Crafting An Outstanding NIH Grant Application An insider’s perspective
Crafting an Argument
description
Transcript of Crafting an Argument
ENG 101 / 2 .12 .14
Crafting an Argument
Be Assertive
Too aggressive: Of course only registered organ donors should be
eligible for organ transplants. It’s selfish and shortsighted to think otherwise.
Too passive: I might be wrong, but I think that maybe people
should have to register as organ donors if they want to be considered for a transplant.
Assertive: If only registered organ donors are eligible for
transplants, more people will register as donors.
Social and Intellectual Contexts
“Scholarly debates play out in the intellectual contexts, but they have a social dimension as well” (79)
Research: be aware of the social and intellectual contexts of your argument/topic
Audience
Don’t assume audience’s familiarity or that they’ll automatically agree with you
Imagine audience as skeptical
Introduction
Introduce topicEstablish credibility
Show that you are knowledgeable and fair-mindedThesisStudent example on p. 81
Support
Claims: persuasive parts of your line of argument
Evidence Facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, etc. Make sure source is expert
Counterarguments
Look at checklist p. 85Location of counterargument? What comes
after counterargument? Importance?Devil’s advocate
Subjects for Argument
Good subject: Concerns matter of opinion: a conclusion draw from
evidence Can be disputed: others might take a different
position Is something you care about Narrow enough to argue in space and time available
Bad subject: Cannot be disputed
Fact Personal preference or belief Few if any disagree over the topic
Parts of an Argument
Thesis Issue + position + reasons = thesis
Language Style Tone
Counter argument/rebuttal Acknowledgment and addressing of opposition
AssumptionsEvidenceClaims
Arguments that help support thesis
Evidence for an Argument
Facts Verifiable statements
Statistics Facts expressed in numbers
Examples Specific cases
Expert opinionsAppeals
Ethos Pathos Logos
Evaluating Evidence
Accurate? Trustworthy, exact, undistorted?
Relevant? Authoritative, pertinent, current?
Representative? True to context? Accurate representation?
Adequate? Plentiful, specific?
Logic
1. If x, then y. 2. X. Therefore, Y.
3. All X’s are Z.4. A is an X.Therefore, A is Z.
All bachelors are single. John is a bachelor. Therefore, John is single.
Avoiding Fallacies
Begging the question Treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were
already proved or disprovedNon sequitar
“it does not follow” – drawing conclusion from irrelevant evidence
Red herring Introducing an irrelevant issue that distracts readers
False authority Citing as expert opinion the views of someone who is
not an expertInappropriate appeals
Fallacies cont’d
Hasty generalization Too little evidence
Sweeping generalization Asserting that an opinion applies to all instances when it may only
apply to some (stereotypes)Reductive fallacy
Oversimplification of cause and effect Post hoc fallacy
Assuming that X caused Y because X came before YEither/or fallacy
Reducing a complicated question to only two alternativesFalse analogy
Exaggerating similarities or ignoring key differencesSlippery slope
Counter Argument
Must include counter argument Why?
Counter argument must include a brief summary of a significant point the opposition might bring up. Should be followed with a rebuttal (the turn back to your argument)
Use signal phrases Some critics might disagree, contending that _____,
but… The opposition may claim _____; however… It is true that many would disagree because…
Organizing Arguments
The traditional scheme The problem-solution schemeClaim 1 and evidence The problem: claims and evidenceClaim 2 and evidence The solution: claims and evidenceClaim X and evidence Response to opposing viewsResponse to opposing views
Variations on the traditional schemeUse a variation if you believe your readers will reject your argument without an early or intermittent response to opposing views.
Response to opposing views Claim 1 and evidenceClaim 1 and evidence Response to opposing viewsClaim 2 and evidence Claim 2 and evidenceClaim X and evidence Response to opposing views
Claim X and evidenceResponse to opposing views
Using Research
Avoid “information dump”Prove that you have found good information
and understand itDemonstrate your ability to apply the
materialTake it to the next level
Critique Connect Interpret
Checklist for Revising an Argument
ThesisWhat is your thesis? Where is it stated? In what ways is your thesis statement an arguable
claim? Reasoning
If your thesis derives from induction, where have you related the evidence to your generalization?
If your thesis derives from deduction, is your syllogism both true and valid?
Have you avoided fallacies in reasoning? Evidence
Where have you provided the evidence readers need?Where might your evidence not be accurate, relevant,
representative, or adequate?
Checklist cont’d
AppealsWhere have you considered readers’ probable beliefs
and values?How are your rational appeals and emotional appeals
appropriate for your readers?What is your ethical appeal? How can you improve it?
Opposing viewsWhat opposing views have you answered?How successfully have you refuted opposing views?
OrganizationHow clearly does your argument move from one point to
the next?How appropriate is your organization given your
readers’ likely views?
Effective Conclusions
Intro and conc are frameworkConclusion is chance to have the last word –
audience’s last impression of your workSignificance
So what? Who cares?Return to things from introPropose course of action, solution to issue, or
questions for further studyPoint to broader implications
Strategies to Avoid
“In conclusion,” “in summary,” “to wrap up,” “all in all,” “in closing,” etc.
Introducing new topic or subtopicIncluding new evidence that should be in
bodyRestatement of thesisBig emotional appealsDirect address to the audience
“The choice is yours…” “Think about _____ next time…”