COMP 2 CRR WEEK7

Chapter 6

•

•

Learning Objectives

In this chapter, you will learn to:

6.1 Explain the differences between one-sided, multisided, and delayed-thesis arguments.

6.2 Determine the degree of your audience's resistance to your views in order to shape the content, structure, and tone of your argument.

6.3 Use one-sided argument to appeal to supportive audiences.

6.4 Use classical argument to appeal to neutral or undecided audi- ences, using refutation and concession.

6.5 Consider using delayed- thesis argument to appeal to resistant audiences.

Chapter 5 discussed strategies for moving your audience through appeals to ethos, pathos, and kairos. In this chapter we examine strategies for addressing opposing or alternative views whether to omit them, refute them, concede to them, or incorporate them through compromise and conciliation.

83

84 Chapter 6

One-Sided, Multisided, and Delayed-Thesis Arguments 6.1 Explain the differences between one-sided, multisided,

and delayed-thesis arguments.

Arguments can be one-sided, multisided, or delayed thesis:

• A one-sided argument presents only the writer's position on the issue with- out summarizing and responding to alternative viewpoints.

• A multisided argument presents the writer's position, but it also summa- rizes and responds to possible objections and alternative views.

• A delayed thesis argument has a strong component of inquiry in which writers present themselves as uncertain and invite resistant readers to become partners in the dialogue. By keeping the question open (and not presenting the writer's own view until later), the writer considers and values multiple perspectives. However, if an issue is heatedly contested, it may be fruitful to move beyond argument altogether and to use instead the listening and negotiating strategies of collaborative rhetoric explained in Chapter 10.

One-sided and multisided arguments often take an adversarial stance in that writers regard alternative views as flawed or wrong and support their own claims with a strongly persuasive intent. Although multisided arguments can be adver- sarial, they can also be made to feel conciliatory and dialogic, depending on the way the writer introduces and responds to alternative views.

At issue, then, is the writer's treatment of alternative views. Does the writer omit them (a one-sided argument), summarize them in order to rebut them (an adversarial kind of multisided argument), or summarize them in order to acknowledge their validity, value, and force (a more dialogic kind of multisided argument)? Each of these approaches can be appropriate for certain occasions, depending on your purpose, your confidence in your own stance, and your audi- ence's resistance to your views.

How can you determine the kind of argument that would be most effective in a given case? As a general rule, if an issue is highly contested, one-sided argu- ments tend to strengthen the convictions of those who are already in the writer's camp but alienate those who aren't. In contrast, for those initially opposed to a writer's claim, a multisided argument shows that the writer has considered other views and thus reduces some initial hostility.

An especially interesting effect can occur with neutral or undecided audi- ences. In the short run, one-sided arguments are often persuasive to a neutral audience, but in the long run, multisided arguments have more staying power. Neutral audiences who have heard only one side of an issue tend to change their minds when they hear alternative arguments. By anticipating and rebut- ting opposing views, a multisided argument diminishes the surprise and force of subsequent counterarguments. If we move from neutral to highly resistant audiences, adversarial approaches even multisided ones are seldom effective because they increase hostility and harden the differences between writer and reader. In such cases, a delayed thesis argument can be helpful. When conflict is emotionly heated, we may even choose to turn from argument to collabortive

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 85

rhetoric, where we simply listen to those with whom we disagree in an effort to open up channels of communication and consensual problem-solving. These collaborative, dialogic approaches have the best chance of establishing common ground for inquiry and consensus (see Chapter 10).

In the rest of this chapter we will show you how your choice of writing one-sided, multisided, or delayed-thesis arguments is a function of how you perceive your audience's resistance to your views, your level of confidence in your own views, and your purpose to persuade your audience or open up dialogue.

Determining Your Audience's Resistance to Your Views 6.2 Determine the degree of your audience's resistance to your views in

order to shape the content, structure, and tone of your argument.

When you write an argument, you must always consider your audience's point of view. One way to imagine your relationship to your audience is to place it on a scale of resistance ranging from strong support of your position to strong opposi- tion (Figure 6.1). At the "Accord" end of this scale are like-minded people who basically agree with your position on the issue. At the "Resistance" end are those who strongly disagree with you, perhaps unconditionally, because their values, beliefs, or assumptions sharply differ from your own. Between" Accord" and "Resistance" lies a range of opinions. Close to your position will be those leaning in your direction but with less conviction than you have. Close to the resistance posi- tion will be those basically opposed to your view but willing to listen to your argu- ment and perhaps willing to acknowledge some of its strengths. In the middle are those undecided people who are still sorting out their feelings, seeking additional information, and weighing the strengths and weaknesses of alternative views.

Seldom, however, will you encounter an issue in which the range of disagree- ment follows a simple line from accord to resistance. Often, resistant views fall into different categories so that no single line of argument appeals to all those whose views are different from your own. You thus have to identify not only your audience's resistance to your ideas but also the causes of that resistance.

Consider, for example, the issues surrounding publicly financed sports sta- diums. In one city, a ballot initiative asked citizens to agree to an increase in sales taxes to build a new re-tractable-roof stadium for its baseball team. Supporters of the initiative faced a complex array of resisting views (Figure 6.2). Opponents of the initiative could be placed into four categories. Some simply had no interest

Figure 6.1 Scale of res istance

Accord Undecided/Neutral

strongly supportive supportive with conditions uncertain mostly opposed

Resistance

strongly opposed

86 Chapter 6

Figure 6.2 Scale of resistance, baseball stadium issue

Accord

strong support for publicly funded stadium

Undecided/Neutral

uninformed or uncertain

Resistance

opposition I [no interest in sports]

opposition 2 [opposed to public funding of sports]

opposition 3 [opposed to raising taxes]

opposition 4 [opposed to retractable roof]

in sports, cared nothing about baseball, and saw no benefit in building a huge, publicly financed sports facility. Another group loved baseball and followed the home team passionately, but was philosophically opposed to subsidizing rich players and owners with taxpayer money. This group argued that the whole sports industry needed to be restructured so that stadiums were paid for out of sports revenues. Still another group was opposed to tax hikes in general. That group focused on two principles: (1) reducing the size of government and (2) using tax revenues only for essential services. Finally, another powerful group supported baseball and supported the notion of public funding of a new stadium but opposed the kind of retractable-roof stadium specified in the initiative. This group wanted an old-fashioned, open-air stadium like Baltimore's Camden Yards or Cleveland's Progressive Field.

