COMP 2 WEEK 1 CRR Week 2: Origins of Classical Rhetoric

Cooper2021

WritingArgumentsARhetoricwithReadings11thEditionbyJohnD.Ramage_compressed-1-60.pdf

Home >English homework help >COMP 2 WEEK 1 CRR Week 2: Origins of Classical Rhetoric

ELEVENTH orr.1

• •

etoric wit

-event it ion

This page intentionally left blank

• •

etoric wit

-event

John D. Ratnage Arizona State University

John C. Bean Seattle University

June Johnson Seattle University

it ion

330 Hudson St r eet, NY NY 10013

Director of English: Karon Bowers Executive Producer and Publisher: Aron Keesbury Development Editor: Steven Rigolosi Marketing Manager: Nicholas Bolt Program Manager: Rachel Harbour Project Manager: Nathaniel J. Jones, SPi Global Cover Designer: Pentagram Cover Illustration: Christopher DeLorenzo Manufacturing Buyer: Roy L. Pickering, Jr. Printer /Binder: LSC Communications, Inc. Cover Printer: Phoenix Color /Hagerstown

Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on pages 564-566, which constitute an extension of this copyright page.

PEARSON, ALWAYS LEARNING, and Revel are exclusive trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates in the United States and/ or other countries.

Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners and any references to third-party trademarks, logos, or other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson's products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliates, authors, licensees, or distributors.

Catalogue-in-Publishing Data is on file with the Library of Congress

Copyright © 2019, 2016, 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information regarding permissions, request forms and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global Rights & Permissions Department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions/.

1 18

Rental Edition ISBN 10: 0-134-75974-5 Rental Edition ISBN 13: 978-0-134-75974-6

Ala Carte ISBN 10: 0-134-76096-4 Ala Carte ISBN 13: 978-0-134-76096-4

Access Code Card ISBN 10: 0-134-80785-5 Access Code Card ISBN 13: 978-0-134-80785-0

Instructor Review Copy ISBN 10: 0-134-77059-5 Instructor Review Copy ISBN 13: 978-0-134-77059-8

• • •

r1e

Part One Principles of Argument 1

1 Argument: An Introduction 2

2 The Core of an Argument : A Claim with Reasons 17

3 The Logical Structure of Arguments: Logos 32

4 Using Evidence Effectively 5 Moving Your Audience:

Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos

6 Responding to Objections and Alternative Views

Part Two Entering an Argumentative Conversation

103

7 Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically 104

8 Argument as Inquiry: Reading, Summarizing, and Speaking Back 127

Part Three Expanding Our Understanding of Argument 155

9 Making Visual and Multimodal Arguments

10 An Alternative to Argument: Collaborative Rhetoric

Part Four Arguments in Depth: Types of Claims

11 An Introduction to the Types of Claims

156

189

211

212

12 Definition and Resemblance Arguments

13 Causal Arguments 14 Evaluation and Ethical

Arguments

15 Proposal Arguments

Part Five The Researched Argument

16 Finding and Evaluating Sources

17 Incorporating Sources into Your Own Argument

18 Citing and Documenting Sources

Appendix Informal Fallacies

Part Six An Anthology of Arguments

Choices for a Sustainable World

Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society?

Public Health

Challenges in Education

Self-Driving Cars

Immigration in the Twenty-First Century

Argument Classics

221

250

280

306

341

342

360

375

397

405

406

431

461

477

511

532

549

This page intentionally left blank

Preface Acknowledgments

Part One Principles of Argument

1 Argument: An Introduction What Do We Mean by Argument?

Argument Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel

Argument Is Not Pro-Con Debate

Arguments Can Be Explicit or Implicit

An Explicit Argument Opposing Legalization of Marijuana

For Writing and Discussion: Implicit and Explicit Arguments

•• xvn

••• XXlll

The Defining Features of Argument 8

Argument Requires Justification of Its Claims 8

Argument Is Both a Process and a Product

Argument Combines Truth-Seeking and Persuasion

Argument and the Problem of Truth in the 21st Century

For Writing and Discussion: Role-Playing Arguments

Conclusion

2 The Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reason

The Classical Structure of Argument

Classical Appeals and the Rhetorical Triangle

Issue Questions as the Origins of Argument

Difference between an Issue Question and an Information Question

How to Identify an Issue Question

For Writing and Discussion: Information Questions Versus Issue Questions

Difference between a Genuine Argument and a Pseudo-Argument

For Writing and Discussion: Reasonable Arguments Versus Pseudo-Arguments

Frame of an Argument: A Claim Supported by Reasons

What Is a Reason?

For Writing and Discussion: Using Images to Support an Argument

Expressing Reasons in Because Clauses

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Claims and Reasons

Conclusion

Writing Assignment: An Issue Question and Working Thesis Statements

3 The Logical Structure of Arguments: Logos

An Overview of Logos: What Do We Mean by the

"Logical Structure" of an Argument? 32

Formal Logic Versus Real-World Logic 33

The Role of Assumptions 33

The Core of an Argument: The Enthymeme 34 The Power of Audience-Based Reasons 35

For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Underlying Assumptions and Choosing Audience-Based Reasons

Adopting a Language for Describing Arguments:

The Toulmin System 36

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Enthymemes with the Toulmin Schema 41

Using Toulmin's Schema to Plan and Test Your Argument 42

Hypothetical Example: Cheerleaders as Athletes 42

First Part of Chandale' s Argument 43

Continuation of Chandale' s Argument 44

Extended Student Example: Girls and Violent Video Games 45

•• VII

viii Contents

Carmen Tieu (Student Essay), Why Violent Video Games Are Good for Girls 47

The Thesis-Governed "Self-Announcing" Structure of Classical Argument 49

For Writing and Discussion: Reasons, Warrants, and Conditions of Rebuttal 50

Use Specific Examples and Illustrations

Use Narratives

Use Words, Metaphors, and Analogies with Appropriate Connotations

For Writing and Discussion: Incorporating Appeals to Pathos

Conclusion 50 Kairos: The Timeliness and Fitness of A Note on the Informal Fallacies 51 Arguments

For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing an Writing Assignment: Plan of an Argument's Details 51 Argument from the Perspectives of Logos,

Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos

4 Using Evidence Effectively 52 Kinds of Evidence 52

The Persuasive Use of Evidence 55

Apply the STAR Criteria to Evidence 55

Establish a Trustworthy Ethos 57

Be Mindful of a Source's Distance from Original Data 57

Rhetorical Understanding of Evidence 58

Angle of Vision and the Selection and Framing of Evidence 59

For Writing and Discussion: Creating Contrasting Angles of Vision 60

Examining Visual Arguments: Angle of Vision 60

Rhetorical Strategies for Framing Evidence 62

Strategies for Framing Statistical Evidence 64

For Writing and Discussion: Using Strategies to Frame Statistical Evidence 65

Creating a Plan for Gathering Evidence 65 Conclusion 65

Writing Assignment: A Supporting-Reasons Argument 66

5 Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos 67

Logos, Ethos, and Pathos as Persuasive Appeals: An Overview 68

How to Create an Effective Ethos: The Appeal to Credibility 69

How to Create Pathos: The Appeal to Beliefs and Emotions 70

Use Concrete Language 71

Using Images to Appeal to Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos

For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing Images as Appeals to Pathos

Examining Visual Arguments: Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos

How Audience-Based Reasons Appeal to Logos, Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos

For Writing and Discussion: Planning an Audience-Based Argumentative Strategy

Conclusion

Writing Assignment: Revising a Draft for Ethos, Pathos, and Audience-Based Reasons

6 Responding to Objections and Alternative Views

One-Sided, Multisided, and Delayed-Thesis Arguments

Determining Your Audience's Resistance to Your Views

Appealing to a Supportive Audience: One-Sided Argument

Appealing to a Neutral or Undecided Audience: Classical Argument

Summarizing Opposing Views

For Writing and Discussion: Distinguishing Fair from Unfair Summaries

Refuting Opposing Views

Strategies for Rebutting Evidence

Conceding to Opposing Views

89 90 91

Example of a Student Essay Using Refutation Strategy 92

Trudie Makens (Student Essay), Bringing Dignity to Workers: Make the Minimum Wage a Living Wage

For Writing and Discussion: Refutation Strategies

Appealing to a Resistant Audience: Delayed-Thesis Argument

ALEXANDER CHANCELLOR, Oh,

How I Will Miss the Plastic Bag 95

Writing a Delayed-Thesis Argument 97 Conclusion 98

Writing Assignment: A Classical Argument or a Delayed Thesis Argument 98

Reading 98

Lauren Shinozuka (Student Essay), The Dangers of Digital Distractedness 98

Part 1Wo Entering an Argumentative Conversation 103

7 Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically 104

Thinking Rhetorically about a Text 105

Reconstructing a Text's Rhetorical Context 105

Author, Motivating Occasion, and Purpose 105

Audience 107

Genre 107

Angle of Vision 108

Asking Questions That Promote Rhetorical Thinking 109

For Writing and Discussion: Practicing Rhetorical Analysis 111

Conducting a Rhetorical Analysis of a Source Text 112

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ, Egg Heads 113

For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Rhetorical Features 116

Our Own Rhetorical Analysis of "Egg Heads" 116 Conclusion

Writing Assignment: A Rhetorical Analysis

119

120

Contents ix

Readings

ELLEN GOODMAN, Womb for Rent

121

122

Critiquing "Womb for Rent" 123

Zachary Stumps (Student Essay), A Rhetorical Analysis Of Ellen Goodman's "Womb For Rent" 123

8 Argument as Inquiry: Reading, Summarizing, and Speaking Back 127

Finding Issues to Explore 128

Do Some Initial Brainstorming 128

Be Open to the Issues All Around You 128

Explore Ideas by Freewriting 129

For Writing and Discussion: Responding to Visual Arguments About a Living Wage 131

Explore Ideas by Idea Mapping 133

Explore Ideas by Playing the Believing and Doubting Game 133

For Writing and Discussion: Playing the Believing and Doubting Game 135

Summarizing a Stakeholder's Argument 135

JAMES SUROWIECKI, The Pay Is Too Damn Low 136

Thinking Steps for Writing a Summary 137

For Writing and Discussion: Does/Says Statements 138

Examples of Summaries 139

Responding to a Stakeholder 's Argument 140

Practicing Believing: Willing Your Own Acceptance of the Writer's Views 140

Practicing Doubting: Willing Your Own Resistance to the Writer's Views 140

For Writing and Discussion: Raising Doubts About Surowiecki's Argument 141

Thinking Dialectically 142

For Writing and Discussion: Practicing Dialectic Thinking with Two Articles 143

MICHAEL SALTSMAN, To Help the Poor, Move Beyond "Minimum" Gestures 143

Three Ways to Foster Dialectic Thinking 144 Conclusion

Writing Assignment: An Argument Summary or a Formal Exploratory Essay

146

X Contents

Reading 148

Trudie Makens (Student Essay), Should Fast-Food Workers Be Paid $15 per Hour? 148

