have to demonstrate to your audience that this is an example where the separation of church and state applies.)

3. Induction

• State the general principle you are claiming:
• To support a general principle, you need many specific examples. List several examples you can use. (As you continue your research, you should also look for statistical support from large, credible studies.):
• Are you making such a broad generalization that you could never adequately support it? If necessary, narrow your claim or restate it in a more subtle or “qualified” way, using words like “many,” “usually,” “often,” “rarely,” etc.

--Matt Levy

Claims, Proofs and Fallacies in “What is Feminism Becoming?”

Read the entire column before continuing the exercise:

“What is feminism becoming? No matter what, men and women will always be different”

By Jessica Smith , journalism senior and The Shorthorn opinion editor.

Feminism is defined as “the principle that women should have political, economic and social rights equal to those of men.” Maybe that was the definition when the feminist movement began but now that definition has changed for the worse.

Now, the feminist doctrine that is employed by groups like the National Organization for Women advocates the notion that women and men are the same with respect to their roles and responsibilities. Feminism has resulted in women and men taking over each other’s roles to the point that the only way women can distinguish themselves is through their bodies by way of provocative clothing and increased promiscuity.

March is Women’s History Month and part of that history includes the feminist movement, which has caused the death of femininity by feminism.

Women do not seem to want to act like women except in the way they often bare their bodies with provocative clothing — or perhaps they are discouraged from doing so. One of the reasons for this is Hollywood , where female entertainers often earn praise or at least more publicity by baring all or a lot more than normal. Britney Spears is a good example of this. However, Hollywood should not be blamed entirely.

The feminist education women often receive make them view men and women not just as equal human beings but as identical human beings. There is a difference. For example, according to the feminist doctrine, husbands and wives have the same responsibility, i.e. there is no distinction between mothers and fathers.

The role of the mother as it used to be viewed is now obsolete. In fact, mothers are no longer necessary under the doctrine because of the increasingly accepted view that two fathers or mothers are just as acceptable for a child as a mother and a father. However, for a lot of women, even the idea of marriage, motherhood and children is not a desirable option, further reducing the ways women can express their femininity.

Other feminine roles have been reduced as well, making women feel powerless. It seems like the only way for them to gain power is through sex. For example, at Harvard University , a new magazine, whose creators are female, will feature Harvard women posing nude. Why would women at one of the most prestigious universities in the world and who presumably have everything going for them want to pose nude? Because it is the only way they can distinguish themselves from men. They cannot do that through their education and career because a man can do the same thing.

Another way women expressed their femininity was through sexual reticence, but that would be a ridiculous notion in the eyes of many now. The majority of men would probably laugh at the idea of a man having to earn access to a women’s body. But this reinforced the fact that women are different from men. Nowadays, women who act as sexually active as men are not viewed as female, but male-like. This disgusts me because it shows these women have little to no self-respect and that men do not view women as women as well.

Further, most of the clothes women wear now are the sexually provocative clothes that are sadly one of the only ways women can express the fact that they are female.

It saddens me when I see women in these sorts of clothes and I often wonder why they would bare themselves like this when there is no reason to. However, I also wonder if the women who wear these clothes know why. It is more difficult to maintain any modesty when more and more women’s clothing exposes part of the cleavage or butt.

This is the result of the feminist movement in part, but it is not entirely to blame. Women need to realize that while wearing provocative clothing is going to attract a man, the man is only going to see the woman as a potential sex partner, not as someone he may marry someday.

Feminists have sought to destroy the concept of femininity because it runs counter to their belief that men and women are identical human beings when they are not. Unfortunately, they have succeeded but we can still reverse this. Women need to return to the things that distinguished them before — such as motherhood — and stop flaunting their bodies and sexuality.

Read the entire editorial column (argument), and complete the following.

1. What is Smith’s predominant claim, which the entire article supports? What are Smith’s sub-claims (literal and inferred)? List them by type:

Fact:

Cause:

Value:

Policy:

Definition:

3. List where Smith uses Logos (appeals to logic) (literal and inferred) by type:

Sign:

Induction:

Cause/Effect:

Deduction:

Analogy: Literal:

Figurative:

Historical:

Definition:

Statistics:

4. List where Smith uses Pathos (emotional appeal) (literal or inferred):

5. List where Smith uses Ethos to make her support credible:

6. How does Smith establish Ethos as a writer?

7. Does Smith have any fallacies affecting Logos? List by type:

• Begging the Question:

• Red Herring:

• Non Sequitor:

• Straw Man:

• Stacked Evidence:

• Either-Or:

• Post Hoc:

• Hasty Generalization:

• Does Smith have any fallacies affecting Ethos? List them by type:

• Ad Hominem:

• Guilt by Association:

• Using Authority Instead of Evidence:

• Does Smith have any fallacies affecting Pathos? List them by type:

• Bandwagon Appeal:

• Slippery Slope:

• Creating False Needs:

--Heather Levy

<<<   >>>