Argumentative research

WACh.588-101.pdf

Home >English homework help >Argumentative research

!ts = F + & Sft'ef &

fi 85$ ffi # rrlEffi trffi {# trTg#f,trf tf#Eti

l&hat y*u will 4earn i tgiis eh*pter; 5.'l To explain the different kinds ofevldence 5"? To rnake your evideoce persuasive by using the STAR criler a afd other

strategies 5.3 To understand evidence rhetorically by expiaining ho\i/ the seiection

and framing oievideilce reveals an angle ofvision

In Cirapters 3 ancl 4 rve introduced \.ou to the concept of logo-s thc loqical shLlcture of reasons and evidence in an argument and shtlved you horv an effective ilrgument adyances lhe \\'riter'.s ciaim bv linking its suppol ting reasoDs to one or more assLLlnptiolls, beliel-i, or values held bi, the irtended xudiencc. ln this chaptet, \\'e turn to the uses of e..'idencc i11 argrllnent. B,v "evir1ence," rve inean xll the Yeritlabie dilta and uribrmation a writer nlght use as sLrpport tbr an argument. In Tbr.rlnr inls terms, eviclence is pall of the 'gr ouncls" or "backil]g" of an argument ilr support of reasons or lvatr-ants. By unrlerstanding evidence lhetorically, you \vill better understand horv lo use evidence ethicalll., responsibly, and persrlasivel), in 11)Lu-olrn argurrents.

i;. 1,1 11 1l 1'l -1:''iI:'I..ir'II;'.I 5.? To explain rhe different kinds

of --'/idence

lVriters have llllulerous options lbr the kinds of evidence the1,

can use in an argumentl including personal expelience, observa- lions, interviel\'s, qtlestiollrlaires, iiekl or laborakrrr, research, or findings clerived lrrrlr researching prin']ary or secolclirrv sources

lound ltr Librrries, ciatabaser, or.the 1\Iorli',,\rie1e l,\reb. Ca:.tnen Tieu'.s argu- nlcrt ir) thc last cllap'icr is ba-scd on pelsonirl c-rperience. Ilorc comnonlt,, college algurrents require libraly and Intcrnet lesearch-rviiat profess<-,rs

call "intbrmation litelacyi'The skills iind la.rorvledge neecied for illirrnratiolt literac)., are explained in Part Fi\,€, 1\,here 11,e sho\\r,volr horr. to find iurd cvaluate sources, iricorpolate thein into 1;our olvn .1rg111nent, altl cite ancl clocu lreni theln pr-oper'l-v. Ihis chapte'l lbcirses nole basically on ho\\. eviden.e iiulctions rhe1orical11,iri an algurlent ard horv i1 is seiectcd anil irarred.

Xlat inte.l (See

l €

t s

:i ir:|:giiil

Th pa, aln l.re;

fifi on( the the dal

CHAPTER 5 ili|rcl t! Lls|.e Lia.t leiy 89

\,\rc l,ill begin br categorizing dilterenr kir.rds oi evideuce, illustr.atins horv each hiDil rrri{rht be incor-poratecl it)fo ar} argul']]el]t, a1}d suggesting the strenglhs a[d lirnitations ofeach.

ilata fr$m Pcrso a, Exp€rienee One powerful kind ofeyidence comes from personal experience:

Example Strengths and Limitations

Despite recent cdticisnr that Ritalirl i.r

overprescribecl for- hrperacliYiL_y ancl iiitelttioi.clcficit disordat. it aan otiell seeDr

like a rlilacle dr Lrg. Nly litlt blotlter is I perlecr erarnpic. liefore he lvas giyell Rilalill. h. tas il ler rol in school. . . . f1ell th,e "bclort" anri "aiier" storl' oii,our little brother.]

Persorlai experie[ce e:iampies help : eade|s identif, (.ith writerj thel sho1\.1triLc'ri persolal.onnection to tht issli.'. Vi\,irl sLoljcs aapLLLre the ilnagjnatiod irrld aPl,eal 1o r.rilroj. Si(eptics ma)' sonletirnes argue that personal-cxperience exarnp)es ale illsufficient (wl iter is guilty ofhastl, gcrlcl'alization). not tliriaal, or Llot adeqLlatel), s.icrtlllc o; r,ei itlable.

Data frorir Observation or Field Researeh you can also develop evidence by personally observing a phenomenon or by doing your own field research:

Example Strengths altd Limitations 'i'h. intelsectron it Fiftit i1lld liontgoDrcl )' is oarti..ll:,r11 darqe'ot.. 1,.,.r1... p, oi\rr.,,r\ alnrosi nevel flnd a co1l brtable brcak in the hearr flory olcars. On April 29, I \ratched litt\r ,re.,.e r fc(lcslr'a ! cross thc street. i,\ol oo.e did car-s slop ir1 both oi|ections bciire lhc i)erleslriil]] stepped oiathe sidcwxlk orlto the stlect. iContinrre rviLh obscIr.ccl clirtir about darger.]

Field resealch gives tlie iee)ilg of s.ier)tjtc creclibilit),. It increases t).picality by expa[dnrg database beyond e-rarr ple ofone PCrcon. Il enhitlaes thc etloj ofthe rvriter as pelsonally irx,ested ald reasonable-

Skeptics iril)'point io flaws i,l hot| olrservations h,ere conducte(i, shoryir)g how data ale in-(Llfficicnt. ii]accurdte, or ltonlypiarl.

i !r:ri'r :ii;",!.. ):',;:,,r',.tit ir.-,, i:,:r::;i:i,li:r'i:;iii:. :.:iti1i*'\:,:: YOu ciir also gathcr data by interyielying stakeholders it1 a controvers),, creating questionnaires, or doing surveys. (See pages 347-348 for advice on horv to corduct this kind of field research.)

