Class – Wednesday, March 9, 2011
1. Roll
2. Questions on BA6? Look at pgs. 670-672 for further discussion.
3. Review Ch. 5 and 6 Readings –
· First-year Writing Textbook: Chapter 5, pgs. 153-166
· Chapter 6 pp.169‐197
Review terms:
rhetoric – Aristotle’s definition: using the available means of persuasion
ideology – coherent set of beliefs people use to understand events and the behavior of other people. Words about ideas
argument (and researched argument)
ethos – appeal to character
pathos- appeal to emotion
logos – appeal to reason
analogy – puts one hypothetical example forth for comparison to another example; professional wrestling is to athletic competition as Crossfire is to debate
metaphor – A figure of speech in which an implicit comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common. “The assignment was a breeze.",
simile – uses like or as
maxims – wise sayings or proverbs
theoretical framework – structure of theories
proposition – any arguable statement put forward by a rhetor
premises- a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
commonplaces – ideas commonly believed in by members of a community
probabilities – any kind of statements that predicts something about human behavior; not as reliable as certainties; “A small weak person will not physically attack a large strong person”
logical proof - An argument based on inductive or deductive reasoning.
reasoning – “a discussion in which certain things have been lead down, and something other than these things necessarily results through them” – Aristotle; All people are mortal, I am a person, therefore I am mortal. Major, minor, conclusion – Pg 175
deductive reasoning- . A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences.
1. All men are mortal. (premise)
2. Socrates was a man. (premise)
3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
inductive reasoning - An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
syllogism - A syllogism or logical appeal is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form, i.e. categorical proposition.
enthymeme (EN-thuh-meme): A figure of reasoning in which one or more statements of a syllogism (a three-pronged deductive argument) is/are left out of the configuration; an abbreviated syllogism or truncated deductive argument in which one or more premises, or, the conclusion is/are omitted. There are various kinds of syllogisms and the formal treatment of them is rather technical. However, all syllogisms are similar in that they contain at least three statements -- two premises followed by a conclusion.
Ex1: - All humans are mortal. (major premise)
- Michael is human. (minor premise)
- Michael is mortal. (conclusion)
The syllogism above would be rendered an enthymeme simply by maintaining that "Michael is mortal because he's human" (leaving out the major premise). Or put differently, "Since all humans are mortal, Michael is therefore mortal" (leaving out the minor premise). Statements may be strategically excluded in an enthymeme because they are too obvious or because revealing them might damage the force of the argument. Yet another reason to excluded a premise or conclusion is to let the audience infer it. The idea here is that audiences who have to draw out premises or conclusions for themselves are more likely to be persuaded by the overall argument.
Ex2: - Those who study rhetoric speak eloquently. (major premise)
- Susan studies rhetoric. (minor premise)
- Susan speaks eloquently. (conclusion)
understand that in an enthymeme some logical elements are assumed
Big question: How does the type of information a writer uses help identify a writer’s theoretical framework?
4. Moving forward: How do visuals work as argument and in argument?
- Examine examples
5. Assignment – BA 6 – Due Monday, 3/21/2011 at 11:59 p.m.
Reading
Textbook: Chapter 7 pp. 201‐235; E‐Handbook: Chapter 10 (Specifically the questions and the green box in section 10c of the St. Martin’s Handbook)
Assignment: Brief Assignment 6
Examples: Pg 690 – 693 in textbook
Objective: To demonstrate your ability to analyze how figures and tables work in an argument.
Description: Answer the following in a 300‐500 word essay.
o Read "The Politics of Cohabitation" on pg. 411-418 of First-Year Writing. Joy Van Marion uses four visuals, which are intended to provide strong support for her argument. Which visual is most strongly "anchored" in the text: Table 1, 2, 3, or 4? In other words, which visual does Van Marion provide the most reference to in the text in using it to support her argument? How might she have better anchored the other visuals to provide stronger support that is clear to the reader, rather than a vague implication which is left up to the reader to draw for himself or herself? Be sure to support your decision with solid, logical evidence from the text.
Scoring Guide:
The analysis of visuals for this assignment asks students to consider the types of visuals that they will encounter in academic writing and how these visuals support the text.
In this assignment, consider the following:
C1—Issue Identification and Focus
Does the student focus on analyzing the ways visuals function in the text? Does the student address all of the questions in the prompt? How specific are the student’s suggestions for improvement?
C2—Context and Assumptions
Does the student consider the visual in the context of the overall argument?
C3—Sources and Evidence
Does the student use specific evidence from the article?
C5—Own Perspective
Is the student’s opinion of the author’s use of visuals clear?
C6—Conclusion
Does the conclusion offer an evaluative statement of the visuals’ effectiveness in the article?
C7—Communication
Is the essay clearly and logically organized? How effective is the student’s communication at the sentence level?
6. Review Draft 2.1 – Due 3/28/2011
Draft 2.1: Researched Argument
Example: pp. 695-699
Objective:
To practice locating and evaluating sources and then integrating those sources into a researched argument.
Description:
To complete this assignment, write an argument using the strategies and structures described in your textbook and the handbook. The argument should have an identifiable thesis, lines of argument, logical support, ethical and emotional appeals (if applicable), and consideration of alternative views.
You should use 6 sources from the TTU library or library databases as specified by your instructor for this assignment. Your essay should be 1500 words in length, not including the list of works cited. Please use MLA format (see Ch. 18 of your handbook) for in-text citations and your list of works cited.
Topic proposals due in Google Docs by Monday, 3/21/2011 at 11:59 p.m. for full credit
