ch 3: analyzing arguments Flashcards by Gail I

crazed rhetoric: contrary to what arguments are meant to be, crazed rhetoric lacks …, …, and … for one’s claims

sufficient evidence; support; credibility

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

arguments should be a process incorporating … in which … is sought

reason; common ground

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

arguments are discussions focused on the purpose of …, which lead from a .. to a …

persuading; claim; conclusion

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

rogerian arguments: emphasizes the significance of … and …., advocates the notion that it is imperative to have a complete understanding of the …

concession; refutation; counterargument

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the goal of a rogerian argument is not to … your opponents or to dismantle their viewpoints but rahter to reach a …

destroy; satisfactory conclusion

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

a claim is the component of an argument that acts as a

thesis statement

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the claim should be

debatable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the claim should be a complete

sentence

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

a strong claim is the result of … as well as deliberation over the information found through the …

extensive, thorough research; research

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

three types of claims:

claims of fact, claims of value, claims of policy

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

these claims guide entire arguments, of which there are 3:

arguments of fact, arguments of value, arguments of policy

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

claims of fact assert that something is

true/not true

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

arguments of fact are dependent on the information that is considered to be

factual

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

whenever you are evaluating or writing an argument of fact, it’s important to approach your subject with

healthy skepticism

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

claims of value: most common type of claim; argues about the … of something

worth

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

claims of value must be

debatable

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

claims of value may incorporate

opinions

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

in order to create an argument based on a claim of value, one must have specific standards, meaning the factors that make the object being discussed have the

value that the author assigns it

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the speaker must then demonstrate the manner in which these standards

apply to the subject

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

claims of policy propose

change

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

argument of policy begins with a j

claim of fact (identifies problem)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(argument of policy) claim of fact is followed by a

claim of value (explains nature of problem)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(argument of policy) the claim of value is then followed by a

claim of policy (suggests change)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(argument of policy) while an argument of policy usually calls for some direct action to take plce, it may be a recommendation for a change in

attitude or viewpoint

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

types of thesis statements:

closed theiss, open thesis, counterargument theiss

closed thesis:

main idea + major points

closed theses are more efective for shorter essays in that it limits teh

amount of points that can be made

open theses are more effective for

lengthy essays

open theses don't list the author's points, but rather, it imply states the

main idea

counterargument thesis summarizes a counterargument that is followed by the

speaker's belief

a counterargument thesis instantaneously makes the argument appear

strong and logical

the conterargument thesis allows one to use ... and ... technique more effectively

concession; refutation

a counterargument thesis does not have to demonstrate complete

support or rejection

rhetorical choices: the ..., ..., and ... of evidence

amount; type; presentation

amount, type and presentation of evidence is dependent on what the ... and ... is

purpose; audience

one must consider whether .... or .. evidence would be more effective in persuading audience

formal/ informal

relevant evidence: relates tot eh

argument

the relationship beween relevant evidence and argument is typically

expressed

accurate evidence: does not ... the information supplied by the evidence being used

misinterpret/misrepresent

to have accurate evidence: utilize ..., consider..., consider what type of evidence will ...

credible sources; bias; appeal to your audience

sufficient evidence: there should be enough evidence so that the thesis will be

completely supported

logical fallacies: potential ... or ... in an argument

vulnerabilities; weaknesses

logical fallacies can occur when the relationship between the argument and the evidence is not

adequately explained

occassionally, fallacies are deliberately employed to

manipulate the audience

red herring: fallacy in which the speaker introduces information that is ... to a....

irrelevant to the argument; avoid the topic that should be discussed

ad hominem fallacy: a red herring, ad hominem means "..."; argues for/against the ... instead of the issue being discused

to the man; character of a person

if the speaker questions one's character, and this questioning of character is relevant to the argument, than this would not be an

ad hominem

when using analogies, determine if the similarities are

larger in number than the dissimilarites

faulty analogies can be used to appeal to

pathos

hasty generalization: the evidence that is used does not completely

support the argument

circular reasoning: does not legitimately provide ..., but rather, it

evidence; restates the claim

first-hand eidence: something that you know

to be true

personal experience can be used to

appeal to pathos

personal experience makes the issue that is being discussed more

human

personal experience is more effective in the

intro/conclusion

anecdotes can also be used to

appeal to pathos

current events are another type of ..., but one must be aware of ..