Part Three Expanding Our Understanding of Argument 155

9 Making Visual and Multimodal Arguments 156

Understanding Visual Design Elements in Multimodal Argument 157

Use of Type 158

Use of Space and Layout 159

Use of Color 161

Use of Images and Graphics 161

For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing an Advocacy Ad 164

The Compositional Features of Photographs and Drawings 165

Compositional Features to Examine in Photos and Drawings 166

An Analysis of a Multimedia Video Argument Using Words, Images, and Music 168

For Writing and Discussion: Thinking Rhetorically about Photos 171

The Genres of Multimodal Argument 172

Posters and Fliers 172

Public Affairs Advocacy Advertisements 174

Cartoons 175

For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing Posters Rhetorically 175

For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing Cartoons 177

Websites 177

Advocacy Videos 178

Constructing Your Own Multimodal Arguments 178

Guidelines for Creating the Visual Elements in Posters, Fliers, and Advocacy Ads 178

Guidelines for Creating Video Arguments 179

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Ideas for an Advocacy Ad or Poster Argument 180

Using Information Graphics in Arguments 180

How Tables Contain a Variety of Stories 181

Using a Graph to Tell a Story 182

Incorporating Graphics into Your Argument 185

A Note on How Graphics Frame Data Rhetorically 186 Conclusion 187

Writing Assignment: A Visual Argument Rhetorical Analysis, a Visual Argument, or a Short Argument Using Quantitative Data 188

10 An Alternative to Argument: Collaborative Rhetoric 189

The Appropriateness and Usefulness of Collaborative Rhetoric 190

The Principles of Collaborative Rhetoric 191

Practicing N onjudgmental Listening 192

Identifying Values, Emotions, and Identities 192

Seeking Common Ground 193

Promoting Openness to Ongoing Communication and Change 194

For Writing and Discussion: Listening Empathically and Seeking Common Ground 194

Preparing for Collaborative Rhetoric Through Reflective Writing and Discussion 196

Preparing for Collaborative Rhetoric Through Reflective Writing 196

Practicing Collaborative Rhetoric in Discussion 197

For Writing and Discussion: Conducting a Collaborative Rhetoric Discussion 197

Writing an Open Letter as Collaborative Rhetoric 198

Colleen Fontana (Student Essay), An Open Letter to Robert Levy in Response to His Article "They Never Learn" 199

Conclusion 204

Writing Assignment: An Open Letter as Collaborative Rhetoric 204

Reading 205

Monica Allen (Student Essay), An Open Letter to Christopher Eide in Response to His Article "High-Performing Charter Schools Can Close the Opportunity Gap" 205

Part Four Arguments in Depth: Types of Claims 211

11 An Introduction to the Types of Claims 212

The Types of Claims and Their Typical Patterns of Development 213

For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Types of Claims 214

Using Claim Types to Focus an Argument and Generate Ideas: An Example 214

Writer 1: Ban £-Cigarettes 215

Writer 2: Promote £-Cigarettes as a Preferred Alternative to Real Cigarettes 216

Writer 3: Place No Restrictions on £-Cigarettes 217

Hybrid Arguments: How Claim Types Work Together in Arguments 217

Some Examples of Hybrid Arguments 217

For Writing and Discussion: Exploring Different Claim Types and Audiences 218

An Extended Example of a Hybrid Argument 219

ALEX HUTCHINSON, Your Daily Multivitamin May Be Hurting You 219

12 Definition and Resemblance Arguments

What Is at Stake in an Argument about

221

Definition and Resemblance? 222

Consequences Resulting from Categorical Claims 223

The Rule of Justice: Things in the Same Category Should Be Treated the Same Way 223

For Writing and Discussion: Applying the Rule of Justice 224

Types of Categorical Arguments 225

Simple Categorical Arguments 225

For Writing and Discussion: Supporting and Rebutting Simple Categorical Claims 225

Definition Arguments 226

Resemblance Argument Using Analogy 226

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Analogies 227

Resemblance Arguments Using Precedent 228

• Contents XI

For Writing and Discussion: Using Claims of Precedent 229

Examining Visual Arguments: Claim about Category {Definition)

The Criteria-Match Structure of Definition Arguments

229

230

Overview of Criteria-Match Structure 230

Toulmin Framework for a Definition Argument 231

For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Criteria and Match Issues 232

Creating Criteria Using Aristotelian Definition 232

For Writing and Discussion: Working with Criteria 234

Creating Criteria Using an Operational Definition 234

Conducting the Match Part of a Definition Argument 234

Idea-Generating Strategies for Creating Your Own Criteria-Match Argument 235

Strategy 1: Research How Others Have Defined the Term 235

Strategy 2: Create Your Own Extended Definition 236

For Writing and Discussion: Developing a Definition 238

Writing Assignment: A Definition Argument 239

Exploring Ideas

Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake

Organizing a Definition Argument

Questioning and Critiquing a Definition Argument

Readings

Arthur Knopf (Student Essay), Is Milk a Health Food?

Alex Mullen (Student Essay), A Pirate But Not a Thief: What Does "Stealing" Mean in a Digital Environment?

MARK OPPENHEIMER, How Do We Define Adulthood?

13 Causal Arguments An Overview of Causal Arguments

Kinds of Causal Arguments

239

240

242

245

247

250

251

252

xii Contents

Toulmin Framework for a Causal Argument 254

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Causal Chains 256

Two Methods for Arguing That One Event Causes Another 256

First Method: Explain the Causal Mechanism Directly 257

Second Method: Infer Causal Links Using Inductive Reasoning 258

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Plausible Causal Chains Based on Correlations 259

Examining Visual Arguments: A Causal Claim 259

Key Terms and Inductive Fallacies in Causal Arguments 260

A Glossary of Key Terms 260

Avoiding Common Inductive Fallacies That Can Lead to Wrong Conclusions 261

For Writing and Discussion: Brainstorming Causes and Constraints 262

Writing Assignment: A Causal Argument 262

Exploring Ideas 262

Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake 263

Organizing a Causal Argument 264

Questioning and Critiquing a Causal Argument 265

Readings 266

Jesse Goncalves (Student Essay), What Causes Math Anxiety? 267

KRIS SAKNUSSEMM, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Are We Really Here at All? Can We Tell? 273

Carlos Macias (Student Essay), "The Credit Card Company Made Me Do It!" The Credit Card Industry's Role in Causing Student Debt 275

14 Evaluation and Ethical Arguments

An Overview of Categorical and Ethical Evaluation Arguments

Constructing a Categorical Evaluation Argument

Criteria-Match Structure of Categorical Evaluations

280

282

283

Developing Your Criteria 284

Making Your Match Argument 285

Examining Visual Arguments: An Evaluation Claim 286

For Writing and Discussion: Developing Criteria and Match Arguments 287

Constructing an Ethical Evaluation Argument 288

Consequences as the Base of Ethics 288

Principles as the Base of Ethics 289

Example Ethical Arguments Examining Capital Punishment 289

For Writing and Discussion: Developing an Ethical Argument 291

Common Problems in Making Evaluation Arguments 291

Writing Assignment: An Evaluation or Ethical Argument 292

Exploring Ideas 292

Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake 293

Organizing an Evaluation Argument 293

Questioning and Critiquing a Categorical Evaluation Argument 293

Critiquing an Ethical Argument 294

Readings 295

Lorena Mendoza-Flores (Student Essay), Silenced and Invisible: Problems of Hispanic Students at Valley High School 295

Hadley Reeder (Student Essay), A Defective and Detrimental Dress Code 299

JUDITH DAAR AND EREZ ALONI, Three Genetic Parents For One Healthy Baby 302

SAMUEL AQUILA, The "Therapeutic Cloning" of Human Embryos 303

15 Proposal Arguments 306 The Special Features and Concerns of Proposal Arguments 308

Practical Proposals Versus Policy Proposals 308

Toulmin Framework for a Proposal Argument 308

Special Concerns for Proposal Arguments 309

Developing a Proposal Argument 310

Examining Visual Arguments: A Proposal Claim 311

Convincing Your Readers That a Problem Exists 311

Explaining the Proposed Solution: Showing the Specifics of Your Proposal 312

Offering a Justification: Convincing Your Readers That the Benefits of Your Proposal Outweigh the Costs 313

Using Heuristic Strategies to Develop Supporting Reasons for Your Proposal 313

The Claim Types Strategy 314

The Stock Issues Strategy 315

For Writing and Discussion: Generating Ideas Using the Claim Types Strategy 316

For Writing and Discussion: Brainstorming Ideas for a Proposal 317

Proposal Arguments as Advocacy Posters or Advertisements 317

Writing Assignment: A Proposal Argument 318

Exploring Ideas 320

Identifying Your Audience and Determining What's at Stake 320

Organizing a Proposal Argument 321

Designing a One-Page Advocacy Poster or Advertisement 322

Designing PowerPoint Slides or Other Visual Aids for a Speech 322 Questioning and Critiquing a Proposal Argument 323

Readings 323

Megan Johnson (Student Essay), A Practical Proposal 324

Ivan Snook (Student Essay), Flirting with Disaster: An Argument against Integrating Women into the Combat Arms 328

Sandy Wainscott (Student Essay), Why McDonald's Should Sell Meat and Veggie Pies: A Proposal to End Subsidies for Cheap Meat 336

MARCEL DICKE AND ARNOLD VAN HUIS, The Six-Legged Meat of the Future 338

••• Contents XIII

Part Five The Researched Argument 341

16 Finding and Evaluating Sources 342

Formulating a Research Question Instead of a Topic 343

Thinking Rhetorically About Kinds of Sources 343

Identifying Kinds of Sources Relevant to Your Question 343

Approaching Sources Rhetorically 343

For Writing and Discussion: Identifying Types of Sources 347

Finding Sources 348

Conducting Interviews 348

Gathering Source Data from Surveys or Questionnaires 349

Finding Books and Reference Sources 349

Using Licensed Databases to Find Articles in Scholarly Journals, Magazines, and News Sources 350

Finding Cyberspace Sources: Searching the World Wide Web 350

Selecting and Evaluating Your Sources and Taking Purposeful Notes 351

Reading with Rhetorical Awareness 351 Evaluating Sources 353

Criteria for Evaluating a Web Source 355

For Writing and Discussion: Analyzing the Rhetorical Elements of Two Websites 357

Taking Purposeful Notes 357 Conclusion 359

17 Incorporating Sources into Your Own Argument 360

Using Sources for Your Own Purposes 360 Writer 1: A Causal Argument Showing Alternative Approaches to Reducing Risk of Alcoholism 361