Writers supporting the initiative found it impossible to address all of these resisting audiences at once. If supporters of the initiative wanted to persuade those uninterested in sports, they could stress the spinoff benefits of a new ball- park (for example, the new ballpark would attract tourist revenue, renovate a deteriorating downtown neighborhood, create jobs, make sports lovers more likely to vote for public subsidies of the arts, and so forth). But these arguments would be irrelevant to those who wanted an open-air stadium, who opposed tax hikes categorically, or who objected to public subsidies for millionaires.

The baseball stadium example illustrates the difficulty of adapting your argument to your audience's position on the scale of resistance. Still, doing so is important because you need a stable vision of your audience before you can create audience-based reasons that appeal to your audience's values, assumptions, and beliefs. In the next sections, we show how you can adjust your arguing strategy depending on whether your audience is supportive, neutral, or hostile.

Appealing to a Supportive Audience: One-Sided Argument 6.3 Use one-sided argument to appeal to supportive audiences.

One-sided arguments may occur early in an argumentative conversation when a writer's aim is merely to put forth a new or different point of view. When an issue is highly contested, however, or when the targeted audience is indifferent, one-sided arguments are used mainly to stir the passions of supporters or to

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 87

inspire the apathetic for example, to convert belief into action by inspiring a party member to contribute to a senator's campaign or a bored office worker to sign up for a change-your-life weekend seminar.

Typically, appeals to a supportive audience are structured as one-sided argu- ments that either ignore opposing views or reduce them to "enemy" stereotypes. Filled with motivational language, these arguments list the benefits that will fol- low from the reader's donations to the cause and the horrors just around the cor- ner if the other side wins. One of the authors of this text received a fund-raising letter from an environmental lobbying group declaring, "It's crunch time for the polluters and their pals on Capitol Hill." The "corporate polluters" and "anti- environment politicians," the letter continues, have "stepped up efforts to roll back our environmental protections relying on large campaign contributions, slick PR firms, and well-heeled lobbyists to get the job done before November's election." This letter makes the reader feel like part of an in-group of good guys fighting the big business "polluters." Nothing in the letter examines environmental issues from business's perspective or attempts to examine alternative views fairly. Because the intended audience already believes in the cause, nothing in the letter invites read- ers to consider the issues more thoroughly. Rather, the letter's goal is to solidify support, increase the fervor of belief, and inspire action. Most appeal arguments make it easy to act, ending with an 800 phone number to call, a website to visit, an online petition to sign, or a congressperson's address to write to.

Appealing to a Neutral or Undecided Audience: Classical Argument 6.4 Use classical argument to appeal to neutral or undecided audiences,

using refutation and concession.

The in-group appeals that motivate an already supportive audience can repel a neutral or undecided audience. Because undecided audiences are like jurors weighing all sides of an issue, they distrust one-sided arguments that caricature other views. Generally the best strategy for appealing to undecided audiences is the classically structured argument described in Chapter 2.

What characterizes the classical argument is the writer's willingness to sum- marize opposing views fairly and to respond to them openly either by trying to refute them or by conceding to their strengths and then shifting to a different field of values. Let's look at these strategies in more depth.

Sum.m.arizing Opposing Views The first step toward responding to opposing views in a classical argument is to summarize them fairly. Follow the principle of charity, which obliges you to avoid loaded, biased, or "straw man" summaries that oversimplify or distort opposing arguments, making them easy to knock over.

Consider the difference between an unfair and a fair summary of an argument. In the following example, a hypothetical supporter of genetically engineered foods intends to refute the argument of organic-food advocate Lisa Turner, who opposes all forms of biotechnology.

88 Chapter 6

UNFAIR SUMMARY OF TURNER'S ARGUMENT

In a biased article lacking scientific understanding of biotechnology, natural- foods huckster Lisa Turner parrots the health food industry's party line that genetically altered crops are Frankenstein's monsters run amok. She ignorantly claims that consumption of biotech foods will lead to worldwide destruction, disease, and death, ignoring the wealth of scientific literature showing that geneti- cally modified foods are safe. Her misinformed attacks are scare tactics aimed at selling consumers on overpriced "health food" products to be purchased at boutique organic-food stores.

FAIR SUMMARY OF TURNER'S ARGUMENT

In an article appearing in a nutrition magazine, health-food advocate Lisa Turner warns readers that much of our food today is genetically modified using gene-level techniques that differ completely from ordinary crossbreeding. She argues that the potential, unforeseen, harmful consequences of genetic engineering offset the possible benefits of increasing the food supply, reducing the use of pesticides, and boosting the nutritional value of foods. Turner asserts that genetic engineering is imprecise, untested, unpredictable, irreversible, and also uncontrol- lable because of animals, insects, and winds.

In the unfair summary, the writer distorts and oversimplifies Turner's argu- ment, creating a straw man argument that is easy to knock over because it doesn't make the opponent's best case. In contrast, the fair summary follows the principle of charity, allowing the strength of the opposing view to come through clearly.