first-hand evidence; bias

second-hand evidence is found through

research

some types of second-hand evidence:

factual/historical information, expert opinion, statistics

second-hand evidence appeals to

logos

historical information can be used to establish a

context, as well as ethos

historical information appeals to ethos in that it illustrates that the speaker has conducted

research

it is essential that historical information is

accurately presented

historical information can be used in comparisons between

past and modern times

post hoc ergo propter hoc: means "...."; refutes the notion that something has caused another event due to the fact that it ...

after which therefore because of which; occurred earlier

expert i someone who has ... on a topic or whos job experience gives him/her specialized ...

published research; knowledge

it's essential that the expert opinion that you use will be credible to the

audience

ppeal to false authority: cites someone that is widely known but is essentially ... to the argument in that said person lacks ... on the issue being argued

irrelevant; expertise

quantitative evidence is numerical information:

statistics, surveys, polls, censuses

bandwagon appeal (ad populum fallacy): appeals to the fact that the issue at hand is ...; essentially "everybody's doing it, so it must be a ..."

common practice; good thing to do"

ways to structure an argument involve:

classical oration, inductiona nd deduction; toulmin model

5 part structure for speeches:

introduction (exordium), narration (narratio), confirmation (confirmatio), refutation (refutatio), conclusion (peroratio)

(structure for speeches) introduction: introuces the ..., exordium means "...", grabs the reader's ... and establishes ...

subject; beginning a web; attention; ethos

(structure for speeches) narration: incorporates ... and background ...; typically appeals to pathos due to the fact that the speaker tries to evoke an emotional response about the ...

facts; infromation; importance of the issue being discussed

confirmation: provides ... and appeals to ...

evidence; logos

refutation: counterargument, appeals to

logos

conclusion: appeals to ... and ... and ties all the ...

pathos; ethos; claims made together

induction: an argument that is structured so that it moves from

specific information to a generalization

to use induction: gather ..., ..., and ...

evidence; infer; conclude

inductive arguments are not right/wrong, they are either ...

strong/weak

inductive arguments do nto lead to ..., only to ...

certainties; probabilities

contrary to induction, deductions begin with a generalization which is applied to .... so that a ... can be formed

specific information; conclusion

generalization: ... premise

major

specifics: ... premise

minor

deductive reasoning→

syllogism

syllogism: structure that utilizes .... and ... to form a conclusion

major; minor premises

deductive reasoning can be to illustrate the ... in ...

irrationality; stereotypes

the toulmin model is an effective tool in uncovering the

assumptions that underlie arguments

6 eleents of the Toulmin model:

claim, evidence, warrant (assumption), backing, qualifier, reservation

a warrant expresses the assumption necessarily shared by the

speaker and the audience

backing: additional

evidence

qualifier: words like ..., ..., ...., ..., ....; reduces the ... of an argument

usually, probably, maybe, in most cases, most likely; absoluteness

reservation: describes conditions that are brought about by the

qualifier

rebuttal

objections

toulmin analsis:

because (evidence), therefore (claim), since (assumption), on account of (backing), unless (reservation)

the toulmin model illustrates the relationship between the

assumptions, claim, and evidence

if the audience doesn't gree with the speaker's assumptions, the speaker must then develop anothe claim which should be supported by

further evidence

types of visual arguments:

advertisements, political cartoons, photos, bumper stickers, t-shirts, hats, web pages, art billboards

(checklist for visual texts) what is the ..., ..., and ... of the visual? does the seaker have any ... that are significant in terms of the text?

origin, audience, speaker; affiliations

(checklist for visual texts) what is ...about the text and what is your ...?

notibceable; first impression

(checklist for visual texts) what is the ... and ...?

topic; claim

(checklist for visual texts) does the text tell a ... and what is the ...?

story; purpose

(checklist for visual texts) hat emotions does it evoke and how does it artistically...?

appeal to emotions

(checklist for visual texts) are the figures ..., ..., or ... and what effect does this have?

realistic; caricatures; distorted

(checklist for visual texts) are there any ... and what are their effects?

visual allusions

(checklist for visual texts) what ... are represented?

cultural valus

(checklist for visual texts) what ... does it make?

claim

while photographs are real, they are also artificial in that the photographer controlss what the

photo captures

begging the question: a fallacy in which a claim is based on ... or ... that is in .... It begs a question whether the ...

evidence; support; doubt; support itself is sound

either/or (false dilemma): a fallacy in which the speaker presents two

extreme options as the only possibl echoices

straw man: a fallacy that occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately ... or .. example in order to ... and ... an idea

poor; oversimplified; ridicule; refute