Writer 2: A Proposal Argument Advocating Vegetarianism 362

• XIV Contents

Writer 3: An Evaluation Argument Looking Skeptically at Vegetarianism 362

For Writing And Discussion: Using a Source for Different Purposes 363

Using Summary, Paraphrase, and Quotation 363

Summarizing 363

Paraphrasing 363

Quoting 365

Punctuating Quotations Correctly 366

Quoting a Complete Sentence 366

Quoting Words and Phrases 366

Modifying a Quotation 367

Omitting Something from a Quoted Passage 367

Quoting Something That Contains a Quotation 368

Using a Block Quotation for a Long Passage 368

Appendix Informal Fallacies 397

The Difference Between Formal and Informal Logic 397

An Overview of Informal Fallacies 398

Fallacies of Pathos 399

Fallacies of Ethos 400

Fallacies of Logos 401

For Writing And Discussion: Persuasive or Fallacious? 403

Part Six An Anthology of Arguments 405

Choices for a Sustainable World 406

JOSEPH ALDY, "Curbing Climate Change Creating Rhetorically Effective Attributive Tags 369 Has a Dollar Value Here's How and Why

Attributive Tags versus Parenthetical Citations 369

Creating Attributive Tags to Shape Reader Response 370

Avoiding Plagiarism 371

Why Some Kinds of Plagiarism May Occur Unwittingly 371

Strategies for Avoiding Plagiarism 372

For Writing And Discussion: Avoiding Plagiarism 37 4

We Measure It" 407

JAMES A. BAKER, "The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax and Dividends" 409

DAVID ROBERTS, "Putting a Price on Carbon is a Fine Idea. It's Not the End-All Be-All" 411

JULIAN CRIBB, "Our Human Right Not to Be Poisoned" 416

ALEX HALLATT, "I Stopped Wearing Leather ... " 419

Conclusion 37 4 BILL MCKIBBEN, "The Question I Get Asked the Most" 419

18 Citing and Documenting CHELSEA M. ROCHMAN, "Ecologically Sources 375 Relevant Data Are Policy-Relevant Data" 422

The Correspondence between In-Text Citations and the End-of-Paper List of Cited Works 375

MLA Style 377

In-Text Citations in MLA Style 377

Works Cited List in MLA Style 379

BEN ADLER, "Banning Plastic Bags is Great for the World, Right? Not So Fast" 424

SUN SENTINEL EDITORIAL BOARD, "Plastic Bag Ban: Let's Not Get Carried Away" 427

For Writing and Discussion: Choices for a Sustainable World 429

MLA Works Cited Citation Models 379

MLA-Style Research Paper 389 Writing Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis 430

APA Style 389

In-Text Citations in APA Style 390 Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society? 431

References List in APA Style 390 DAVID UBERTI, "The Real History of Fake

APA References Citation Models 391 News" 432

APA-Style Research Paper 396 EUGENE KIELY AND LORI ROBERTSON, Conclusion 396 "How to Spot Fake News" 437

Contents XV

SARAH WILSON, "I've Heard All the Arguments against a Sugar Tax. I'm Still

KARSTEN SCHLEY, "Warning!! This Newspaper May Contain Traces of Journalism" 442 Calling for One in Australia" 471

HARTFORD COURANT EDITORIAL BOARD, "Soda Tax Is Nanny-State Overreach" 473

JACK SHAFER, "The Cure for Fake News Is Worse Than the Disease; Stop Being Trump's Twitter Fool" 442 SIGNE WILKINSON, "More Jobs Lost to Soda ROBERT P. GEORGE AND CORNEL WEST, "Sign the Statement: Truth-Seeking, Democracy, and Freedom of Thought and Expression" 445

LUCIANO FLORID!, "Fake News and a 400-Year-Old Problem: We Need to Resolve the "Post-Truth" Crisis" 446

PETER WAYNE MOE, "Teaching Writing in a Post-Truth Era" 449

MARCUS DU SAUTOY, "Why Aren't People Listening to Scientists?" 450

JEFF HESTER, "The Hermeneutics of Bunk: How a Physicist Gave Postmodernism a B~~E~'' ~2

TIMOTHY CAULFIELD, "Blinded by Science: Modern-Day Hucksters Are Cashing In on Vulnerable Patients" 454

For Writing and Discussion: Dealing with Misinformation, Fake News, and Misconceptions 459

Writing Assignment: Researched Proposal Speech on Understanding and Evaluating Scientific Claims 460

Public Health 461

DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE EDITORIAL BOARD, "Keep Up Fight against Childhood Obesity" 462

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD, "Fed or Fed Up? Why We Support Easing School Lunch Rules" 463

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, "Tips for Parents Ideas to Help Children Maintain a Healthy Weight" 463

JULIA BELLUZ AND JAVIER ZARRACINA, "We Need to Call American Breakfast What It Often Is: Dessert" 468

Taxes!"

LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD, "Are We Subsidizing a Public Health Crisis by Allowing the Poor to Buy Soda with Food

474

Stamps?" 474

For Writing and Discussion: Public Health 476

Writing Assignment: Multimodal Argument: A Storyboard or Cartoon 476

Challenges in Education 477

RACHEL M. COHEN, "Rethinking School Discipline" 478

RICHARD ULLMAN, "Restorative Justice: The Zero-Tolerance-Policy Overcorrection" 487

CASSADY ROSENBLUM, "Take It From a New Orleans Charter School Teacher: Parents Don't Always Get School Choice Right" 489

PAUL FELL, "Educators Try to Keep Public Education away from School Vouchers and Charter Schools" 491

DOUGLAS N. HARRIS, "Why Managed Competition Is Better Than a Free Market for Schooling" 492

RACHEL LAM, "Separate but Unequal" 501

RAFAEL WALKER, "How Canceling Controversial Speakers Hurts Students" 503

GINA BARRECA, "I'm Not Giving Students "Trigger Warnings"" 505

ONNI GUST, "I Use Trigger Warnings But I'm Not Mollycoddling My Students" 507

For Writing and Discussion: Challenges in Education

Writing Assignment: A Researched Evaluation Argument on an Educational Policy

509

510

xvi Contents

Self-Driving Cars

ROBIN CHASE, "Self-Driving Cars Will Improve Our Cities, If They Don't Ruin Them"

SCOTT SANTENS, "Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck"

DREW HENDRICKS, "Five Reasons You

511

512

519

Should Embrace Self-Driving Cars" 526

THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, "Would You Buy a Self-Driving Future from These Guys?" 528

For Writing and Discussion: Self-Driving Cars 530

Writing Assignment: A Researched Argument on a Subissue Related to Self-Driving Cars 531

Immigration in the Twenty-First Century 532

MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, "Fact Checker: The White House' s Claim that "Sanctuary" Cities Are Violating the Law" 533

KENT LUNDGREN, "Stop Immigration Processing as Leverage against Sanctuaries?" 535

DARLENE NICGORSKI, "Convicted of the Gospel" 537

LUPE VALDEZ, ED GONZALEZ, AND JAVIER SALAZAR, "Enforcement in Sanctuary Cities Should Be Peds' Job, Not Local Police" 539

JEFF DANZIGER, "Coming Soon to a House Like Yours" 540

SALIL SHETTY, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, "Foreword to Tackling the Global Refugee Crisis: From Shirking to Sharing Responsibility" 541

STEVEN P. BUCCI, "We Must Remain Vigilant through Responsible Refugee Policies" 544

RICH STEARNS, "Facing Responsibility: The Face of a Refugee Child" 545

For Writing and Discussion: Immigration in the Twenty-First Century 547

Writing Assignment: White Paper Summarizing the Arguments about a Policy Proposal 548

Argument Classics 549

JONATHAN SWIFT, "A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public" 549

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, "The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions Seneca Falls Conference" (1848) 555

MARGARET SANGER, "The Morality of Birth Control" 559

For Writing and Discussion: Argument Classics

Writing Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis

Credits

Index

563

564

567

hrough ten editions, Writing Arguments has sustained its reputation as a leading college textbook in argumentation. By focusing on argument as a collaborative search for the best solutions to problems (as opposed to pro/

con debate), Writing Arguments treats argument as a process of inquiry as well as a means of persuasion. Users and reviewers have consistently praised the book for teaching the critical thinking skills needed for writing arguments: how to analyze the occasion for an argument; how to analyze arguments rhetorically; how to ground an argument in the values and beliefs of the targeted audience; how to develop and elaborate an argument; and how to respond sensitively to objections and alternative views. We are pleased that in this eleventh edition, we have improved the text in key ways while retaining the text's signature strengths.

What's New in the Eleventh Edition? Based on our continuing research into argumentation theory and pedagogy and on our own experiences as classroom teachers, we have made significant improve- ments in the eleventh edition that will increase students' understanding of the value of argument and help them negotiate the rhetorical divisiveness in today's world. Here are the major changes in the eleventh edition:

• Use of Aristotle's -'-'provisional truths" to address post-truth, post-fact challenges to argument. This edition directly engages the complexity of conducting reasoned argument in a public sphere that is often dominated by ideological camps, news echo chambers, and charges of fake news. A revised Chapter 1 uses Aristotle's view of probabilistic or provisional truths to carve out a working space for argument between unachievable certainty and nihil- istic relativism. Chapter 1's view of argument as both truth-seeking and persuasion is carried consistently throughout the text. This edition directly tackles the challenges to reasoned argument posed by dominant ideological perspectives, siloed echo chambers, and a dependence on social media as a source of news.

• A reordering, refocusing, and streamlining of chapters to create better pedagogical sequencing and coherence. The previous edition's Chapter 2, which focused on argument as inquiry combining summary writing and exploratory response, has been refocused and moved to Chapter 8. Previ- ous Chapter 2 material on the genres of argument has now been placed in an expanded Chapter 7 on rhetorical analysis. This new sequencing allows students to focus first on understanding the principles of argument (Chapters 1-6) and then to switch to the critical thinking process of joining an argumen- tative conversation through reading and strong response. (See "Structure of the Text" later in this preface for further explanation.)

•• XVII

••• XVIII Preface

• A new chapter on collaborative rhetoric as a bridge-building alternative to persuasion. Chapter 10, new to this edition, blends ideas from Rogerian communication with practices from conflict resolution to help prepare students for their roles in private, public, and professional life amidst clash- ing values and views. Explanations, guidelines, and exercises emphasize nonjudgmentallistening, self-reflection, a search for common ground, and suggestions for encouraging ongoing problem-solving through learning, listening, and respectful use of language.

• A substantially revised chapter on visual and multimodal arguments. Chapter 9 on visual and multimodal rhetoric now includes a new example and guidelines for making persuasive videos as well as a new exercise to apply image analysis in the construction of visual arguments.