For Writing and Discussion Distinguishing Fair from Unfair Summaries

Individual task: Use the following questions to analyze the d ifferences between the two summaries of Lisa Turner's article.

1. What makes the first summary unfair? Explain. 2. In the unfair summary, what strategies does the writer use to make the opposing view seem weak and

flawed? In the fair summary, how is the opposing view made strong and clear? 3. In the unfair summary, how does the writer attack Turner's motives and credentials? This attack is

sometimes called an ad hominem argument ("against the person" -see the Appendix for a definition of this reasoning fallacy) because it attacks the arguer rather than the argument. How does the writer treat Turner differently in the fair summary?

4. Do you agree with our view that arguments are more persuasive if the writer summarizes opposing views fairly rather than unfairly? Why or why not?

Group task: As a group, write a fair and an unfair summary of an argument that your instructor gives you, using the strat- egies you analyzed in the Turner examples.

Respond ing to Objections and Alternative Views 89

Refuting Opposing Views Once you have summarized opposing views, you can either refute them or con- cede to their strengths. In refuting an opposing v iew, you attempt to convince readers that its argument is logically flawed, inadequately supported, or based on erroneous assumptions. In refuting an argument, you can rebut (1) the writer's stated reason and grounds, (2) the writer's warrant and backing, or (3) both. Put in less specialized language, you can rebut a writer's reasons and evidence or the writer's underlying assumptions. Suppose, for example, that you wanted to refute this hypothetical argument from a writer we'll call Jason Jones:

Students should limit the number of internships they take because internships are time-consuming.

We can clarify th e structure of this argument by showing it in Toulm in terms:

ENTHYMEME

CLAIM: Students should limit th e numb er of internships they take

REASON: because internships are time-consuming.

WARRANT Time-consu ming in ternships are bad for students.

One way to refute this argument is to rebut the stated reason that internship s are time-consuming. Your rebuttal might go something like this:

I disagree with Jones' argument that internships are time-consuming. In fact, organizations and businesses are usually very upfront, realistic, and flexible in the weekly hours that they ask of students. The examp les that Jones cites of overly d emanding internships are exceptions. Furtherm ore, these internships have since been retailored to students' sched ules. [The writer could then provide examples of effective, limited-time internships.]

Or you could concede th at in ternships are time-consuming but rebut the argument's warrant that a time-consuming internship is bad for students:

I agree that internships take sizable chunks of students' tim e, but investment in real-world work environments is a worthwhile use of students' time. Through this investment, students clarify their professional goals, log work experience, and gain references. Without interning in these work environm ents, students would miss important career prep aration.

Let's now illustrate these strategies in a more complex situation. Consider th e controversy inspired by a New York Times Magaz ine article titled "Recycling Is Garbage." Its author, John Tierney, argued that recycling is not environmentally

90 Chapter 6

sound and that it is cheaper to bury garbage in a landfill than to recycle it. Tierney argued that recycling wastes money; he provided evidence that "every time a sanitation department crew picks up a load of bottles and cans from the curb, New York City loses money." In Toulmin's terms, one of Tierney's arguments is structured as shown below.

ENTHYMEME

CLAIM: Recycling is bad policy

REASON: because it costs more to recycle

material than to bury it in a landfill.

GROUNDS

• Evidence of the high cost of recycling [Tierney

says it costs New York City $200 more per ton

for recyclables th an trash .]

WARRANT We should dispose of garbage in th e least

• expensive way.

A number of environmentalists responded angrily to Tierney's argument, challenging either h is reason, his warrant, or both. Those refuting the reason offered counterevidence showing that recycling isn't as expensive as Tierney claimed. Those refuting the warrant said that even if the costs of recycling are higher than the costs of burying wastes in a landfill, recycling still benefits the environment by reducing the amount of virgin materials taken from nature. These critics, in effect, offered a new warrant: Conserving the world's resources is an important goal of garbage disposal.

Strategies for Rebutting Evidence Whether you are rebutting an argument's reasons or its warrant, you will frequently need to question a writer's use of evidence. Here are some strategies you can use:

• Deny the accuracy of the data. Arguers can disagree about the facts of a case. If you have reasons to doubt a writer's facts, call them into question.

• Cite counterexamples and countertestimony. You can often rebut an argu- ment based on examples or testimony by citing counterexamples or counter- testimony that denies the conclusiveness of the original data.

• Cast doubt on the representativeness or sufficiency of examples. Examples are powerful only if they are believed to be representative and sufficient. Many environmentalists complained that John Tierney's attack on recycling was based too largely on data from New York City and that it didn't accurately take into account the more positive experiences of other cities and states. When data from outside New York City were examined, the cost-effectiveness and positive environmental impact of recycling seemed more apparent.

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 91

• Cast doubt on the relevance or recency of the examples, statistics, or testimony. The best evidence is up-to-date. In a rapidly changing universe, data that are even a few years out-of-date are often ineffective. For example, as the demand for recycled goods increases, the cost of recycling will be reduced. Out-of-date statistics will skew any argument about the cost of recycling.

• Question the credibility of an authority. If an opposing argument is based on testimony, you can undermine its persuasiveness if you show that a person being cited lacks current or relevant expertise in the field. (This approach is different from the ad hominem fallacy discussed in the Appendix because it doesn't attack the personal character of the authority but rather the author- ity's expertise on a specific matter.)

• Question the accuracy or context of quotations. Evidence based on testi- mony is frequently distorted by being either misquoted or taken out of con- text. Often scientists qualify their findings heavily, but the popular media omit these qualifications. You can thus attack the use of a quotation by putting it in its original context or by explaining how scientists qualified their find- ings in the original source.