90 PART 2 \ryririncl afi Arqurneni

Example Strengths and Limitations

Arother reason to ban laptops tionl classrooms is the extent to lvhich laptop users disturb other studerts. In a questioll naire rlral l dislribrre(l lo cfLy stuJer)ts i my residelce hali, a surprisir']g 60 percent said that they are annoyed by fellorv stu- dents checking Facebook, sending e mail, paying their bills, or surfiog the Web rvhile preteodilrg to t{ke rotes in class. Additio aliy, I intclvie$'ed fil,e students rvho gave me specific exarlples ofhorv these distractions interfere h,ith learniDg. {Report lhe examples.l

Interviews, questiol1rraires, and sLiNeys

enhance the sufficiency and typicality ofevidence by expanding the database

beyond the experiences ofone pelson-

Quartitatil'e data from questionnaircs and surveys often increase the scientific feel of the argument. Surveys and questionnailes oftel uncover local or recent data not available in published research. Lltelvie\r.s can provide engagilg pcrsonal stories, thus enhancing paf,hoJ.

Skeptics can raise doubts about research methodologl,, questionlaire design, or t)?icality of intervierl, subiects.

t s

il P "1

n (r

of fo

Ex Data from Library or intelnet Researah For many arguments, evidence is derived from readirrg, particularly from library or lnternet research. Part Five of this text helps

you conduct effective research and incorporate research sources into your arguments:

Example Strenglhs and Limitatio s

sur

t1v(

oll Bur

The belief that a high'carbohydrate, lon-fat diet is the best way to lose B,eight has been clrallenged by research conducted b1'Walter Willett and his colleagues in the departnent ofnutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. 1{rilictt's rese:rrclr suggests that cornple-< carbohldrates such as Pasta and potatoes spike glucose levels, increasilg the risk ofdiabetes. Additionaliy, sone fats- especially monounsaturated and polyun- saturated fats found in nuts, fish, and most vegetable oils-irelp lower "bad" choiesterol levels (45).*

Researched evidence is often porr,erful, especially rvhen sources a[e respected by your audience; rvriLers can spotlight sourcet credentials through attributive tags (see Chapter 16, pages 368-370). Researched data nla),take the form of lacts. exarnples. quutiltioris,s(r ),)raries of research studies, and so forth (see Chapters I5 ard 16),

Skeptics might do(lbt the accuracy of facts, the credentials ofa source, or the resealch design ofa study. They rnight also cite studies \\.ith differe t resuits. Skeptics might raise doubts about su#icienq,, rypicality, or rclevartce ofyoru research data.

Hyr hvp que

Exa

Con to ui to ht crosl ordir suPe a sut

Testimony Writers frequently use testimony when direct data are either r"rnavailable

or highly technical or complex. Testimonial evidence can come from research or fi'onr

interviervs:

*Palenthetical citations in this example aod the next follort'the MLA documentation s,vstelrr.

See Chapter 17 for a full discussion of holv to cite and doculnent souJces.

e -l

CHAPTER 5 Usinq Evidence Efiecrively 91

E-xample Strengths and Limitations

rd oi

AlthoLrgh the Srvedisl'l ecorrcmist llrorn Lorllborg cliiims that acid rain is not a significant ploblem, rrriiny environrncntal isls disaglee. Accorilirg to Dar,irl Ilcllarranli !jresidert 1)1_ the Conserviiiii}n [.o(r)1a]ati(ril, 'lAciel rail docs ki11 forests ald peoDle aroun.i ijle rrorid, i1r).1 ils slill doing so iu lhe Inost polhrled piaces, such as Rlrssia" (qtcl. in BllC Neri,s).

B) itscli, lestimonv is gcner;rlly less pei' suilsi\,e tlriur direct data. Ircrsua"^ivelless cali bc increased if stlLtrce hds iirpressive crecleltiais, rvhich the $riter can stale tliroLrgh n1,.li1)utive tags introduclnt lhe LestilllLrn)- (see Chaptel 16, fages 163 370). Skepti.s nlight underntirle iestir11()l]ial et idence b,v questioning cleclc11tials of soul!e, shor!ing sour ce'.s blas, or quoting a

c()Lrnters(it1fce, rral

!iLi):iit;ir'-.r; iiii;', I.lany contelnporlriy lrr'gLllnents rclr. lte.tr'iit. o statistical datn, ofien supplemented bv graphics such as rables, pie charts, anci graphs. (See Chapter 9 fol a discussion ofthe r.rse olgraphics in argument.)

!ed 'lpt Example Strengths and Limitations

Arner-!cans are deiayinq lnarriage iri a

sutprising rate. ln 1!70, 85 pelccr)t 1)1

Anlelicans betx'eer ages nyent\' live aad tweDty-ni]lc- \\'ere ntarried. In 2010, hoi{el,er, only 45 percent were marriecl (U.S- Ce sus

1]ureau).

St?itistics can gi\. po$er1ul sllapshots of irgqregale dili:l lionl ir l'ide tlatabase Thcv ar-c oftell [scd in .onjtnction H ilh graphics (see pages 200 206). 'lhey can be caicuiated anti clisplayed in difGrcnt',r.a1 s k) ilchieye diller€nl rlielori clrl eilccts, so the readcr,Drst l,e t"ar.,,

( see irage 1 r:l 1 ) .

Skcptic5 1n1*1r1 .,u".,ion slalisti.ij metll()ds, resear.h desigll, il11d interpretation oI.lata.

Hypctl,etica! Ex;l,r$i*s, {;:se:, and Sf,eftarit;r Arguments occasionallt' use hypothetical exrrmples, cares, ur-sccr-rarios, paniculilrl), to illustlilte col]jectLired colrse quences ofan cvent ol to test pliilosophical illptitheses:

Example Strengths and Limitations

Consider *,hat rnigiri happen ilwe corrlinLre kr Llse biolech soybearls lhat arc resisteJrt to herbicides. l-lle resislrljl gcnc, lhr-ough .ross poiiir),1tio , nriglrt be transier|ed to an or-dinar r rrccrl, creati[g in or]t oI aortlol super',r'ccc1 thal helbicides coiLidl'l kiil. SLrch

a supcrrveed could be ao ecologicai disaster.

