Post on 03-Jan-2016
USING SOAPSTONE AND RHETORICAL APPEALS
Persuasion and Argument
Argument
Addresses a specific PURPOSEDirected at a specific AUDIENCEKey issuesAnticipated objectionsGathered support Logical reasoningTHESIS, THESIS, THESIS supported by
premises
Organization
Order of importanceChain of reasoningCause and effectRebuttal Concession/refutationProcess analysis
Modes of Discourse
DescriptionNarrationExposition
Comparison Contrast Cause/effect Classification Division Definition
Persuasive Appeals
Logos: appeal to logic Inductive reasoning Deductive reasoning Syllogism Cite evidence Quote sources Argue from precedent
Persuasive Appeals
Pathos: appeal to emotion Sensory details Include bias or prejudice Anecdote Connotative language Euphemisms Description or other figurative language Tone
Persuasive Appeals
Ethos: appeal to ethics—writer is a good person who knows and cares about the topic. Voice Persona of writer as trustworthy Demonstrate research time Support reasons with logical evidence Carefully crafted argument Demonstrate audience respect Concern about communicating with audience Writer is reliable and knowledgeable
Classical Argument Structure
Intro Catch interest Present issue with concrete image or anecdote Provide relevant background info Define terms State claim (THESIS, THESIS ,THESIS)
Classical Argument Structure
Concession and refutation Recognize and argue against OPPOSING VIEWPOINT
Find and point out weaknesses esp. in logical development
“Yes…but…” Demonstrates author’s view as more valid while granting
validity or acknowledging opposing views
Classical Argument Structure
Confirmation Body of the essay that supports the claim with logical
reasons and evidence Develops the argument Appeals
Classical Argument Structure
Wrap upRestate claimNew appeal to pathosEnrichmentFinal plea for call to action or change in
thoughtDO NOT REPEAT INFORMATION
Common Logical Fallacies
Ad hominem“to the individual”—attack
a target’s characteristics, not the argument
Ad populum“to the crowd” assumption that widespread occurrence makes idea true or right
Either/or reasoningseeing an issue as only having two sides
Begging the Questiontaking for granted something that actually needs proving
Hasty generalizationgeneral or premature conclusion based on insufficient evidence—only one or two cases
Non sequitur“it does not follow”
An inference or conclusion that does not follow established premises or evidence
References
College Board. (2002). Rhetoric. In The AP vertical teams guide for English (2nd ed.) (123-153).
Common Logical Fallacies
Circular Reasoningattempt to prove one idea with an idea to similar to the first idea
Propagandawriting or images that seek to persuade through emotional appeal not logical proof—using highly connotative words or images without justification
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc“after this therefore because of this”Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident.
Rhetorical Structure—All parts must be included, but organization is writer’s choice.
Introduction Issue and ImageBackground InformationDefinition of Terms
Claim THESIS STATEMENTReasons & Evidence Reason 1-Type of Evidence
Reason 2—Type of EvidenceReason 3—Type of Evidence
Emotional Appeals Need or Value 1Need or Value 2Need or Value 3
Opposing Viewpoints Opposing View 1 Concede/Refute Opposing View 2 Concede/Refute Opposing View 3 Concede/Refute
Conclusion Restatement of Claim
Revisit ImageUrge Leader to
Action