• Question the way statistical data were produced or interpreted. Chapter 4 provides fuller treatment of how to question statistics. In general, you can rebut statistical evidence by calling into account how the data were gathered, treated mathematically, or interpreted. It can make a big difference, for example, whether you cite numbers or percentages or whether you choose large or small incre- ments for the axes of graphs.

Conceding to Opposing Views In writing a classical argument, a writer must sometimes concede to an opposing argument rather than refute it. Sometimes you encounter portions of an argument that you simply can't refute. For example, suppose that you are a libertarian who supports the legalization of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Adversar- ies argue that legalizing hard drugs will increase the number of drug users and addicts. You might dispute the size of their numbers, but you reluctantly agree that they are right. Your strategy is thus not to refute the opposing argument but to concede to it by admitting that legalization of hard drugs will promote heroin and cocaine addiction. Having made that concession, your task is then to show that the benefits of drug legalization, such as a reduction in crime and fewer people serving time in America's prisons, still outweigh the costs you've just conceded.

As this example shows, the strategy of a concession argument is to switch from the field of values employed by the writer you disagree with to a different field of values more favorable to your position. You don't try to refute the writer's stated reason and grounds (by arguing that legalization will not lead to increased drug usage and addiction) or the writer's warrant (by arguing that increased drug use and addiction is not a problem). Rather, you shift the argument to a new field of values by introducing a new warrant, one that you think your audience can share (that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs of increased addiction). To the extent that opponents of legalization share your desire to stop drug-related crime, shifting to this new field of values is a good strategy. Although it may seem that you weaken your own position by conceding to an opposing argument, you may actually strengthen it by increasing your credibility and gaining your

92 Chapter 6

Uses person al example to illustrate problems of low-wage workers

Thesis statement

Forecasts rebuttal of three opposing views raised by Saltsman

Summarizes Salts- man's first objection to minimum wage

Rebuts argumen t by citin g more recent research

audience's goodwill. Moreover, conceding to one part of an opposing argument doesn't mean that you won't refute other parts of that argument.

Exam.ple-of a Student Essay Using Refutation Strategy The following essay by student writer Trudie Makens grew out of her research into the issue of raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Trudie's essay illus- trates how a classical argument appealing to a neutral or even mildly resistant audience engages with alternative views. Note the use of both concession and rebuttal strategies. (Trudie's in-text parenthetical citations and her Works Cited list follow the MLA documentation style explained in Chapter 18.)

Student Essay

Bringing Dignity to Workers: Make the Minimum Wage a Living Wage

Trudie Makens

Having worked as a busser in a pizza restaurant, a part-time barista, and a server at a dumpling cafe, I have worked a number of minimum-wage jobs. My coworkers have ranged from students like myself to single parents and primary providers for their families. As a student, I have always had my parents as a safety net protecting me from financial hardship. However, my coworkers whose only income is their minimum wage endured financial hardships daily. I witnessed one of my coworkers, Maria, lose her home trying to balance supporting her two children and paying her rent. At work, Maria would describe her anxiety as she bounced from relative to relative, straining her family relations and image of herself as an able provider. With- out a living wage or the government's providing social insurance programs to ensure financial security for all citizens, families like Maria's are locked into poverty. Raising the federal minimum wage to a livable standard is an important and necessary step to eradicate poverty and ensure dignified living for individuals and families.

Yet some argue that a higher federal minimum wage will do more harm than good. Michael Saltsman, the research director of the Employment Policy Institute, elaborates the pro-business objections to a minimum wage in several op-ed pieces published in national print or online newspapers. Saltsman primarily makes three arguments against raising the minimum wage. Each of them, I contend, is weak or flawed.

First, Saltsman warns that raising the minimum wage will force busi- nesses to cut jobs. In order to maintain profit and to keep prices low, Salts- man argues, businesses will pay for a higher wage by slashing the number of workers. Worse, businesses may cut entire departments in favor of auto- mation, such as having fast-food customers order their meals from computer touch screens. Saltsman's argument, however, depends on older studies that, according to University of California economist Michael Reich, are "fundamentally flawed" (Maclay). In a study published in 2010, Reich and

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 93

his coauthors find that these earlier studies fail to account for all the critical variables besides w ages that influence employm ent levels. By comparing employ m ent levels b etween states w ith higher versu s lower minimum- wage levels, Reich and his colleagues provide empirical evidence that rais- ing the minimum w age produces n o " adverse employment effects" (954).

Saltsman's second objection to a higher minimum w age is that it targets the wron g p eople and thus won' t reduce overall p overty levels. According to Saltsman, a majority of p eople living in p overty are unemployed while a m ajority of minimum-wage workers are from h ou seholds ab ove the p overty line. Although Saltsman may be correct that a higher minimum wage won't help a jobless person, he ignores the benefits of a living wage to the work- ing poor who would be lifted out of poverty. Moreover, a higher minimum wage might itself stimulate jobs because minimum-wage workers with more money in their pockets are apt to spend it, increasing demand for goods.

Finally, Saltsman argues that the minimum wage is less effective at reducing poverty than the Earned Income Tax Credit, which boosts the income of low-wage workers while not giving any income boost to workers who are already above the poverty level. However, the Earned Income Tax Credit, like the minimum wage, does nothing for the jobless poor. Moreover, the Earned Income Tax Credit puts the burden of poverty relief on taxpayers rather than employers and corporate shareholders, doing little to shift the economy in an equitable direction. We need both an increased minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

It seems clear that to combat poverty, the United States needs a many- pronged effort, with a hike in the minimum wage being only one of the prongs. Although a higher minimum wage will not by itself eliminate pov- erty, it will certainly help. It needs to be combined with investments in infrastructure to create jobs, with affordable higher education, with better job training, and with other safety-net systems such as those in place in Europe to give dignity to all citizens. Rather than our government and mar- ket system prioritizing corporations and profit, the rights and dignity of workers should be held foremost important. Raising the minimum wage to a living wage will help change the structure of a market system that often exploits workers.