Scenarios ha\,e stroDg imaginalive appeal. l'hey are persLlasive on11 ifthey scem plausible. r\ lacnario 11i11r;!ti\.e otiell aonveJs x -(ensc ,t, I'i ',lJF',rlr \\. rr rl l1 \'.r..1 ..!.r.lr'l

is Lrnlikclr': hence rheLorical eiiect rlrybe illogical. Skeptics might sholv the inplausibii. ill,of tllc scenalio or oflir ar alterralivc

i::_i;=iliiEiM

92 PART 2 Y./ritiog an A{quorent

Reasoned Sequenee of ideas Sometimes arguments are supported \yith a reasoned sequence of ideas rather than with concrete facts or other forms of empirical evidence. The *niter\ concern is to support a poiat through a logical plogrcssion of ideas. Such argumerts ale conceptual, supported by linked ideas, rather than evidential. This kind of support occurs frequently in arguu.rents and is often intenningled with er.idential support.

Example Strengths and Limitttions

Embryonic stem celi research, despite its promise in tighting diseases, may have negative social consequences. This research

encourages us to place embryos in the category of mere cellular matter that cart be maripulated at will. Currently we reduce aninals to this category rchen lve geneti cally alter them for human purposes, such as engineet ing pigs to grorv more human- like heart Yalves for use in transplants. Using human embryos in the same way-as nlaterial that cao be altered and destroyed at wili-may benefit society materially, but this quest for greater klorvledge aud control irlvolves a reclassifying ofembryos thal could potentially lead to a devaluing ofhuman life.

, Tliese sequences ate often used in causal

argunrents to sholv horv car.rses are lioked to effects or iD delir'!itionai or values arguments to sho\y links among iders- ]'he,v hal€ gleat powel to clarilyvnlues and shorv the beliefstructure orl r,hich a

claim is fouuded. They can skctch out ideas and coonections that r{ould other*ise remain latent. Their efitctiveness depends on the audience'.s acceptance ofeach link in the sequence of ideas. Skeptics rnight raise objections at any lirrL in the sequen.e. often b) pointing to diff-erent values or outlining diFferent conscquences-

The Persuasive Use of Evidence 5,2 To make your evidence persua-

sive by using the STAR crlteria and other strategies

\rye turn now frorn kinds of evidence to strategies for making evidence as

convincing and persuasiye as possible. Consider a target audience of edu- cated, reasonable, and careful readers rvho approach an issue rvith healthy skepticism, opell-minded but cautious, Wrat deinancls would such readets

make on a writer-t use of eviclence? To begin to ansrver that question, let'.s

look at some general principles for using evidence persuasively.

Apply the STAR Criteria to Evidence

Our open-minded but skeptical audience rvould first ofall expect the evidence to meet what rhetorician Richard Fulkersou calls the STAR criteria:*

Sufficiency: Is there enough evidence?

Typicaliry: Is the chosen evidence representative and tfpical?

Accuracy: Is the evidence accurate and up-to-date?

Relevance: Is the evidence relevant to the claim?

Let's examine each in turn.

*Richard Fulkerson, Teachilg the Atgu,,letlt i l|'irit,8 (Urbana,lL: NationalCouncil of'l'eachers of English, 1996), 44-53. In this section, ve are indebted to Fulketron! discussion.

CHAPTER 5 -lrin! t'r rle{rle EilE.ti,:et! 93

', :r::!:'-!1::; .,.: r,rr:.i:jIIrt, llo!, iluch e\.ider1ce you ni,eri js a function of t.our rhetorical c()rjtexl- Ilt a.oLtrt trial. opposing a{tol.lle'l,s i}ftetl agree t,r rv.rire eiiclence frrr points th:it areQ'l in cloubt in ortler 1o cr]ncentrate oD cortistecl poiflts. Tl.le jrore a claim is colltested or the mole your audience is siieptical, the morc evidence you may need to presert. Ifyou provide too little eYidence, 1rcu ntay be lccusetl ot Aa.st7 g.trcrnlizatiatl (see Appendi_r, page 401), a .easonillg fallac,v iu rvl.rich a pe..t,,t m,ikJs n s',. e€|iri! conllu:;icn based on onl-,. clre 9r tlio jnstances. Ol the r_.thei italrl, if You plo\.i(1. tLro nruch cvidcnce 1rcur:lrgllmeilt ntal, becolre overlr. iorrg an.l tedious. ibu c.n guald agarilsl having ioo littie or too rrruch er,icleace b,r approiriatelv qLlelif\.in" the ciaim r,oul eviclence supports.

Strolg claim: lVorking lull ti e seriously harms a studenr,.s grade point aYerage. (rnuch data n cc clerl -p robatrll- ir combination o1 crantples alld statjsticai itildiei) Qualified claim: 1\br(ing Itill tijjr. oiiel harnN . .t!(leni,s gr.i.ie LroiJrl avernge. (a aew representntive e\anll,ies ma1- Lre enorrgh)

' r'i,r.: .:i.l , i;: i ;..i, i":ili.::: \\ihellcver you select cvideltce, readets need to believe the evidence is tvpical a]ld 1-epreser]tative rather tha! extreme illstances. Suppose tllat ).ou rvant to argue that students car contbine full-time rvor-k with full tinie college and cite the case of ,vour lricnd Pan, rvho pLrlled a straight A grade pcir.rt average rrhiie ivorking frtrty l-'ours L,er l'eek as a night r.e.eDtiollist ir.r a sri.rall hotel. \bur aucljence B'licht dollbt the Lvplcalili, of Parns c:lse slLr-L-.r ]u.qltt reccptirrni\t c.rn olierr use ryorl< hours lor studving. l\rhat ilbou[ mor.c trpLcrl iohs, thcl'Jl asl,. r,-h,-,r.c )ou car.],t studl, rrhile ,vou rvrlrk?

i\q:l:,r'r,+{,: ,ll ,iivirir-,1'lc4r Evidence can't be used ethicai}y unless it is accurate and !rp_ to date, altd it can't be pc,suasil.-e unless the audiencc believes ii-, tlte ci.c-dil-,ilii,,oi.iirc ',vriter's sourcc's. \{t'il deve}r-.p this poirt ll ore fully later in this section.