• A revised chapter on rhetorical analysis. Chapter 7, "Analyzing Arguments Rhetorically," has been expanded by consolidating rhetorical instruction from several chapters into one chapter and linking it to the critical thinking skills required for joining an argumentative conversation.

• Updated or streamlined examples and explanations throughout the text along with many new images. Instructors familiar with previous editions will find many new examples and explanations ranging from a new dialog in Chapter 1 to illustrate the difference between an argument and a quarrel to a streamlined appendix on logical fallacies at the end. New images, edito- rial cartoons, and graphics throughout the text highlight current issues such as legalizing marijuana, plastics in the ocean, graffiti in public places, a soda tax, cultural and religious diversity, refugees, travel bans, and cars' carbon footprints.

• Two new student model essays, one illustrating APA style. One new stu- dent model essay evaluates gender bias in a high school dress code, and the other, illustrating APA style, explores the causes of math anxiety in children.

• A handful of lively new professional readings in the rhetoric section of the text. New readings ask students to think about a ban on plastic bags, the social definition of adulthood, and the psychological effect of not recognizing ourselves in videos.

• A thoroughly revised and updated anthology. The anthology features updated units as well as four entirely new units.

• A new unit on self-driving cars explores the legal, economic, and societal repercussions of this new technological revolution in transportation.

• A unit on the post-truth, post-fact era examines the difficulties of con- suming news and evaluating the factual basis of news and scientific claims in the era of ideological siloes and of news as entertainment via social media.

• A new unit on the public health crisis explores the personal and societal consequences of excessive consumption of sugar, the need to establish healthy eating habits in children, and the controversy over a soda tax.

• A unit on challenges in education examines three areas of controversy: disci- plinary policy in K-12 classrooms (restorative justice versus zero-tolerance); the voucher system and charter schools as alternatives to public school; and, at the college level, trigger warnings and divisive speakers on campus.

• An updated unit on sustainability examines the carbon tax and the envi- ronmental damage caused by the use and disposal of plastic bottles and plastic bags.

• The unit on immigration has been updated to explore the controversy over sanctuary cities and the American response to refugees.

• A brief argument classics unit offers some famous stylized historical arguments.

What Hasn't Changed? The Distinguishing Strengths of Writing Arguments The eleventh edition of Writing Arguments preserves the text's signature strengths praised by students, instructors, and reviewers:

• Argument as a collaborative search for "best solutions" rather than as pro- con debate. Throughout the text, Writing Arguments emphasizes both the truth-seeking and persuasive dimensions of argument a dialectic tension that requires empathic listening to all stakeholders in an argumentative con- versation and the seeking of reasons that appeal to shared values and beliefs. For heated arguments with particularly clashing points of view, we show the value of Rogerian listening and, in this eleventh edition, point to collaborative rhetoric as a shift from making arguments to seeking deeper understanding and common ground as a way forward amid conflict.

• Argument as a rhetorical act. Writing Arguments teaches students to think rhetorically about argument: to understand the real-world occasions and con- texts for argument, to analyze the targeted audience's underlying values and assumptions, to understand how evidence is selected and framed by an angle of vision, to appreciate the functions and constraints of genre, and to employ the classical appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos.

• Argument as critical thinking. When writing an argument, writers are forced to lay bare their thinking processes. Focusing on both reading and writing, Writing Arguments emphasizes the critical thinking that underlies reasoned argument: active questioning, empathic reading and listening, believing and doubting, asserting a contestable claim that pushes against alternative views, and supporting the claim with a logical structure of reasons and evidence all while negotiating uncertainty and ambiguity.

• Consistent grounding in argumentation theory. To engage students in the kinds of critical and rhetorical thinking that argument demands, we draw on four major approaches to argumentation: • The enthymeme as a rhetorical and logical structure. This concept, espe-

cially useful for beginning writers, helps students "nutshell" an argument as a claim with one or more supporting because clauses. It also helps them see how real-world arguments are rooted in assumptions granted by the audience rather than in universal and unchanging principles.

• The three classical types of appeal logos, ethos, and pathos. These con- cepts help students place their arguments in a rhetorical context focus- ing on audience-based appeals; they also help students create an effective voice and style.

• Preface XIX

XX Preface

• Toulmin's system of analyzing arguments. Toulmin' s system helps stu- dents see the complete, implicit structure that underlies an enthymeme and develop appropriate grounds and backing to support an argument's reasons and warrants, thus helping students tailor arguments to audiences. Toulmin analysis highlights the rhetorical, social, and dialectical nature of argument.

• Stasis theory concerning types of claims. This approach stresses the heuristic value of learning different patterns of support for different types of claims and often leads students to make surprisingly rich and full arguments.

• Effective writing pedagogy. This text combines explanations of argument with best practices from composition pedagogy, including exploratory writ- ing, sequenced and scaffolded writing assignments, class-tested "For Writing and Discussion" tasks, and guidance through all stages of the writing process. To help students position themselves in an argumentative conversation, the text teaches the skills of" summary I strong response" the ability to summa- rize a source author's argument and to respond to it thoughtfully. The moves of summary and strong response teach students to use their own critical and rhetorical thinking to find their own voice in a conversation.

• Rhetorical approach to the research process. Writing Arguments teaches students to think rhetorically about their sources and about the ways they might use these sources in their own arguments. Research coverage includes guidance for finding sources, reading and evaluating sources rhetorically, taking purposeful notes, integrating source material effectively (including rhetorical use of attributive tags), and citing sources using two academic cita- tion systems: MLA (8th edition) and APA. The text's rhetorical treatment of plagiarism helps students understand the conventions of different genres and avoid unintentional plagiarism.

• Extensive coverage of visual rhetoric. Chapter 9 is devoted entirely to visual and multimodal rhetoric. Additionally, many chapters include an "Examining Visual Rhetoric" feature that connects visual rhetoric to the chapter's instructional content. The images that introduce each part of the text, as well as images incorporated throughout the text, provide opportuni- ties for visual analysis. Many of the text's assignment options include visual or multimodal components, including advocacy posters or speeches sup- ported with presentation slides.

• Effective and engaging student and professional arguments. The pro- fessional and student arguments, both written and visual, present voices in current social conversations, illustrate types of argument and argument strategies, and provide fodder to stimulate discussion, analysis, and writing.

Structure of the Text Writing Arguments provides a coherent sequencing of instruction while giving instructors flexibility to reorder materials to suit their needs.

• Part One focuses on the principles of argument: an overview of argument as truth-seeking rather than pro-con debate (Chapter 1); the logos of argu- ment including the enthymeme (Chapter 2); Toulmin's system for analyzing

arguments (Chapter 3) and the selection and framing of evidence (Chapter 4); the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos (Chapter 5); and acknowledging and responding to alternative views (Chapter 6).

• Part Two shifts to the process of argument helping students learn how to enter an argumentative conversation by summarizing what others have said and staking out their own position and claims. Chapter 7 consolidates instruction on rhetorical analysis to help students think rhetorically about an argumentative conversation. Chapter 8 focuses on argument as inquiry, teaching students the groundwork skills of believing and doubting, sum- marizing a source author's argument and speaking back to it with integrity.

• Part Three expands students' understanding of argument. Chapter 9 focuses on visual and multimodal argument. Chapter 10, new to the eleventh edition, teaches the powerful community-building skill of collaborative rhetoric as an alternative to argument. It focuses on mutual understanding rather than

• persuas1on.

• Part Four (Chapters 11-15) introduces students to stasis theory, showing the typical structures and argumentative moves required for different claim types: definition, resemblance, causal, evaluation, and proposal arguments.

• Part Five (Chapters 16-18) focuses on research skill rooted in a rhetorical understanding of sources. It shows students how to use sources in support of an argument by evaluating, integrating, citing, and documenting them properly. An appendix on logical fallacies is a handy section where all the major informal fallacies are treated at once for easy reference.

• Part Six, the anthology, provides a rich and varied selection of professional arguments arranged into seven high-interest units, including self-driving cars, immigration, sustainability, education, public heath, and public media in an age of fake news and alternative facts. It also includes a unit on classic arguments. Many of the issues raised in the anthology are first raised in the rhetoric so that students' interest in the anthology topics will already be piqued.

Revel Revel is an interactive learning environment that deeply engages students and prepares them for class. Media and assessment integrated directly within the authors' narrative lets students read, explore interactive content, and practice in one continuous learning path. Thanks to the dynamic reading experience in Revel, students come to class prepared to discuss, apply, and learn from instructors and from each other. Learn more about Revel http:/ /www.pearson.com/revel

Supplements Make more time for your students with instructor resources that offer effective learning assessments and classroom engagement. Pearson's partnership with educators does not end with the delivery of course materials; Pearson is there with you on the first day of class and beyond. A dedicated team of local Pearson representatives will work with you not only to choose course materials but also

• Preface XXI

•• XXII Preface

to integrate them into your class and assess their effectiveness. Our goal is your goal to improve instruction with each semester.

Pearson is pleased to offer the following resources to qualified adopters of Writing Arguments. Several of these supplements are available to instantly down- load from Revel or on the Instructor Resource Center (IRC); please visit the IRC at www.pearsonhighered.com/irc to register for access.

• INSTRUCTOR'S RESOURCE MANUAL, by Hannah Tracy (Seattle University). Create a comprehensive roadmap for teaching classroom, online, or hybrid courses. Designed for new and experienced instructors, the Instruc- tor's Resource Manual includes learning objectives, lecture and discussion suggestions, activities for in or out of class, research activities, participation activities, and suggested readings, series, and films as well as a Revel features section. Available within Revel and on the IRC.

• POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. Make lectures more enriching for students. The PowerPoint Presentation includes a full lecture outline and photos and figures from the textbook and Revel edition. Available on the IRC.

We are happy for this opportunity to give public thanks to the scholars, teachers, and students who have influenced our approach to composition and argument. For this edition, we owe special thanks to our long-time teammate and colleague at Seattle University, Hilary Hawley, who aided us in researching public con- troversies and finding timely, available readings on these issues. Hilary wrote the framing introductions, the headnotes, and the critical apparatus for many of the anthology units. Her experience teaching argument, especially he public controversies over sustainability, food, immigration, and health, shaped these units. We are also grateful to another of our Seattle University colleagues, Hannah Tracy, for writing the Instructor's Resource Manual, a task to which she brings her knowledge of argumentation and her experience teaching civic and academic argument. We thank Stephen Bean for his research on self-driving cars and on issues related to legalizing marijuana. Finally, we thank Kris Saknussemm and Janie Bube for their design contributions to several of the visual arguments in this edition.

We are particularly grateful to our talented students Jesse Goncalves (argu- ment on math anxiety), Hadley Reeder (argument on high school dress codes) and Camille Tabari (PSA video "It's a Toilet, Not a Trash Can") who contributed to this edition their timely arguments built from their intellectual curiosity, ideas, personal experience, and research. Additionally, we are grateful to all our stu- dents whom we have been privileged to teach in our writing classes and to our other students who have enabled us to include their arguments in this text. Their insights and growth as writers have inspired our ongoing study of rhetoric and argumentation.