Works Cited

Maclay, Kathleen. "Minimum Wage Hikes Don't Eliminate Jobs, Study Finds." UC Berkeley News Center, 1 Dec. 2010, news.berkeley. edu/ 2010 I 12/01 I minimumwagejobs.

Reich, Michael, et al. "Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Esti- mates Using Contiguous Counties." Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 92, no. 4, 2010, pp. 945-64.

Saltsman, Michael. "The Wrong Way to Reduce Poverty." USA Today, 20 Sept. 2013, www.usatoday.com/story I opinion/2013/09 /20/ minimum-wages-poverty-column/2839003.

---. "To Help the Poor, Move Beyond 'Minimum' Gestures." The Huffing- ton Post, 26 Apr. 2013, updated 26 June 2013, www.huffingtonpost. com/ michael-saltsman/ earned -income-tax-credit-minimum- wage_b_3165459 .html.

Summarizes Salts- man's second objection

Concedes that higher minimum wage won't help jobless, but shifts to other ben- efits that Saltsman • Ignores

5

Summarizes Salts- man's last argument

Rebuts this argument by showing weak- nesses in the Earned Income Tax Credit ~preach

Uses conclusion to summarize additional measures (besides higher minimum wage) to combat poverty

94 Chapter 6

For Writing and Class Discussion Refutation Strategies Ind ividually or in groups, examine each of the following arguments, imagin ing how the c laim and reason could be f leshed out with grounds and backing. Then attempt to refute each argument. Suggest ways to rebut the reason, or the warrant, or both, or to concede to the argument and then switch to a d ifferent field of values.

a. The criminal justice system shou ld reduce sentences for low-level, nonviolent offenders because this change will save taxpayers' money.

b. Majoring in eng ineering is better than majoring in music because engineers make more money than • •

mus1c1ans. c. The SAT exam for college entrance should not be required by colleges and universities because high-

school grades are a better predictor of student success than SAT scores. d. The United States should bui ld more nuclear reactors because nuclear reactors w ill provide substantial

electrical energy w ithout emitting greenhouse gases. e. People should be al lowed to own handguns because own ing handguns helps them protect their homes

against potentially violent intruders.

Appealing to a Resistant Audience: Delayed-Thesis Argument 6.5 Consider using delayed-thesis argument to appeal to resistant

audiences.

Whereas classical argument is effective for neutral or undecided audiences, it is often less effective for audiences strongly opposed to the writer's views. Because resistant audiences hold values, assumptions, or beliefs widely different from the writer's, they are often unswayed by classical argument, which attacks their worldview too directly. Unlike a classical argument, a delayed-thesis argument assumes either an initial exploratory approach to a subject or an approach that focuses on shared values, evoking sympathy for the audience's views. With some issues, you may want to convey that you are still thinking out your position, finding your way through a thicket of alternative views and the complexities of the issue. On other issues, you might simply want to focus first on shared val- ues. Under these rhetorical conditions, a delayed-thesis argument enables you to establish initial rapport with your audience. Instead of declaring a claim and reasons early in the argument, you may work your way slowly to your claim, often delaying your thesis until the end.

Let's look at an example of a delayed-thesis argument, examining its form and its emotional impact. (For another example of a delayed-thesis argument, see Ellen Goodman's "Womb for Rent for a Price" in Chapter 7.) The following essay, by British journalist Alexander Chancellor, appeared in the conservative British magazine The Spectator:

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 95

Oh, Ho-w I Will Miss the Plastic Bag Alexander Chancellor

It has taken years, but finally England has joined the rest of the United Kingdom and other countries around the world in declaring war on the plastic carrier bag. This week for the first time English supermarkets are being forbidden by law to give plastic bags away for free. From now on they will have to charge Sp for every one of them. It is the beginning of the end. The plastic bag is heading for oblivion. The most useful shopping tool of the last half-century will soon, I imagine, be extinct.

It seems only appropriate at this point to say how wonderful plastic bags have been. They are the most useful carriers ever invented strong, light, capa- cious, and absurdly cheap to produce. Life without them will never be so easy again. In future, anyone wanting to buy a few things from the supermarket on the way home from work will have to remember to take a reusable shopping bag out with him in the morning. Anyone stocking up with food at the weekend will have to set out with a supply of his own bags in the car. I already try to do this, but usually forget. Oh, how I will miss the plastic bag.

But the remarkable thing is that the end of the plastic bag, when it happens, will not have been an imposition from above but a fulfilment of the popular will. A consultation exercise carried out eight years ago found, for example, that 90 percent of Londoners were in favor of banning plastic bags altogether. Ninety percent of Londoners wanted to abolish one of the greatest conveniences of their everyday lives! Who can say that people are always selfish?

The popularity of the new measure against plastic bags, the docile acceptance of having to pay for something that always used to be free, is evidence of how responsive people can be to campaigns for the wider public good. The campaign against smoking has been successful, too, but smoking kills individuals, which is rather different. Plastic bags just threaten the world.

That threat, however, is impressive. The statistics are enough to alarm any- one. Hitherto in Britain, billions of plastic bags have been given to shoppers each year, and they have all got thrown away. About 60,000 tons of them have ended up in landfills, where they can take more than 400 years to decompose- a process that promotes climate change by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Throughout the world, between 500 and 1,000 billion plastic bags are thought to be consumed annually, more than a million a minute. And those that don't reach landfill sites get blown about on the wind from the North Pole to the South, littering every continent and polluting every sea.