: l :, : i , r ; , i i .

r: r .i:' ':iji.r...,! i:. Finally, evidence rvill be perstiasir.e only if the leaCer corsiders it releyant to what is at stake in the disprltc. Consider the folkxr.ing student argurnent: "I deserve an A in this coluse because I worked exceptionall,v hircli'The student tiren cjtes substantial evidence of horv hartl he rvorl<ed--a 1og of strrcil, hours, copies of rrultiple draft-s pf papglli, testimony from flie[ds, and so lorth. l]ut rvhat is at stake herc is the unrierlr.ing:lssltnlption (..r,arrant) that grildes s]:ould bc based orr c1Iort, oot qualit\. ofl'ork. The siuclent plovides altple evidence to supiror.t the reasolr ("I ii.orked exccptionallv harcl") but this eyiderlce is irrcievant tbr the rvarrant (.,people rvho work exceptionally hard deserve att A'). Altirough some instructors qlay give partial credit tbr eflbrt, the criterion fbr grades is usuallv the quiility of the studerrt,s perlbflnancc, not the studeltt'.! tiute spcilt siLid.).ing.

EstafuSisfi a Trustr{rorthy Eth{}s

Besides supplying evidence that meets the STAR criteria, you can make your evidence more_persuasiye by being fair, honesl and open to uncertainty (the appeal to etftos see Chapter 6, paees 106 107). To establish 1rcur readers' confidence, you must first tell them the source of ,vour evidence. Ifyour evidence corles from personal e::perience or

94 PART 2 Wiring an Arguraent

obseruation, your prose needs to nrake that clear. If your er.idence comes from others (say through interviews or librar'ly'lnternet research), you must indicate these sources ttlrough attriblrtive tags (phrases like 'iccording to T. Alvarez" or 'hs stated by a recent EPA report"). For academic papels, )'ou must also cite and document your sources using an applopriate style for in-text citations and concluding hibliography. (Part l'ive of this text explains hou, to find, use, and cite research sources-) Final\,, you need to be fair in the way you select evidence from your research sources. For example, it is unethical to take quotations out of context or to rvrite an unfair su[lmary that over- simplifies or distorts a source author's intended meaning.

Be Mindful of a Source's Eistan(e from Original Data

When you support an argument through library/Ilternet research, you often encoun- ter sources that report evidence from a second- or third-hand perspective- You need to imagine rvhere your source author found the information that you nori, $,ant to use

in your own argumenl. Horv might you tu'ace the process that led from the original data to your source author's use of it? Let's take as an example a passage from ]ames Surowiecki's article on the mininum wage reprinted in Chapter 2. Because this is a magazine article rather than an academic paper, it contains no footnotes or bibliog- raph1., but Surowiecki nevertheless uses attributive tags to identify hrs main sources. Here is a passage from page 33:

Passage from "The Pay lsToo Damn Low" by James Surowiecki

[O]vel the past three decades, the U.S. economy has done a poor job of creating good middle class jobs; five of the six fastest grorving iob cAtegories today pay less thau the median wage. Thatt wh)., as a recel1t

strrdy by the economists Johr Schmitt and Janelie Joles l]as sl]or.,r knv- s'aqe wolkcr'. ,: r'lJrr ",:..1 i,rrrrr cdL,cated than uvcr. Vorr impurtirnl. rnol? of theln are rel,ving on their paychecks not for pin money or to pay fol Friday-night dates but, rathe., to support fanilies.

lvluch of Surorviecki's argument for incleasing the nrirrimum lvage depends on eyidence that low-wage workers are 'blder ald better educated than evetl' But rrre might ask, How does Surowiecki larorv about the age and education oflorv-rvage rvorkers? Why should rve trust hirr? Using an attributive tag, he identifies his source as a recent study by economists ,ohn Schmitt and Janelle |ones, \Are plugged these names into a Google search and quickly located the source: A white paper titled, "Low-lvage Workers Are

Older and Better Educated than Ever," dated April 2012, from the Center for Economic and Poiicy Research, rvhich, according to its 1{cb site, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research centet aimed at providilg factual economic data for pr.rblic policy makers.

aHAPTER 5 LJ.i,r.! E'i (len.e LHettiyrlv 95

So },here did Schiiitt irDtl ]ones g.{ lheir data?'lhcv clte stali-stical tablcs conrPlled

bv the "Clullent Populirtion Surver,l'l'hich is a ]oilt ellblt ol the Cansus Btireari arrl Burcau ofLabor Slatistics. Basetl ou these original data, Schmitt ancl ioucs corlstructed

tigo graphs shtnving shilts in distribution of lol'rvirge rvt.rrkers by age and then by

education from lgTi to 2011. One of the.se grqrhs, lirr exaurple, shows that in 1979.26

percen t of lort' l'lge l obs u'ere held bt' teenagers, Ioul br' 201 I on l,l I 2 Pcrccllt u'ele tcen -

.Lgers. (\'oli ciln se. tiris grapir in Ohapler 2, i..i8ure 2.-1. Page 22). CotrYersel"', 1hc secoud

gialh s1-lorvs that in i979 rlnll'25 i-'grgslll ofioir rvage jc'b holders hacl coarplcted at

lcasi stitne coliege, blLt b\' 201 1. 1-l Percei'it l-rirtl rorllplelecl solrlc collcge.

l,et\ surlnarize the process rve have itlst trilced: 'l he original data canre frot.t't gov

ernn.rent statistics collectecl bv the Cettsris Bureau and the BLlreau of Labor Statistics.