We thank too the many users of our texts who have given us encouragement about our successes and offered helpful suggestions for improvements. Particu- larly we thank the following scholars and teachers who reviewed the previous edition of Writing Arguments and whose valuable suggestions informed this new edition:

Max Hohner, Eastern Washington University

Jeff Kosse, Iowa Western Community College

Jeremy Meyer, Arizona State University

Jennifer Waters, Arizona State University

We wish to express our gratitude to our developmental editor Steven Rigolosi for his skill, patience, diligence, and deep knowledge of all phases of textbook production. Steve's ability to provide timely guidance throughout the production process made this edition possible.

As always, we thank our families, who ultimately make this work possible. John Bean thanks his wife, Kit, also a professional composition teacher, and his children Matthew, Andrew, Stephen, and Sarah, all of whom have grown to adult- hood since he first began writing textbooks. Our lively conversations at family dinners, which now include spouses, partners, and grandchildren, have kept him

••• XXIII

• XXIV Acknowledgments

engaged in arguments that matter about how to create a just, humane, and sus- tainable world. June Johnson thanks her husband, Kenneth Bube, a mathematics professor and researcher, and her daughter, Janie Bube. Ken and Janie have played major roles in the ongoing family analysis of argumentation in the public sphere on wide-ranging subjects. Janie's knowledge of environmental issues and digi- tal design and Kenneth's of mathematical thinking and the public perception of science have broadened June's understanding of argument hotspots. They have also enabled her to meet the demands and challenges of continuing to infuse new ideas and material into this text in each revision.

John C. Bean

June Johnson

• •

etoric wit

-event it ion

This page intentionally left blank

PART ONE • •

1 Argument: An Introduction

2 The Core of an Argument: A Claim with Reasons

3 The Logical Structure of Argument: Logos

4 Using Evidence Effectively

5 Moving Your Audience: Ethos, Pathos, and Kairos

6 Responding to Objections and Alternative Views

Factory farming, the m ass production of animals for meat on an industrial model, shown in this photo, is a n etwork of controversial issues, including cruelty to animals, healthfulness of meat diets, disconnection of people from their food , strain on environmental resources, and economic effects on sm all farming.

Chapter 1

• •

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

1.1 Explain common misconceptions about the meaning of argument.

1.2 Describe defining features of argument.

1.3 Understand the relationship of argument to the process of truth-seeking and inquiry.

This book is dedicated to the proposition that reasoned argument is essential for the functioning of democracies. By establishing a separation of powers and protecting individual rights, the U. S. Constitution p laces argument at the center of civic life. At every layer of democracy, government decisions about laws, regulations, right actions, and judicial outcomes depend on reasoned argument, which involves listening to multip le perspectives. As former Vice President Al Gore once put it, "Faith in the power of reason the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power was and remains the central premise of American democracy."1

Yet, many public intellectuals, scholars, and journalists have written that we are now entering a post-truth era, where the "best evidence available" becomes unmoored from a shared understanding of reality. How citizens access informa- tion and how they think about public issues is increasingly complicated by the unregulated freedom of the Internet and the stresses of a globalized and ethnically and religiously diverse society. Many citizens now focus on the entertainment d imension of news or get their news from sources that match their own political leanings. One source's "news" may be another source's "fake news." In fact, the concept of argument is now entangled in post-truth confusions about what an argument is.

What, then, do we mean by reasoned argument, and why is it vital for coping with post-truth confusion? The meaning of reasoned argument will become clearer in this opening chapter and throughout this text. We hope your study of

1 Al Gore, Assault on Reason. New York: Penguin, 2007, p. 2.

Argument: An Introduction 3

reasoned argument will lead you to value it as a student, citizen, and professional. We begin this chapter by debunking some common misconceptions about argu- ment. We then examine three defining features of argument: It requires writers or speakers to justify their claims; it is both a product and a process; and it combines elements of truth-seeking and persuasion. Finally, we look closely at the tension between truth-seeking and persuasion to encourage you to use both of these pro- cesses in your approach to argument.

hat Do e Mean by Argument? 1.1 Explain common misconceptions about the meaning of argument.

Let's begin by examining the inadequacies of two popular images of argument: fight and debate.

Argum.ent Is Not a Fight or a Quarrel To many, the word argument connotes anger and hostility, as when we say, "I just had a huge argument with my roommate," or "My mother and I argue all the time." We picture heated disagreement, rising pulse rates, and an urge to slam doors. Argument imagined as fight conjures images of shouting talk-show guests, flaming bloggers, or fist-banging speakers.

But to our way of thinking, argument doesn't imply anger. In fact, arguing is often pleasurable. It is a creative and productive activity that engages us at high levels of inquiry and critical thinking, often in conversation with people we like and respect. When you think about argument, we invite you to envision not a shouting match on cable news but rather a small group of reasonable people seeking the best solution to a problem. We will return to this image throughout the chapter.

Argum.ent Is Not Pro-Con Debate Another popular image of argument is debate a presidential debate, perhaps, or a high school or college debate tournament. According to one popular dictionary, debate is "a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition." Although formal debate can develop critical thinking, it has a key weakness: It can turn argument into a game of winners and losers rather than a process of cooperative inquiry.

For an illustration of this weakness, consider one of our former students, a champion high school debater who spent his senior year debating the issue of prison reform. Throughout the year he argued for and against propositions such as "The United States should build more prisons" and "Innovative alternatives to prison should replace prison sentences for most crimes." We asked him, "What do you personally think is the best way to reform prisons?" He replied, "I don't know. I haven't thought about what I would actually choose."

Here was a bright, articulate student who had studied prisons extensively for a year. Yet nothing in the atmosphere of pro-con debate had engaged him in truth-seeking inquiry. He could argue for and against a proposition, but he hadn't experienced the wrenching process of clarifying his own values and taking a

4 Chapter 1

personal stand. As we explain throughout this text, argument entails a desire for truth-seeking; it aims to find the best solutions to complex problems. We don't mean that arguers don't passionately support their own points of view or expose weaknesses in views they find faulty. Instead, we mean that their goal isn't to win a game but to find and promote the best belief or course of action.

Arguments Can Be Explicit or Implicit Before we examine some of the defining features of argument, we should note also that arguments can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit arguments (either written or oral) directly state their contestable claims and support them with reasons and evidence. Implicit arguments, in contrast, may not look like arguments at all. They may be bumper stickers, billboards, posters, photographs, cartoons, vanity license plates, slogans on aT-shirt, advertisements, poems, or song lyrics. But like explicit arguments, they persuade their audience toward a certain point of view.

Consider the poster in Figure 1.1 part of one state's recent citizen campaign to legalize marijuana. The poster's comparative data about "annual deaths," its beautiful green marijuana leaves, and its cluster of peanuts make the implicit argument that marijuana is safe even safer than peanuts.

The poster's intention is to persuade voters to approve the state initiative to legalize pot. But this poster is just one voice in a complex conversation. Does

Figure 1.1 An implic it argument favoring legalization of marijuana

DEATHS PER

From Tobacco From Alcohol From Drug Overdose From Texting and Driving From Peanuts

From Marijuana Use

480, 000 88,000 64,000

3, 200 100

{Sourus: Ctnttrs for DiJeast Conrrol and Prevention, Nationallnsrirutt on Akohol Abuse and Alcolwlism, Edgar Snyder

Persona/Injury Law Firm, howsrujfworks. Food Allerv Ruearch & &lurotion. National Institute on Drug Abuse]

Argument: An Int roduction 5

marijuana have dangers that this poster makes invisible? Would children and ado- lescents have more access or less access to marijuana if the drug were legalized? Is marijuana a "gateway drug" to heroin and other, harder drugs? How would legalization of marijuana affect crime, drug trafficking, and prison populations? What would be the cultural consequences if marijuana became as socially accept- able as alcohol?

In contrast to the implicit argument made in Figure 1.1, consider the follow- ing explicit argument a letter to the editor submitted by student writer Mike Overton. As an explicit argument, it states its claim d irectly and supports it with reasons and evidence.

An Explicit Argument Opposing Legalization of Marijuana LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY STUDENT MIKE OVERTON

Proponents of legalizing marijuana claim that pot is a benign drug because it has a low risk of overdose and causes few deaths. Pot is even safer than peanuts, according to a recent pro-legalization poster. However, pot poses grave psycho- logical risks, particularly to children and adolescents, that are masked if we focus only on death rate.

Several studies have shown adverse effects of marijuana on memory, deci- sion making, and cognition. In one study, Duke University researchers examined IQ scores of individuals taken from childhood through age 38. They found a noticeable decline in the IQ scores of pot smokers compared with nonusers, with greater declines among those who smoked more. Daily pot smokers dropped, on average, eight IQ points.

There is also a clear link between pot usage and schizophrenia. Many studies have shown an increased risk of schizophrenia and psychosis from pot usage, par- ticularly with regular use as an adolescent. Studies find that regular pot smokers who develop schizophrenia begin exhibiting symptoms of the disease earlier than nonusers, with the average diagnosis occurring 2.7 years earlier than for nonusers.

These are devastating mental illnesses that cut to the core of our well-being. We need to be sure our policies on marijuana don't ignore the documented mental health risks of pot, particularly to adolescents in the critical phase of brain devel- opment. I urge a "no" vote on legalizing marijuana in our state.

For Writing And Discussion Implicit and Explicit Arguments Any argum ent, whet her implicit or expl icit, tries to influence the audience's stance on an issue, w ith the goal of m oving the audience toward the arguer 's c laim. A rgument s work on us psycholog ically as well as cogni- tively, t riggering em otions as wel l as thoughts and ideas. Each of t he implicit argum ents in Figures 1.2-1.4 makes a claim on its audience, t rying to get viewers to adopt its position, perspective, belief, or point of view

• on an 1ssue.

(continued)

6 Chapter 1

Figure 1.2 Early 1970s cover of the controversial soc ial protest magazine Science for the People, wh ich has recently been revived

Figure 1.3 Image from website promoting education in prisons (HTTP:/ IWWW.PRISONEDUCATION.COMI}

Argument: An Introduction 7

Figure 1.4 Cartoon on social etiquette and digital media (continued)

\ 00

. oo

, ( \

"Do yov John promiS'e that yovr S'ChedvJe, pJeare pvt yovr iPhone

away1 will never be more importanttJ,an yovr timeS' to9ether? 11

Individual task:

For each argument, answer the following questions:

1. Observe each argument carefully and then describe it for someone who hasn't seen it.

2. What conversation do you think each argument joins? What is the issue or controversy? What is at

stake? (Sometimes "insider knowledge" might be requ ired to understand the argument. In such cases,

explain to an outsider the needed background information or cultural context.)