Those floating out at sea have a devastating effect on marine life. Turtles eat them, thinking they are jellyfish, and die in consequence. Altogether, more than 100,000 mammals, including whales and seals, and up to one million seabirds are thought to be killed each year from eating or getting tangled up in plastic. And like the poignant photograph of a dead child on a beach in Turkey that got the campaign to admit refugees to Britain going, it took a distressing image to spark the revolution against plastic bags.

Title shows fondness for plastic bags

Provides context and explains new law requiring stores to charge for plastic bags

Establishes rapport with audience by praising the useful- ness of plastic bags

Elaborates his shared view with the audi- ence- the value of plastic bags

Surprises reader by acknowledging that British citizens, not the government, voted to ban the bags

Credits the ban to the unselfishness of people, who put the environment ahead of convenience

Provides evidence of the environmental damage caused by discarded plastic bags

Provides more evi- Glence of the damage caused to oceans and marine life

96 Chapter 6

Shows the dra-matic power of a visual image to turn citizens against plastic bags

States his thesis: Plastic bags "are not a good thing"

It was the sight of some albatross chicks dying from eating plastic on a beach in Devon that eight years ago upset Rebecca Hosking, a BBC camerawoman, so much that she persuaded shopkeepers in her hometown of Modbury to give up plastic bags altogether, thus launching the campaign of which we are seeing the results today.

Discarded plastic bags may occasionally have their uses. I am told that in some parts of Africa there has developed a cottage industry in which people turn them into hats. But on the whole I have to say that even I am convinced that they are not a good thing. So I will try not to mourn them. I will stock up on sturdy canvas bags and try to remember to take them with me to the supermarket. Or maybe I should do the sensible thing and start getting my groceries delivered to my home instead.

If Chancellor had chosen to write a classical argument, he might have declared his position in the first paragraph, perhaps with a thesis statement like this:

The forthcoming British ban on plastic bags is a good thing because the ban will help reduce the plastic pollution of oceans and other environmental damage caused by discarded bags.

He would have then presented his evidence about environmental damage caused by plastic bags, particularly to marine life. Near the end of his argument, he might have summarized an opposing view ("Of course, many people like plastic bags ... "), conceded that the plastic bags had many uses, but then switched to another field of values: "However, the environmental harm caused by pollution outweighs the ben- efits to consumers." Organized as a classical argument, Chancellor's essay would use a Toulmin schema similar to our plastic bag example in Chapter 3.

But Chancellor delays stating his thesis until the last paragraph and instead begins his argument with what looks like a lament for the loss of the plastic bag- " the most useful shopping tool of the last half-century." As a cultural conservative writing for a conservative British magazine, he imagines his readers being angry at the government for banning these wonderful plastic bags. He assumes that his readers will expect him to oppose the ban on plastic bags, viewing the ban as an example of an overreaching liberal government. But instead he surprises them halfway through by supporting the ban.

His delayed thesis structure allows him to bring in a second argument in favor of the ban an argument praising the unselfishness of British citizens who voted overwhelmingly to go against their own selfish interests. The actor in this happy story is not an overreaching liberal government but rather the average Brit- ish citizen, whose unselfishness is made more vivid by the writer's and readers' shared love of the plastic bag. The title of the essay and the opening paragraphs give readers a chance to identify first with their beloved plastic bags and then second with the unselfishness of good people acting to save the world. Whereas the classical argument can often seem to divide stakeholders into pro and con camps, Chancellor's delayed-thesis approach unites writer and readers as unself- ish, good people placing the needs of the world above themselves. Conservatives' grumbles against an overreaching government dissolve into warm feelings about being unselfish and doing good for the world.

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 97

Writing a Delayed-Thesis Argument Clearly, where you place your claim can affect your argument' s impact on its audience. We should note, however, that a delayed-thesis argument is not sim- ply a classical argument turned upside down. Instead, it promotes empathy for the audience's views, inviting rather than compelling them toward the writer's stance. It places value on enriching and complicating the discussion by explor- ing different perspectives. It entails some risk to the writer because it leaves space only at the end of the argument for developing the writer's claim. More- over, it can backfire in a confusing way if the writer simply seems to change positions without explanation. When done well, however, it may lead the writer and readers to a deeper understanding of the issue, provide clarification, and promote further discussion. Although there is no set form, the organization plan in Figure 6.3 shows characteristic elements often found in delayed-thesis arguments.

Figure 6.3 Organizational plan for a delayed-thesis argument Organization Plan for a Delayed-Thesis Argument

Introduction

Option 1: Truth-seeking exploration of issue*

Option 2: Establishment of shared values**

Delayed thesis and support

Conclusion

• Establish the problem under discussion and (when

appropriate) the occasion that makes the issue timely

(kairos).

• Explore the problem from multiple perspectives,

showing the validity of different views

• Show how you are wrestling with the problem

• For a good portion of the argument, keep the

problem open, building some suspense about

what your thesis will be

• Focus on values or beliefs that you share with the

resistant audience

• Show openness and sympathy toward your audience's

view of the issue

• Present your thesis-claim later in the argument

• If you present your thesis at the end, it should grow

out of reasons and evidence presented earlier

• If you present your thesis in the middle, then support

it with reasons and evidence

• Leave a last impression favoring your thesis

*This exploratory approach is illustrated by Ellen Goodman's " Womb for Rent- For a Price" in Chapter 7.

** The shared values approach is illustrated by Alexander Chancellor's " Oh How I Will Miss the Plastic Bag " in this chapter.

98 Chapter 6

Conclusion This chapter explained strategies for addressing alternative views. When intending to engage supportive audiences in a cause, writers often compose one-sided argu- ments. Neutral or undecided audiences generally respond most favorably to clas- sical argument, which uses strong reasons in support of its claim while openly summarizing alternative views and responding to them through rebuttal or con- cession. Strongly resistant audiences, who might not be persuaded by classical argument, may be reached more effectively through a delayed-thesis argument that begins with openness toward opposing views.