Schl.ritt aud Tones thel convert€d these rlaLir lnto cle{ailecl graPlls. Suro\Yiccki then

sr.r[rrrarizecl the message of tl:e graplrs into his sir]:lle seiltelice. If ]'(,t1 ll'cre thetl to cite

Surou'icclii as \()r1r solrrce lor thi-s sllie ittltrlnution, rou "r'oulrl

tre clcpencling on a chair.i of trr}t slretchirg fiom thc or.igirral rlata throu.qh Schmill irud Joncs arrd

SLrrou'ieclti to you. Of course, Iotl cilll't be erpccterl to tracc all ,','out rescarch gatirered

evidence back to the original data, brit,vou need to irnagioe tllat it is pttssibie to clo so'

Ideallv. the closer voti can get to tlte original data, the morc tmstln)rth,Y )rcur evidence'

Often, r.iii1-ortLinltel\', lact checkars emplol'ecl b1'ltctls s,>tttccs or trorlplotit 1)rgatriza-

tions disa01,er that purpOl-ledll,aCCurate islolnatiq6 Ctlllot be trace{i ir:rk to a rre<li-

b1e original sout'ce. 'l ire -r' tuisht shorv th.t the inl1l.ll'latiott is oot iitcttral :rtall tiratiti's clerivei tion tlaled or discrediled stuclies, that il has bcctt distorted oofairl)', or that

sonetilles it lrils even treen invented in the seryice of propagarlda PolitiJact.tottx, a

nalionally rcspected fact-checker, uses a "truth-o-meter" to rank PuIPorted evidential

statements alorg a scale fron "True' to "'Faisel' 1\'ith the nlost egregiousll' false stalc

lllerlls earllillg thcir [rtnor:s "Palts-ott I]irej'atvatd '[b develrl]r a resPectcd r:flirl'r- -vtlu

neecl to clevelitp )'rllir olfll illtelnal trlrtll o 1]-rete[ b,v being irr"tlre of a sotiri:t-'s distancc

fionr tl.re or iginal data arld b)' occasiorlall,r' tr acing b;rck a pit'ce of er'iletrcc Lo its orisns'

Rhetorical Understanding of Evidence Jn the previous secti.itl i!'e piesentcd sonle prilciples tbr pcrsuir

si,'e use of er,idelcc \\ie nur' asli ,1'ou 1tl looir tnore closeh' at the

r'1-retorica] c ltext il ir,hich evicleuce oPerirtes.

Angle of VisEora and the Seleeti$ri and FrfiffixislS

5,3 To uncielstanci evidetrce

rhetoricaliy by explaining

how rhe selectioi! and

framing of evrdence reveals

an ang[e ofvision

rt 'S

+i !:ui':le.ll l;:r,r

\'\'hen $e enter the algttmeotatil'c arena, \!e aolile a! coltlplex, rvhoie pci'eons' ilot iis

tlisembodied cortpLrlerc lhitl reach ciirims tllrtittgh a valu.: ftee calculus. \Ve euter wjth

our ol,l icleologies, beliefs, r,irlues, and gLtiding assutllptions as fblmcd bv oul Piirticular- lived lir.es. Theie tlifferences help explain \\'hI one Personls terrorist miSht be another

person,s fteedttnt lightet ol rvhy a hattcl 8ut1 iI1 a (lri11ver niight Lre one pelsoti's dcfclse

agaillst inlruders arrrl anoiher personls chiltl accicler:t r"'ailillS lo llappcn. ii, rt'riting abrxlt

96 PART 2 !.Jriting an Ar.lumeDi

guns, a belieyer in Second Amendurent rights is apt to cite eyidence that having a gun can stop a violent intruder or prevent a rape. Conversell,, proponents of gun control are apt to cite evidence about accidental deatlrs or suicides. In an argument, evidence is ahva).s selected to furlher the arguert claim and is never simply an inert, r.reutral "fact."

These guiding beliefs and values t'ork together to create a lvriter'.s "angle of visionl' By this teim 1ve mee. a perspective, bias, lens, filter, frame, or screel that helps determine rvhat a rvriter sees or doesfl't see. This angle of vision makes certain items stand out in a field of data and other items become invisible. It both determines and rer.eals the rvriter's vierv of rvhich data are important and which are trivial, which are $ignificant, and which can be ignored.

To illustrate hot, angle of visiol creates this kind of selcctive seeing, consider holv nvo h)?otletical speakers might select different data about homeless people rvhen presenting speeches to their city council. The first speaker ar€ues that the city should increase its services to the homeless. The second asks the city to promote tourism more aggressivell,. Their differing angles ofvision rvill cause the $vo speakers to select different data about homeless people and to frame these data in different rvays. Because the first speaker wants to increase the council's sympathy for the homeless, she liames homeiess people positively by telling the story of one homeless mant struggle to find shelter and nuritious food. Her speech focuses primarily on the lorv number of tax dollars devoted to helping the homeless. In contrast, the second speaker, using data about lost tourist income, might frame the homeiess as 'panhandlers" by telling the story of obnoxious, urine-soaked u'inos rvho pester shoppers for handor.rts. As arguers, both speakers rvant their audience to see the homeless from their ou/n angles of vision. Consequently, lost tourist dollars dont show up at all in the first speaker's argument, $'herras the story ofa homeless man's night in the cold doesnt shorr up in the second speaker's argulnent. As this example shorvs, one goal rvriters have in selecting and framing evidence is to bring the readert vierv of the subject into alignment u.ith the \r,riter's angle of vision. The u.riter selects and frames evidence to limit and coDtrol rvhat the reader sees.