3. What is the argument's claim? That is, what value, perspective, belief, or position does the argument

ask its viewers to adopt?

4. What is an opposing or alternative view? What views is the argument pushing against?

5. How do the visual details of each argument contribute to the persuasive effect?

6. Convert the implicit argument into an explicit argument by stating its claim and supporting reasons in

words. How do implicit and explicit arguments work d ifferent ly on the brains or hearts of the audience?

Group task:

Working in pairs or as a class, share your answers w ith classmates.

8 Chapter 1

The Defining Features of Argument 1.2 Describe defining features of argument.

We now examine arguments in more detail. (Unless we say otherwise, by argu- ment we mean explicit arguments that attempt to supply reasons and evidence to support their claims.) This section examines three defining features of such arguments.

Argument Requires Justification of Its Claims To begin defining argument, let's turn to a humble but universal area of disagree- ment: the conflict between new housemates over house rules. In what way and in what circumstances do such conflicts constitute arguments?

AVERY: (grabbing his backpack by the door) See you. I'm heading for class.

DANIEL: (loudly and rapidly) Wait. What about picking up your garbage all over the living room? that pizza box, those cans, and all those papers. I think you even spilled Coke on the rug.

AVERY: Hey, get off my case. I'll clean it up tonight.

With this exchange, we have the start of a quarrel, not an argument. If Daniel's anger picks up suppose he says, "Hey, slobface, no way you're leav- ing this house without picking up your trash!" then the quarrel will escalate into a fight.

But let's say that Daniel remains calm. The dialogue then takes this turn.

DANIEL: Come on, Avery. We had an agreement to keep the house clean.

Now we have the beginnings of an argument. Fleshed out, Daniel's reasoning goes like this: You should clean up your mess because we had an agreement to keep the house clean. The unstated assumption behind this argument is that people should live up to their agreements.

Now Avery has an opportunity to respond, either by advancing the argument or by stopping it cold. He could stop it cold by saying, "No, we never agreed to anything." This response pushes Avery's hapless housemates into a post-truth world where there is no agreement about reality. Unless stakeholders have a starting place grounded in mutually accepted evidence, no argument is possible. Their dispute can be decided only by power.

But suppose that Avery is a reasonable person of good will. He could advance the argument by responding this way:

AVERY: Yes, you are right that we had an agreement. But perhaps our agree- ment needs room for exceptions. I have a super-heavy day today.

Now a process of reasonable argument has emerged. Avery offers a reason for rushing from the house without cleaning up. In his mind his argument would go like this: "It is OK for me to wait until tonight to clean up my mess because I have a super-heavy day." He could provide evidence for his reason by explaining his heavy schedule (a group project for one course, a paper due in another, and his agreement with his boss to work overtime at his barista job throughout the afternoon). This rea- son makes sense to Avery, who is understandably immersed in his own perspective. However, it might not be persuasive to Daniel, who responds this way:

Argument: An Int roduction 9

DANIEL: I ap preciate your busy schedule, but I am p lanning to be at home all day, and I can't study in this mess. It is unfair for me to have to clean up your stuff.

Fleshed out, Daniel 's argument goes like this: "It is not OK for you to leave trash in the living room, because your offer to clean your mess tonight doesn't override my right to enjoy a clean living space today." The dialogue now illus- trates what is required for reasonable argument: (1) a set of two or more conflicting claims ("it is OK I is not OK to leave this mess until tonight") and (2) the attempt to justify the claims with reasons and evidence.

The first defining feature of argument, then, is the attempt to justify claims with reasons and evidence. Avery and Daniel now need to think further about how they can justify their claims. The d isagreement between the housemates is not primarily about facts: Both d isputants agree that they had established house rules about cleanliness, that Avery is facing a super-heavy day, and that Avery's mess disturbs Daniel. The dispute is rather about values and fairness principles that are articulated in the unstated assumptions that undergird their reasons. Avery's assumption is that "unusual circumstances can temporarily suspend house rules." Daniel's assumption is that "a temporary suspension to be acceptable cannot treat other housemates unfairly." To justify his claim, therefore, Avery has to show not only that his day is super-heavy but also that h is cleaning his mess at the end of the day isn't unfair to Daniel. To plan his argument, Avery needs to anticipate the questions his argument w ill raise in Daniel 's mind: Will today's mess truly be a rare exception to our house rule, or is Avery a natural slob who will leave the house messy almost every day? What w ill be the state of the house and the quality of the living situation if each person simply makes his own exceptions to house rules? Will continuing to spill food and drinks on the carpet affect the return of the security deposit on the house rental?

In addition, Daniel needs to anticipate some of Avery's questions: Are tem- porary periods of messiness really unfair to Daniel? How much does Daniel's neat-freak personality get in the way of house harmony? Would some flexibility in house rules be a good thing? The attempt to justify their assumptions forces both Avery and Daniel to think about the degree of independence each demands when sharing a house.

As Avery and Daniel listen to each other's points of view (and begin realizing why their initial arguments have not persuaded their intended audience), we can appreciate one of the earliest meanings of the term to argue, which is "to clarify." As arguers clarify their own positions on an issue, they also begin to clarify their audience's position. Such clarification helps arguers see how they might accom- modate their audience's views, perhaps by adjusting their own position or by developing reasons that appeal to their audience's values. Thus Avery might sug- gest something like this:

AVERY: Hey, Daniel, I can see why it is unfair to leave you with my mess. What if I offered you some kind of trade-off?

Fleshed out, Avery's argument now looks like this: "It is OK for me to wait until the end of the day to clean up my mess because I am willing to offer you a satisfactory trade-off." The offer of a trade-off immediately addresses Daniel 's sense of being treated unfairly and might lead to negotiation on what this trade- off might be. Perhaps Avery agrees to do more of the cooking, or perhaps there are other areas of conflict that could become part of a trade-off bargain noise levels, sleeping times, music preferences. Or perhaps Daniel, happy that Avery

10 Chapter 1

has offered a trade-off, says it isn't necessary: Daniel concedes that he can live with occasional messiness.

Whether or not Avery and Daniel can work out a best solution, the preceding scenario illustrates how the need to justify one's claims leads to a clarification of facts and values and to the process of negotiating solutions that might work for all stakeholders.

Argument Is Both a Process and a Product As the preceding scenario revealed, argument can be viewed as a process in which two or more parties seek the best solution to a question or problem. Argument can also be viewed as a product, with each product being any person's contribution to the conversation at a given moment. In an informal discussion, the products are usually short pieces of conversation. In more formal settings, an orally delivered product might be a short, impromptu speech (say, during an open-mike discus- sion of a campus issue) or a longer, carefully prepared formal speech (as in a Power Point presentation at a business meeting or an argument at a public hearing for or against a proposed city project).

Similar conversations occur in writing. Roughly analogous to a small-group discussion is an exchange of the kind that occurs regularly online through infor- mal chat groups or more formal blog sites. In an online discussion, participants have more thinking time to shape their messages than they do in a real-time oral discussion. Nevertheless, messages are usually short and informal, making it pos- sible over the course of several days to see participants' ideas shift and evolve as conversants modify their initial views in response to others' views.

Roughly equivalent to a formal speech would be a formal written argument, which may take the form of an academic argument for a college course; a grant proposal; an online posting; a guest column for the op-ed* section of a newspaper; a legal brief; a letter to a member of Congress; or an article for an organizational newsletter, popular magazine, or professional journal. In each of these instances, the written argument (a product) enters a conversation (a process) in this case, a conversation of readers, many of whom will carry on the conversation by writing their own responses or by discussing the writer's views with others. The goal of the community of writers and readers is to find the best solution to the problem or issue under discussion.

Argument Combines Truth-Seeking and Persuasion In thinking about argument as a product, writers will find themselves continually moving back and forth between truth-seeking and persuasion that is, between questions about the subject matter (What is the best solution to this problem?) and about audience (What do my readers already believe or value? What reasons and

* Op-ed stands for "opposite-editorial." It is the generic name in journalism for a signed argument that voices the writer's opinion on an issue, as opposed to a news story that is supposed to report events objectively, uncolored by the writer's personal views. Op-ed pieces appear in the editorial-opinion section of newspapers, which generally features editorials by the resident staff, opinion pieces by syndicated columnists, and letters to the editor from readers. The term op-ed is often extended to syndicated columns appearing in newsmagazines, advocacy websites, and online news services.

Argument: An Introduction 11

evidence will most persuade them?). Writers weave back and forth, alternately absorbed in the subject of their argument and in the audience for that argument.

Neither of the two focuses is ever completely out of mind, but their relative importance shifts during different phases of the development of an argument. Moreover, different rhetorical situations place different emphases on truth-seeking versus persuasion. We can thus place arguments on a continuum that measures the degree of attention a writer gives to subject matter versus audience. (See Figure 1.5.) At the full truth-seeking (left) end of the continuum might be an exploratory piece that lays out several alternative approaches to a problem and weighs the strengths and weaknesses of each with no concern for persuasion. At the other (persuasion) end of the continuum would be outright propaganda, such as a political adver- tisement that reduces a complex issue to sound bites and distorts an opponent's position through out-of-context quotations or misleading use of data. (At its most blatant, propaganda obliterates truth-seeking; it will use any tool, including bogus evidence, distorted assertions, and outright lies, to win over an audience.) In the middle ranges of the continuum, writers shift their focuses back and forth between inquiry and persuasion but with varying degrees of emphasis.

As an example of a writer focusing primarily on truth-seeking, consider the case of Kathleen, who, in her college argument course, addressed the definitional ques- tion "Is American Sign Language (ASL) a 'foreign language' for purposes of meeting the university's foreign language requirement?" Kathleen had taken two years of ASL at a community college. When she transferred to a four-year college, the chair of the foreign languages department would not allow her ASL coursework to count toward Kathleen's foreign language requirement. "ASL isn't a language," the chair said summarily. "It's not equivalent to learning French, German, or Japanese."

Kathleen disagreed, so she immersed herself in developing her argument. While doing research, she focused almost entirely on the subject matter, searching for what linguists, neurologists, cognitive psychologists, and sociologists have said about the language of deaf people. Immersed in her subject matter, she was only tacitly concerned with her audience, whom she thought of primarily as her classmates and the professor of her argument class people who were friendly to her views and interested in her experiences with the deaf community. She wrote a well-documented paper, citing several scholarly articles, that made a good case to her classmates (and the professor) that ASL is indeed a distinct language.