Writing Assignment A Classical Argument or a Delayed Thesis Argument

Option 1: A Classical Argument Write a classical argument following the explanation in Section 2.1 at the beginning of Chapter 2 and using the guidelines for developing such an argument throughout Chapters 2-6. Consider carefully how you w ill handle alternative views in your argument, based on your awareness of your audience's degree of resistance to your claim and reasons. How will you rebut opposing views? Where will you concede to them? Depend- ing on your instructor's preferences, this argument could be on a new issue, or it could be a final stage of an argument in progress. For an example of a classical argument, see "The Dangers of Digital Distraction" by Lauren Shinozuka (below). Note how Lauren uses research to show that she is joining a larger public conver- sation on her generation's use of digital technology.

Option 2: A Delayed-Thesis Argument If you imagine a strongly resistant audience, write a delayed-thesis argument following the model of either Alexander Chancellor in this chapter or of Ellen Goodman in Chapter 7.

Reading The following essay, by student writer Lauren Shinozuka, illustrates a classical argument. This essay grew out of Lauren's own wrestling with her immersion in social media. She decided to persuade her peers to see the problem her way with the goal that they will join her in new awareness and new habits.

Student Essay

The Dangers of Digital Distractedness

Lauren Shinozuka

We are the Net Generation, the Facebook Generation digital natives. Cultural critics praise us for our digital skills, our facility with multimedia, and our ability to interact electronically with others through collaboration and co-creation. But at what cost? If we are honest, the following antisocial

Responding to Objections and Alternative Views 99

scene is familiar. You are sitting at a table with friends, and then you hear various pings and look up to see every one of your friends with squinted eyes, checking social media apps and text messages, scrolling away on their phones and furiously punching a reply. What kind of togetherness is this? We seem to feel some urgency or need to know what the world wants from us in that moment, prompting us to check our smartphones every six and a half minutes a day. Although we may seem to be skillfully interactive tech- nologically, I argue that our behavior represents dependence, even addic- tion, that has deep, pervasive consequences. It harms us by promoting an unproductive habit of multitasking, by dehumanizing our relationships, and by encouraging a distorted self-image.

I can hear my peers immediately rejecting these claims as too extreme and too critical, and I acknowledge that a good case can be made for our digital savvy and the benefits that it brings. Armed with smartphones and laptops, we believe we are masters of technology because we can access so much information easily and immediately. Thanks to our cell phones, all of our friends are only a mere click or swipe away for starting a conver- sation or sending an invitation to meet up. I also have to admit that our digital knowledge gives us on-the-job advantages. At my part-time job at a high-end retail store, I constantly use a mobile point-of-sale system to ring up customers for fast and easy "on-the-spot checkout," receiving compliments for my competence. With my comfort with the company's technology, I can troubleshoot easily and help other employees. Because technology facilitates much of what we do and keeps us plugged into the rest of the world, I recognize that it can be difficult to see the negative aspects of our relationship to digital technology, but it is time for serious self-examination.

In college, we tell ourselves that multitasking with technology helps us use our time wisely, but in actuality we become even less productive. I notice that while I study, I feel the need to stop every five or ten minutes to check my phone, or log onto a website and allow myself to get distracted before going back to my task. These momentary distractions eat away at my time; when I sit down to write a paper at 9 P.M. I am often startled to find that it is suddenly 12 A.M. and I have less than a page written. We Millen- nials think we are so cutting edge with our multitasking, yet we get little done with our time. We submerge ourselves into a technological bubble consisting of laptops and music and cell phones, convinced that by arming ourselves with these tools, we can really do it all. In actuality, as writer John Hamilton explains in his report for National Public Radio, our brains cannot "focus on more than one thing at a time." Hamilton cites MIT neuroscientist Earl Miller, who says that our minds are "not paying attention to ... two things simultaneously, but switching between them very rapidly"; thus, multitasking in itself is a myth. Furthermore, as we continue to overload our brains with multiple tasks, we also begin to reshape our thought processes. Technology the Internet in particular helps us avoid the hard work of concentration and contemplation. In the article "Is Google Making Us Stu- pid?" nonfiction business and technology writer Nicholas Carr describes this way we take in and distribute information as a "swiftly moving stream

(continued)

1 00 Chapter 6

of particles." We skim rather than read; we rapidly switch tasks rather than truly multi task. I recognize this superficial way of operating in the world in my own behavior. I often turn to Google for an immediate answer to a ques- tion I have: Who's the current Speaker of the House? How many ounces are in a cup? Then I click on the first link I see, and more often than not, I see the little subheading that states, "You've visited this page X times." I realize my mental instincts tell me that it's much easier to Google an answer multiple times rather than just learn the information. Because I constantly overindulge in my technology, I have engrained the habits of skimming streams of information, constantly bouncing from one task to another, but never stopping to bask in its depths.