To help you better understand the concepts of seiection and framing, we offer the follorving exercise based on diilerent angles of vision regarding "festival seatiug" at rock concerts. Because of nationaily reported injuries and near-death experiences resulting from stage diving and cl o1{d surfing at rock concerts, maDy cities har.e tried to ban festival seating that allorvs for the spontaneous creation of mosh pits. Critics of mosh pits have pointed lo the injuries caused by crorvd surfing and to the ensuing larv- suits against concert venues. Ivlean$'hile, supl.ortels cite the almost ecstatic enjoyment ofcrorvd surfing rock fans who seek out concerts witl'r "festival seating."

Suppose that your city has scheduled a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to ban mosh pits at rock concerts. Among the possible data and evidence available to various speakers are the foiloning:

,'' Some bands, such as Nine Inch Nails, speci$ festival seating that allorvs a mosh pit area-

A female mosher writillg on the lnternet says: "I experience a shared energy that is like no othcr rvhen I am in the pit l,ith the crou'd. It is iike we are all a bunch of atoms bouncing offofeach other. Itk great. He),, sorle people get that feeling from basketball games. I get mine from the mosh pitl'

CHAPTER 5 Usjng Eviden.e Effe.i(,ely 97

A studeilt ctlrrdu.ted i1 surverv of tiIL), students olt l:rer r:ampus rrho hacl iLttcndcd Lock colcerts in the iast si;, 1lroilths. Of tire reslrtirrrlentr;, 8{) perccrt thoright th:,.1

rurosli pits shoulcl be allou'et1 at concerts. Narratir.e colnmeitts on these queslionnaires included the follorving:

N4osh pits ale a passion firr me. I get an amazing rrrsh u.hen crorvd surfing. I clorit like t<l be in a rnosi.r pit or do crol'd surfing. But I ior.e lcstiral seating :ii:cj like to rvatch the nosir pits. For m€, m{rsh pit-\ irre part oi the amirie nce oi ir

coDcert. I lu.ro*,a gjtl rsho l,as grcr!-.ed in a nrosl.r pit, ilud she'li ne\/er alo one again. BLlt I liave ner,er had any ptoblems. Nlosh pits are dalrgerous and stupid. I think they should tre or.itlarved. If;ou irre afiaid of nosit pits, iust sta,v airal Noboai). forces r.ou to go il.tto a

nlosh pitl It i: rirlicLrlous to bal thrm beciru:e thci, itrr krtaillr volLintar\,. The't shorLlcl jLrst post big sig!rs si:,virig, "Citv Assrlrres no iesponsibiliti tirr ac.iilerlts occur-riirg i1] mosh pit area."

C)n September 1.1, 2iJl3, six people lyere takeu to hospitals h,ith iniuries after a

mosl.r pit broke out at the Riot Fest music festival in Chicago. Accolding to a 2008 ABC nervs special, a compatlv specializing in crorvd manage rle|t 3t rocl( Iiisti\,irls estiirated that "10,(i00 people ha\,c Lreerl irjjured io and ar'o1tnd mosh pits in the ilrsi dec;lclel'The cornpani,said fiirther that'inost ilrjuries incurred fionr nqsir pits aren't actltalj,v b_y the rrrrrsher:- but bl,innocent ir'.'siandels." Ir 200-5, a bloeser reported breakir'Ig his nosc on an elboiv; anothcr describecl har' irg hJs lip ring pulled out. Arother blogger. on the sanre site described having his Iip nearll,.sliced offby the neck of a bass !iuitar. The injury required sel,entI'ejght stitches. In Nla1,2008, fiff'people rvere lreated at emergency rooil.Is lol mosll pit inittties acquired at a Barnl',oczle corcert in Ne\!'Jerse)i T\r'enn. lbur conccrt dcaths tr,ere rccorcled in 2001, most of the[] iu the area cloi est io tl.]c stagc rrhele peopie are p.acherl in. A trvent)-one-).ear -old rnan suffer-ed cartli;rc arrest at a -N4etallica concelt ir'l

Indiana and is nolv in a perlnanent vegetati\.e statc. Bccause he t'as jamn-red into the mosh pit area, rrobodv lroticed he l,as in distless. A teen.lge girl sr.rffiled br.ain dainaple irnd me orl lots 3t a 1993 Pead Jan concert ir ltapid Cifl South Dakota. According lo irel attorl]e),, she iradr't iutended to bodl sulf or rnter {lie mosh pit hut'got suckcd in \!hi1e she iras standiog at jts iringe:' The \\reb site \Vikihow offers tips on slaving sai-e in a mosh pit. AccordiDg to the site, "\'Vhile it may seern otheNvise, moshing is b,v [o n.reans a l\,ay to hult serneone. lvloshing is airout releasing agglessioll, and har.ing fun rvhile enjo,vlng so[1e alvcsorne music."

6l: : FOR WRITING AND DiSCUSSION {;l;:ll-,:i: .:1j;1i;i'ai'}:]!1,"1 :r'1;:"ii:.1:. My?Vl'ifinglat"' :::1ji;:l'i:rl'

Individual taski Compose tlvo short speeches, one supporting the proposed crty ordinance to ban n1osh pits and one opposing it. How you use these data is up to you, but be able to expiair' i'our reasoning in the lvay you select and frarne your evidence.

.:i

_ab"'

CHAPTER 5 Using Evidence Effecriveli, 99

Rhetorical Strategies for Framing Evidence

What we hope you Iearned from the preceding exercises is that an arguer con- sciously selects evidence from a \vide field of data and then frames these data through rhetorical strategies that emphasize some data, minimize others, and guide the reader'.s response. Norv that you have a basic idea of rvhat rve mean by framing of evidence, here are some stralegies $'riters can use to guide what the reader sees and feels.