Proud of the A she received on her paper, Kathleen decided for a subsequent assignment to write a second paper on ASL but this time aiming it directly at the chair of the foreign languages department and petitioning her to accept ASL proficiency for the foreign language requirement. Now her writing task fell closer to the persuasive end of our continuum. Kathleen once again immersed herself in

Figure 1.5 Continuum of arguments from truth-seeking to persuasion Truth Seeking

Essay examining all sides of an issue and possibly not arriving at a conclusive answer

Argument as inquiry; asking audience to think out the issue with the writer

Argument, aimed at a neutral or skeptical audience, that shows awareness of different views

Argument aimed at a friendly audience (often for fundraising or calls to action)

Persuasion

Aggressive onesided argument that simply delivers a message

12 Chapter 1

research, but this time she focused not on subject matter (whether ASL is a distinct language) but on audience. She researched the history of the foreign language requirement at her college and discovered some of the politics behind it (the foreign language requirement had been dropped in the 1970s and reinstituted in the 1990s, partly a math professor told her to boost enrollments in foreign language courses). She also interviewed foreign language teachers to find out what they knew and didn't know about ASL. She discovered that many teachers thought ASL was "easy to learn," so that accepting ASL would give students a Mickey Mouse way to avoid the rigors of a "real" foreign language class. Addi- tionally, she learned that foreign language teachers valued immersing students in a foreign culture; in fact, the foreign language requirement was part of her college's effort to create a multicultural curriculum.

This increased understanding of her target audience helped Kathleen recon- ceptualize her argument. Her claim that ASL is a real language (the subject of her first paper) became only one section of her second paper, much condensed and abridged. She added sections showing the difficulty of learning ASL (to counter her audience's belief that learning ASL is easy), showing how the deaf community forms a distinct culture with its own customs and literature (to show how ASL would meet the goals of multiculturalism), and showing that the number of transfer students with ASL credits would be negligibly small (to allay fears that accepting ASL would threaten enrollments in language classes). She ended her argument with an appeal to her college's public emphasis (declared boldly in its mission statement) on eradicating social injustice and reaching out to the oppressed. She described the isolation of deaf people in a world where almost no hearing people learn ASL, and she argued that the deaf community on her campus could be integrated more fully into campus life if more students could talk with them. Thus the ideas included in her new argument the reasons selected, the evidence used, the arrangement and tone all were determined by her primary focus on persuasion.

Our point, then, is that all along the continuum, writers attempt both to seek truth and to persuade, but not necessarily with equal balance. Kathleen could not have written her second paper, aimed specifically at persuading the chair of the foreign languages department, if she hadn't first immersed herself in truth- seeking research that convinced her that ASL is indeed a distinct language. Note that we are not saying that Kathleen's second argument was better than her first. Both arguments fulfilled their purposes and met the needs of their intended audi- ences. Both involved truth-seeking and persuasion, but the first focused primarily on subject matter whereas the second focused primarily on audience.

Argument and the Problem of Truth in the 21st Century 1.3 Understand the relationship of argument to the process of truth-seeking

and inquiry.

The tension that we have just examined between truth-seeking and persuasion raises an ancient issue in the field of argument: Is the arguer's first obligation to truth or to winning the argument? And just what is the nature of the truth to which arguers are supposed to be obligated?

Argument: An Introduction 13

Early Greek rhetoricians and philosophers particularly the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all wrestled with this tension. In Plato's Dialogues, these questions were at the heart of Socrates' disagreement with the Sophists. The Sophists were professional rhetoricians who specialized in training orators to win arguments. Socrates, who valued truth-seeking over persuasion and believed that truth could be discovered through philosophic inquiry, opposed the Sophists. For Socrates (and Plato), Truth resided in the ideal world of forms, and through philo- sophic rigor humans could transcend the changing, shadow like world of everyday reality to perceive the world of universals where Truth, Beauty, and Goodness resided. Through his method of questioning, Socrates would gradually peel away layer after layer of false views until Truth was revealed. The good person's duty, Socrates believed, was not to win an argument but to pursue this higher Truth. Socrates and Plato distrusted professional rhetoricians because these professionals were interested only in the power and wealth that came from persuading audi- ences to the orator's views. In contrast, Plato's pupil Aristotle maintained Plato's commitment to ethical living but valued rhetoric as a way of reaching conclu- sions or what he called "probable truth" in the realm of everyday living the best answers available to people who were willing to think deeply and argue reason- ably about a problem. Aristotle taught rhetoric and argument as collective inquiry in search of new understanding probable truths and best solutions supported persuasively by reasons and evidence that could be shared and agreed upon.

Let's apply these perspectives to a modern example. Suppose your commu- nity is d ivided over the issue of raising environmental standards versus keeping open a job-producing factory that doesn't meet new guidelines for waste dis- charge. In a dispute between jobs and the environment, which is the best course? The Sophists would train you to argue any side of this issue on behalf of any lobbying group willing to pay for your services. This relativism and willingness to manipulate language led over time to the term sophistry being associated with trickery in argument. If, however, you applied Aristotle's practical concern for "probable truth," you would be inspired to listen to all sides of the dispute, peel away unsatisfactory arguments through reasonable inquiry, and commit yourself to a course of action that you have come to believe is the best for as many stake- holders as possible.

In sum, Plato was concerned with absolute truths residing in the spiritual world of forms, while Aristotle valued rhetoric's focus on probable truths in our messy human world. Aristotle's view is thus close to that expressed by Al Gore at the beginning of this chapter. Aristotle and Gore would agree that truth the search for best solutions is messy and complicated and needs to be negotiated in an ongoing spirit of argument. Every day we face complex questions with multiple stakeholders. Do sanctuary cities make citizens safer, as many sheriffs and police departments argue, or do they shelter criminals and endanger citizens, as some people contend? Should all controversial speakers be allowed to speak on college campuses, or should universities carefully monitor and restrict these public forums? There are no simple or clear-cut answers to these questions, but one thing is certain: People can't carry on productive argument if they retreat to siloed echo chambers where they encounter only those views w ith which they already agree. Daniel the neat freak has to encounter Avery the slob; otherwise, no growth is possible. Argument works only if we are willing to question and clarify our own positions and engage in dialogue w ith those stakeholders with whom we disagree.

14 Chapter 1

This truth-seeking approach to argument helps us combat various traps that we may fall into. A first trap is that we might become intellectually lazy, failing to question easily found or sensationalist information and views. We might succumb to "desirability bias" 2-the tendency to accept information that "we want to believe." Or we might cling to what political scientist Morgan Marietti calls "sacred values"3 religious or secular beliefs that are so central to our world views and identities that we accept them as absolute, unquestionable, and inviolable. For example, for some persons a woman's right to control her own body is a sacred value; for others, an unborn fetus's right to life is a sacred value. Because we hesitate to question our sacred values, our emotional adherence to them can create a network of beliefs that interpret the world for us. Emerging from our own siloed echo chambers is the best way to seek a shareable reality in what otherwise might seem a post-truth world. However, as we have seen, truth-seeking takes intellectual work and ethical commitment. To restore the value of argument as truth-seeking, we must accept the world as pluralistic, recognizing that others may not value what we value.

If we accept this p luralistic view of the world, do we then endorse the Sophists' radical relativism, freeing us to argue any side of any issue? Or do we doggedly pursue some modern equivalent of Aristotle's "probable truth"?

If your own sympathies are with argument as truth-seeking, then you must admit to a view of truth that is tentative, cautious, and conflicted, and you must embrace argument as process. In the 21st century, truth-seeking does not mean finding the "right answer" to a disputed question, but neither does it mean a valueless relativism in which all answers are equally good. Seeking truth means taking responsibility for determining the "best answer" or "best solution" to the question; it means considering the good of the entire community when taking into consideration the interests of all stakeholders. It means making hard deci- sions in the face of uncertainty. Viewed in this way, argument cannot "prove" your claim, but only make a reasonable case for it. Even though argument can't provide certainty, learning to argue effectively has deep value for society and democracy: It helps communities settle conflicts in a rational and humane way by finding, through the exchange of ideas, the best solutions to problems without resorting to violence.

For Writing and Discussion Role-Playing Arguments On any given day, the media provide evidence of the complexity of living in a p luralistic cu lture. Issues that cou ld be readi ly decided in a completely homogeneous cu lture ra ise questions in a society that has fewer shared assumptions. Choose one of the following cases as the subject for a "simulation game" in which class members present the points of view of the people involved.

2 Ben Tappin, Leslie van der Leer, and Ryan McKay define " desirability bias" in their op-ed piece, "Your Opinion Is Set in Stone." The New York Times, May 28, 2017, SR 8. 3 Morgan Marietta, "From My Cold, Dead Hands: Democratic Consequences of Sacred Rhetoric." The Journal of Politics Vol. 70, No. 3, July 2008.

Argument: An Introduction 15

Case 1 : Political Asylum for a German Family Seeking the Right to Homeschool Their Children

In 2010 an Evangelical Christian family from Germany, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their five children, moved to the United States seeking asylum from political persecution. At the U.S. immigration hearings, the couple argued that if they remained in Germany their decision to homeschool their children would result in fines, possible arrest, and even forced separation from their children. German law forbids homeschooling on the grounds that failure to attend recognized schools will create "parallel societies" w hose members will fail to integrate into Germany's open and pluralistic culture. In early 2011, a U.S. federal immigration judge granted political asylum to the family, denouncing the German government's policy against home- schooling. He called it "utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans." However, in 2013 the Sixth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the original decision and revoked the family's status as political refugees. Stating that the United States cannot give political asylum to every victim of perceived unfairness in another country's laws, the court declared that Germany's ban on homeschooling did not constitute political persecution. The decision led to international debate about the role of homeschooling in a pluralistic society and about the definition of political persecution. In the United States, the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association urged that the case be heard by the United States Supreme Court and sponsored a petition drive supporting the Romeike family.

Your task:

Imagine a public hearing on this issue where all stakeholders are invited to present their points of view. The U.S. Immigration website offers the following definition of refugee status:

Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/ or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Your goal isn't to make your own decision about this case but rather to bring to imaginative life all the viewpoints on the controversy. Hold a mock public hearing in which classmates play the following roles: (a) A U.S. parent advocating homeschooling; (b) a U.S. teacher's union representative opposing homeschooling; (c) an attorney arguing that the Romeike family meets the criteria for "refugee status"; (d) an attorney arguing that the Romeike family does not meet the criteria for refugee status; (e) a German citizen supporting the German law against homeschooling; (f) a Romeike parent arguing that the family would be persecuted if the family returned to Germany; (g) other roles that are relevant to this case.

Case 2 : HPV Vaccines for Sixth Grade Girls (and Boys)

In 2007 the pharmaceutical company Merck developed a vaccine against the sexually trans- mitted HPV virus (human papillomavirus), some strains of which can cause cervical cancer as well as genital warts. The company launched an extensive television campaign promoting the vaccine (which would bring substantial profits to Merck) and advised that girls should get the vaccine before they reach puberty. Following recommendations from doctors and medical researchers, several states passed laws mandating that the HPV vaccine for girls be included among the other vaccinations required of all children for entry into the sixth or seventh grades (depending on the state). These laws sparked public debate about the bene- fits versus potential adverse effects of vaccines, and about the state's versus parents' role in determining what vaccines a child should get.