Our obsession with technology and social media not only reshapes the way we think, but also fosters a type of false superficial friendship with people we barely know, dehumanizing the kinds of relationships we have. Since coming to college, I've made hundreds of new Facebook friends and attracted dozens of new followers on Twitter. To be fair, a number of these people are truly my good friends, but most of these "friendships" came from a one-time meeting at a party or a class I had with them during my sophomore year. Although some will insist on the vital role social media plays in keeping them connected to distant family and friends, we need to address more directly the extent and pervasive effects of our more com- mon arbitrary cyber friendships. Last summer, while I taught a program at a local elementary school, I would occasionally post a Facebook status of something funny that happened that day, or a picture of my class. Back home later for a short vacation, I ran into a girl from high school whom I hadn't seen in four years and barely knew then. When we stopped to chat, she asked me all about my summer program, and she commented that all my students were so cute! After our chat, I left feeling perturbed and uneasy. Immediately, I thought she was so "creepy," but I realized that ultimately I chose to share my life with the rest of the world. Speaking about these digital relationships, Sherry Turkle, MIT professor and author of Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, labels our behavior "a Goldilocks effect": "We can't get enough of one another if we can use technology to keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far, just right." That moment when my distant "friend" reached out to me about my summer felt so disturbing because she crossed that Goldilocks line through a personal face-to-face conversation. I am embarrassed to say that I was comfortable only when she was one of the masses; I didn't want to engage in a true interpersonal connection.

s This lack of intimacy through false relationships leads to the creation of a distorted identity. We begin to form a social identity through our conscious decisions of what we choose to share with the rest of the digital world. We want to post pretty pictures that will garner us a number of "likes," and we want to tweet something witty or profound so others will retweet us. When I began to reevaluate my own social media identity, I found that I consciously try to word my Facebook status in order for people to find it

Respond ing to Objections and Alternative Views 101

funny, and I'm obsessed with editing my pictures with the r ight filters to achieve that h ipster artist effect. I realized that I was interpreting my own life experiences in such a way that I would seem interesting or entertaining to all of my "friends," as if I were performing for an audience I was trying to please. That image of myself is dishonest: It conveys the person I want people to think I am, not the real me.

We see this willful self-distort ion in a growing trend called "catfishing": an Internet phenomenon where one person creates a false online identity to engage in a romantic relationship with another person physically far removed. Instead of using his or her own photo, the "catfisher" substitutes photos of attractive, talented people to create a false identity. A documen- tary named for this phenomenon, Catfish, features these long-distance lovers traveling across the country for a chance to meet the person who is really on the other side of the screen. Often that person's appearance and even gender and motives are strikingly at odds with the self-portrayal. While it is easy for us to judge negatively these extreme cases of catfishing, Molly McHugh, writer for Digital Trends, points out what she calls the "slippery slope of catfishdom." These cases may seem extreme, but to an extent, all of us who embrace social media are indeed "catfish" as well. We succumb to what McHugh calls the "aspirational beast" of social media, bending the truth online to some degree in order to portray the self that we want to be. With our growing reliance on social media and technology, the tendency for our romantic relationships to blend into our digital selves becomes even more prevalent. When we continue to mix this intimate, personal self w ith the demands and desires of social media, we produce tragic, ill-formed identities that no longer resemble our true selves.

Of course, we may draw a sharp d istinction between our own digi- tal dependence and the growing number of young users who are actual technological addicts. (According to Carolyn Gregoire's Huffington Post article, there is now an inpatient Internet rehabilitation center designed specifically for true addicts.) However, our own participation in the more widespread digital craze remains a serious problem too. Yet by taking the first step of making the unconscious conscious, I believe we can combat the digital damage in our lives. I have begun by taking several steps. I purposefully put my phone across the table so I physically need to get up to check it; I let myself binge-check all my social media apps only once, just before going to bed, rather than ten times a day, and I have stopped trying to take pictures of every pretty meal I consume or sunset I see because I know that those are my own special moments, not some glamorous, envy- inducing image I want to project. I have begun to avoid friends who find their phones more interesting than the immediate world around them, and this new company has made it easier to break away from my own addic- tion. I am trying to rehumanize my friendships, and I am finding solace in deep reading once more without the distractions of cell phone vibrations. I invite members of my generation to join me, so we can be together, no longer alone together.

(continued)

1 02 Chapter 6

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains." The Atlantic, July-Aug. 2008, www.theatlantic.com/ magazine I archive I 2008 I 07 I is-google-making-us-stupid/ 306868.

Gregoire, Carolyn. "Welcome to Internet Rehab." The Huffington Post, 25 Sept. 2013, updated 25 Oct. 2013, www.huffingtonpost. com/2013 I 09/25 I this-is-where-people-are-_n_3976240.html.

Hamilton, John. "Think You're Multitasking? Think Again." National Public Radio, 2 Oct. 2008, www.npr.org/templates/story /story. php ?story Id=95256794.

McHugh, Molly. "It's Catfishing Season! How to Tell Lovers from Liars Online, and More." Digital Trends, 23 Aug. 2013, www.digitaltrends.com/ web I its-catfishing-season-how-to-tell-lovers-from-liars-online-and-more.

Turkle, Sherry. "The Flight from Conversation." The New York Times, 21 Apr. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/ 04/22/ opinion/ sunday I the- flight-from-conversation.html.

Critiquing "The Dangers of Digital Distractedness"

1. How does Lauren Shinozuka establish the kairos of her argument? In what ways does she use pathos to reach her primary audience of Millennials?

2. What is her claim? What reasons does she use to support her claim?

3. What evidence does Lauren employ to support her reasons? What pieces of evidence do you find especially effective?

4. Where has Lauren anticipated resistance to her argument and how has she responded to opposing views?

5. If you were discussing the issue of digital distractedness with Lauren, what ideas would you contribute to further support, complicate, or refute her argument?

PARTT •

7 Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically

8 Argument as Inquiry: Reading, Summarizing, Responding

- ,. -

Across th e country, p rotests like this on e are raising awaren ess of the poverty-level wages of fast-food workers, who are not represented by unions and w h o often depend on public assistan ce su ch as food stamps to get by every month. While protestors argue for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, opponents argue that raising th e minimu m wage would increase food prices and reduce the number of jobs. If you were m aking a brochure or poster in favor of an increased minimum wage for fast-food workers, how effective would this realistic, low-key photo b e in raising sympathy for the cause? Ch apter 8 explores the issue of a living wage for unskilled workers.

103