Strategies for Framing Evidence

Controlling the space given to supporting versus contrary evidence: Depending on their audience and purpose, ivriteB can devote most oftheir space to support, ing evidence and minimal space to contrary evidence (or omit it entirely). Thr.rs people arguing in favor of mosh pits ma,v have used krts of evidence supporting n.rosh pits, including enthusiastic quotations frorn col)certgoers, rvhile omitting (or suurmarizing very rapidly) the data about ti:e dangers ofrnosh pits. Emphasizing a detailed story versus presenting lots of facts and statistics: Often, writers can choose to support a point lvith a memorable individual case or $.ith aggregate <iata such as statistics or lists of tacts. A merrrorable stol'y can have a stronglv persuasive effect. For example, to create a negative vierv of mosh pits, a writer might tell the heartrending story of a teetlager suffering permanent brair.r darnage from being dropped on a urosh pit floor. In contrast, a supporter of mosh pits might tell the story of a happy rrusic lover turned on to the con- cert scene by the rush of crowd surfing. A different strategy is to use facts and statistics rather than case narratives-for example, data about the frequency of mosh pit accidents, finalcial consequences of Iawsuits, and so forth. The single llarrative case often has a firore powerfrrl rhetor:ical effect, but it is always open to the charge that it is an insufficient or no n representative example. Vivid anecdotes make for interesting reading, but by themseh,es they may not be compelling log- ically. In contrast, aggregate data, often used iu scholarly studies, can provide more compelling, Iogical evidence but sometimes make the prose rvonkish and dense. Providing contextual and intetpretive commerrts rvhen presentilg data: When citing data, lvliters can add brief contextual or interpretive comments that act as lenses over the readers' eyes to help tl.rem see the data frolD the \yriters perspective. Suppose you rvant to support mosh pits, but aiso rvant to admit that mosh pits are dangerous. You could make that danger seem irrelevant or incon- sequential by saying: "It is true that occasional mosh pit accidents happen, just as accidents happen in any kirrd of recreational activitlr such as swrnrming or rveekend softball games." The concluding phrase frames the danger of mosh pils by comparing it to other recreational accidents that don't reqrrire speciai iaws ol regulations. 'fhe implied argument is this: banning rnosh pits because of an occasional accident rvould be as silly as banning recreational swimming because of occasional accidents,

1O0 PART 2 \./ririrrgan Argunrerr

I'rrlting contrar), evidence in subordirrate positions: JUSt as a photographer can piace a llorfer al the center oI a photogr.apit or in the background, a writer can

ldace a piece of dat:r in a subord latE r'r' rnairr clanse ot ,r scitelce. Note horv tl.ri: structr"rre of tlre follo} ing senteltce minintizes ellPhasj"s on the reritv of mosh pit acciclelt;. 'Although ntoslt pit ac.ideltts ale i.are, llre elanger, to the citv of nuili rnilliotr doll.rr liabilitv lli\l,suits itieaits tl.tirt tlrc citr.sltotLlcl nerrrtheles: bin thctl lor reasons oflisca) prutlence"'fhe lactual data that tlosh pit accidel.lts ar.e rale is suu'rrrarized briefly and tuc)red arval,in a subordirrate although clatse,l,hile the r\! itcr-'.s owlt position is elaborated il the lnililr clause u{terc, it r.eceives gramlnati- cal ernphasis. A h'riter 1\.ith a cliiillrnt angle o1'r'irion rrigllt sit\-, 'Althorrgh sorre cities n]ai. occasionalll be threatcncci l!,ith a l:rrr-srijl, ser.ioljs accideilts resulting lionr rnosh Dits arr- so !are tlti1t.iiies lh(lul.lji't intcrtcie l.ith the dcsires of tr[sic lhns to coldrrct concelts a-c the) piease." Choosing labels ancl names that guide th€ reader's resporrse to data: One of the most subtlc \\ra).s to collt|ol Your rearlers' response to datil is to choose labels ancl narres that prompt thenr to sce tl'lc issue as 1,ou do. If tou ljke rrosh pits, ).ou lright refer to the seatiilg arlaugeoteilts itr ii .oncc,rt vcl]ue as "festival seating, \\here concertilocrs ha\'e thl o].]portrlnjlr,to crctite a llee,tlorviug mosl] pit." 1f 1.oi1 3n,,', like llrosi.. pits, yorl nright reter to the -ieatiug lrrJngernents as 'an accident jnl,iting use of entptv space l'here loIr'dies can crorvd togethe4 slar.n into each other, and occasionally putch and kick." The labe1s 1ou choose, along rvith thc connotations of lhe u.ords yoLr seler-t, urge your reader. to share r.oul angle ol vision. Using iuages (photog|aphs, rlrarr.ings) to guide the readet ! respolse to data: Anotl'ler stliltegl for-r-r':r',',.ing rout'.r-idience toxiual ,,1)t1t'angle of risiot, is rL, ir, clucle a photogrtiph ol cilarr,ing that portral,s a aor,le5ted issue ti'otn yoLu per-ipec- ti'.,e. ConsideI horv the photograplrs on page 98 make arguments about lnosh pits. l,lost people agrce that the first photo supports a positiYe Yiew of nosl] pits. 'l'he

cro',\'d looks hap;,^r.anci r-elaxed (r'alhel thar loldr, ol out of control), ard the liliiilg 1\lriuan lii'ted abo.,,e the cl o.,i-cl slltilcs broadiv, hel bocl1,te1;rxccl, her ru-nrs

extended- Lr aoDtrast, the secontl plioto erlpi]asizes [ruscu]ar nteD (!athcf tharl r srnilirg and lelarecl lrrrar) anC tllreiltens dililgcl ralher thiu hzrr-monr,. -flre

cro\vd se€ms on the 1,erge of turning ugly. (See Chapter' 9 firr a conrplete discus- sion oi tl.)e use ofYisuals in argumert.) Revealing the yalue s).slem that determines the rvriter's selection and fram- ing of data: Lilti;r'lateli, h,-rrr,' :-L r\,riier scl.'its xnd frl]ores evid.nc(= ls llnked i,r thi, syslcn rlf l.ahics thal {)rgairize his or-her arguttrelli. lfltru iartr ntoslt piis, yttu probabil, favcr rlaxlrllzing tlie p1ei,.su;"e of cor)cer-ttoels, pion!{}tiilg individ,-rai choice, arld lctting mosh.l s irssurne the Iisl< of thejr orv11 behal,ior. lf \,ou \1,ant t{) ior-bid mosir pits, 1,ou probabl,v favor ninmizing risks, protecting tire cit,v frorr l:rwsuits, and protecting indiliduals fron t1-re danger of their ol,n oLtt-of-control actjor']s. Solretimes )rou can foster collllcctions rvilh r.oru aridience by openll- ad- drcssing thc nndei'lring r,e.lLres Lh:rt vou hole voi$ audielcc lharcs 1,Jith 1oLr. lbrl ciin crftari fl:!me i'o[:' sr]e.ted .li1ia b\.s1ati1lg expli.illr'lhc \,irlues that Suide t,olrr al grlnlant-

I c

P b

Pr II

f f

+I a

CHAPTER 5 ll. rr(t !,., !ii-ri e ijle.r,eli 101

cat'l

can thc pit

rlti .. nr cis the rli- Dte

rllg sic

ir::r.i r':l- "ii:ri

r:r , -'-.' i ,:1":, ,::.., _. ; : i. I ; , r: I .

. I t: i l.:',tt :.,,a'

r\"ulnlocrs ail.l statistical dat;r ca| bc iiarncd in so nlanr, rt ir):s that this ciltegory of evidence deserves rts o1v!l separate treatmcrlt. By lecognizing horv rvriters tlame rru]l bers k) support the story thel'\vant to tell. you \\,ill alwa_ys be alr,ale that other stolies ar.: also pos-rltrle. Iithical use of rurnbcrs nrcilns that -rcu ust' r'eputable soruces for r.oul basic data, that l'oLl don'l ]]]Yenl .ll inlentiotiiill,y distoit nuinbc's ior vrrrrl or\'rr

pinposcs: ancl thai ytiiL don'l igrrore alterliitive points of vie\r. Here ali' some oi the choices 1\.r'iters nraiie n.hel franrilg statistical data:

Rar.numbers versrrs percerrtages. Ytru can alter the rhctorical effett of il stJtrstr! br,choosing betrveen rarv numbers and percentages. Ir the summer of2002, man\' r\nrerican p.rrents pilniclicd olcr rvl'rat sceirccl lilic irn epidenric ot child abrjric tions- If \!Lr titeci the .erv nrirnbcr of tlresc rbductions rep(r'led iri thc natiorirl neri.s, this ;rLulbcr, althoLrgh sirall, could secfiI scar],. Bu1 if 1'ou computed the

actual pelcentiige of AlnericaD drililrcn rvho rvere abclncted, that percentage was so infinitesimally slnall as to see|n insignificant. You calr appl,v this iixming option directl), to the mosh pit case. To cmphasize lhe danger of mosh pits, l'ou can sa):

that t\Lentl-fi]tlr deaths occuired at l-ock cor)certs in ii giYen ],car'.'1b 1r']i1']inizc thjs statistic. vou coulil conrlute tlre pelcentage of deaths .hv di1,j(1i1Ig this rrLlnrber'

bt'ti1a tot.ll nLrmber of peopie rvho atten<ied rocli co1-rcerts ciurirg tlre yeal, cer

tainly a r,umbcr in lhe ser.eiiil ilillioi'rs. lrom the pe!-specti\t oi pelcel]tlgcs, thc death Iate at concerts is e)itreJrely lorv. Median versus rnean, Another wiiy to alter the rheto]-ical effect of nrrllbers is to choose betr.reen the nredian and the rrean. fhe rnetul is thc average ofall numbcrs on il list. Thc n.reelitur is the n.riddle nunrber u,hen all the nuttbcrs iuc'atratrgeil scqucntiall,v thrrr high to hnv. In 2{}06 the n1e.lr1 xt}nLlal ircolre f-ol retirecl iitmi Iies ill the Ur ited State! lva-\ li4 l.t)2S-rot a rve:rlthy irtnolLnt but etrough to liYe ott comiortably if you orvned l,our orvl home. I-Iorvever, the tleclian ittcome l'as ot'ti1'

$'27,798, a figure that gives a mnch n]ore striking pictute of income distribution an.rong oider Americans. This mcdian iigrLre lneals that half of a1l retircd fami lies in the [Jnited Stiltes had annual ircornes o1'S27,798 orless. Il'tc much higher' mean i1l.oilc indicates tllat manv letircd Atttctic:rrs are qirite u'ctlthr'. 1'his rlealth raises lhe iri'erage of irll incqn.re5 (the rnean) but docsnt aflect the rrle.iii1]'r.

Unadjusted versus adjusted lumbers- Suppose ,vour boss tol.l )'ou that vou l\'ere getting a 5 percent r-aise. You rnight bc happy-unless inflation rates !\'c'l e rttm)ing ilt 6 per-cent. Flconomic data can be harcl to intcrplet ilcross tirle unlcss tlre ciollar amount-\ are adjusted for ir-rflation. This slrle problein occurs iu other areas. For exa rn ple, conr pa ring gra.le point :lveIages of collcgc g r:rdtlat.s ir 1970 1'ersus -20 1 2

means Iittle urless one car sor-]leho\!, cor'rfeJ'rsatc lor grlcle irtlattorr. Base point for statisticaI comparisons, Suppose,vou cr-eate t graph oi glohil aver agc lcmpcralures [ro]r i998 to tlre present. This graph, rlitlt 1993 as a l)ase starting point, rvill suggest that the earth is cooling slight1y, rlot heati!rg np. Horvcver, if1'ott bcgin the graph in 1980, thc linc, lhough ihictuatirrg. rises steadih,. (Scc graph on page 248). Oirels choice ofthe birsc point lo. a .onrparison olieu n.kes a sisl')ificnnt rhetor ical <1it}! rence.

of eis

tIt m rg .lr

I :- 5.