(continued)

16 Chapter 1

Your task:

Imagine a public hearing addressing what your state's laws should be concerning HPV vaccina- tions for prepubescent children. Your goal isn't to make your own decision about this case but rather to bring to imaginative life all the viewpoints in the controversy. Hold a mock hearing in which classmates play the following roles: (a) a cancer specialist who supports mandatory HPV vaccination for girls; (b) a public health specialist who supports expanding the requirement to include boys; (c) a skeptical person concerned about the potential adverse effects of vaccines in general; (d) a religiously conservative parent who believes in abstinence and monogamy and opposes the cultural message of the HPV vaccination.

Conclusion In this chapter we explored the complexities of argument, showing that argument is not a fight or win-lose debate but rather a process of rational inquiry in search of the best solution to a problem shared by stakeholders. Good argument requires justification of its claim, is both a process and product, and combines truth-seeking with persuasion. We also showed that argument does not seek absolute truth (in Plato's and Socrates' sense) but messy probable truth (in Aristotle's sense). The best defense against the post-truth doubts that make argument impossible is to emerge from siloed echo chambers in order to seek views different from your own, and to treat these views respectfully. Although like the Sophists you can use the skills of argument to support any side of any issue, we hope you won't. We hope that, like Aristotle, you will use argument for inquiry and discovery and that you will consequently find yourself, on at least some occasions, changing your position on an issue while writing a rough draft (a sure sign that the process of arguing has complicated your views).

At the deepest level, we believe that the skills of reason and inquiry developed through writing arguments can help you get a clearer sense of who you are. If our culture sets you adrift in pluralism, argument can help you take a stand, based on truth-seeking, listening, and reasoning. In this text we will not tell you what posi- tion to take on any given issue. But as a responsible being, you will often need to take a stand, to define yourself, to say, "Here are the reasons that choice A is better than choice B, not just for me but for you also." If this text helps you base your com- mitments and actions on reasonable grounds, then it will be successful.

Chapter 2

A Claim with Reasons

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

2.1 Describe the key elements of classical argument.

2.2 Explain the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.

2.3 Distinguish between issue and information questions and between genuine and pseudo-arguments.

2.4 Describe the basic frame of an argument.

In Chapter 1 we explained that argument is best viewed not as a quarrel or as a pro-con debate, but rather as a conversation of reasonable stakeholders seeking the best solution to a shared problem or issue. As a conversation of stakehold- ers, argument is both a process and a product. The rest of Part One provides an overview of the parts of an argument along with the general principles that make arguments effective. This chapter focuses on the core of an argument, which is a structure of claim, reasons, and evidence. The remaining chapters of Part One cover the same territory with more elaboration and detail.

The Classical Structure of Argument 2.1 Describe the key elements of classical argument.

The core of an argument can best be understood by connecting it to the ancient pattern of classical argument revealed in the persuasive speeches of ancient Greek and Roman orators. Formalized by the Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian, the parts of the argument speech even had special names: the exordium, in which the speaker gets the audience's attention; the narratio, which provides needed background; the propositio, which is the speaker's claim or thesis; the partitio,

18 Chapter 2

which forecasts the main parts of the speech; the confirmatio, which presents the speaker's arguments supporting the claim; the confutatio, which summarizes and rebuts opposing views; and the peroratio, which concludes the speech by summing up the argument, calling for action, and leaving a strong, lasting impression. (Of course, you don't need to remember these tongue-twisting Latin terms. We cite them only to assure you that in writing a classical argument, you are joining a time-honored tradition that links back to the origins of democracy.)

Let's go over the same territory again using more contemporary terms. Figure 2.1 provides an organization plan showing the structure of a classical argu- ment, which typically includes these sections:

• The introduction. Writers of classical argument typically begin by connecting the audience to the issue by showing how it arises out of a current event or by using an illustrative story, memorable scene, or startling statistic some- thing that grabs the audience's attention. They continue the introduction by focusing the issue often by stating it directly as a question or by briefly

Figure 2.1 Organ ization p lan for an argument with c lassical structure Organization Plan for an Argument with a Classical Structure

• Exordium

• Narratio

• Propositio

• Partitio

• Confirmatio

• Confutatio

• Peroratio

Introduction (one to several paragraphs)

Presentation of writer· s position

Summary of opposing • VIews

Response to opposing • VIews

Conclusion

• Attention grabber (often a memorable scene)

• Explanation o f issue and needed backgroun d

• Writer's t hesis (claim)

• Forecasting passage

• Main body of essay

• Presents an d supports each reason in turn

• Each reason is tied to a value or belief h eld

by the audience

• Summary of views differing from writer's

(sh ould be fair and complete)

• Refutes or concedes to opposing views

• Shows weaknesses in opposing views

• May concede to some strength s

• Brings essay to closure

• Often sums up argument

• Leaves strong last impression

• Often calls for action or relates topic

to a larger context of issues

The Core of an Argument 19

summarizing opposing views and providing needed background and con- text. They conclude the introduction by p resenting their claim (thesis state- ment) and forecasting the argument's structure.

• The presentation of the writer's position. The presentation of the writer's own position is usually the longest part of a classical argument. Here writers present the reasons and evidence supporting their claims, typically choosing reasons that tie into their audience's values, beliefs, and assumptions. Usually each reason is developed in its own paragraph or sequence of paragraphs. When a paragraph introduces a new reason, writers state the reason directly and then support it with evidence or a chain of ideas. Along the way, writers guide their readers with appropriate transitions.

• The summary and critique of alternative views. When summarizing and responding to opposing views, writers have several options. If there are several opposing arguments, writers may summarize all of them together and then compose a single response, or they may summarize and respond to each argument in turn. As we explain in Chapter 6, writers may respond to opposing views either by refuting them or by conceding to their strengths and shifting to a different field of values.

• The conclusion. Finally, in their conclusion, writers sum up their argument, often restating the stakes in the argument and calling for some kind of action, thereby creating a sense of closure and leaving a strong final impression.

In this organization, the body of a classical argument has two major sections one presenting the writer's own position and the other summarizing and responding to alternative views. The organization plan in Figure 2.1, and the discussion that fo llows, have the writer's own position coming first, but it is possible to reverse that order.

For all its strengths, an argument with a classical structure may not always be your most persuasive strategy. In some cases, you may be more effective by delay- ing your thesis, by ignoring alternative views altogether, or by showing great sym- pathy for opposing views (see Chapter 6). In some cases, in fact, it may be better to abandon argument altogether and simply enter into a empathic conversation w ith others to bridge the gaps between opposing points of view (see Chapter 10 on col- laborative rhetoric as an alternative to classical argument). In most cases, however, the classical structure is a useful p lanning tool. By calling for a thesis statement and a forecasting statement in the introduction, it helps you see the whole of your argument in miniature. And by requiring you to summarize and consider oppos- ing views, the classical structure alerts you to the limits of your position and to the need for further reasons and evidence. As we w ill show, the classical structure is particularly persuasive when you address a neutral or undecided audience.

Classical Appeals and the etorical Triangle 2.2 Explain the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.

Besides developing a template or structure for an argument, classical rhetori- cians analyzed the ways that effective speeches persuaded their audiences. They identified three kinds of persuasive appeals, which they called logos, ethos, and

20 Chapter 2

Figure 2.2 The rhetorical triangle Message

LOGOS: How can I make the argument internally consistent and logical? How can I find the best reasons and support them with the best evidence?

Audience PATHOS: How can I make the reader open to my message? How can I best appeal to my reader's values and interests? How can I engage my reader emotionally and imaginatively?

Writer or Speaker ETHOS: How can I present myself effectively? How can I enhance my credibility and trustworthiness?

pathos. These appeals can be understood within a rhetorical context illustrated by a triangle with points labeled message, writer or speaker, and audience (Figure 2.2). Effective arguments pay attention to all three points on this rhetorical triangle.

As Figure 2.2 shows, each point on the triangle corresponds to one of the three persuasive appeals:

• Logos (Greek for "word") focuses attention on the quality of the message- that is, on the internal consistency and clarity of the argument itself and on the logic of its reasons and support. The impact of logos on an audience is referred to as its logical appeal.

• Ethos (Greek for "character") focuses attention on the writer's (or speaker's) character as it is projected in the message. It refers to the writer's credibility. Ethos is often conveyed through the writer's investment in his or her claim; through the fairness with which the writer considers alternative views; through the tone and style of the message; and even through the message's professional appearance on paper or screen, including correct grammar, flaw- less proofreading, and appropriate formats for citations and bibliography. In some cases, ethos is also a function of the writer's reputation for honesty and expertise independent of the message. The impact of ethos on an audience is referred to as the ethical appeal or appeal from credibility.

• Pathos (Greek for "suffering" or "experience") focuses attention on the val- ues and beliefs of the intended audience. It is often associated with emotional appeal. But pathos appeals more specifically to an audience's imaginative sympathies their capacity to feel and see what the writer feels and sees. Thus, when we turn the abstractions of logical discourse into a tangible and immediate story, we are making a pathetic appeal. Whereas appeals to logos

The Core of an Argument 21

and ethos can further an audience's intellectual assent to our claim, appeals to pathos engage the imagination and feelings, moving th e audience to a deeper ap preciation of the argument's significance.

A related rhetorical concept, connected to the appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos, is that of kairos, from the Greek word for "right time," "season," or "opp or- tunity." This concept suggests that for an argument to be persuasive, its timing must be effectively chosen and its tone and structure in right proportion or mea- sure. You may have had the experience of composing a contentious e-mail and then hesitating before clicking the "send" button. Is this the right moment to send this message? Is my audience ready to hear what I'm saying? Would my views be better received if I waited for a couple of days? If I send this message now, should I change its tone and content? Kairos refers to this attentiveness to the unfolding of time. We will return to this concept in Chapter 5, when we consider ethos and pathos in more depth.

Given this background on the classical appeals, let's turn now to logos the logic and structure of arguments.

Issue uestions as the Origins of Argument 2.3 Distinguish between issue and information questions and between

genuine and pseudo-arguments.

At the heart of any argument is an issue, which we can define as a controver- sial topic area (such as legalizing marijuana or building a wall between Mexico and the United States) that gives r ise to differing points of view and conflict- ing claims. A writer can usually focus an issue by asking an issue question that invites alternative answers. Within any complex issue for example, the issue of abortion there are usually a number of separate issue questions: What govern- mental restrictions should be placed on abortion? Should the federal government authorize Medicaid payments for abortions? When does a fetus become a human person? (At conception? At three months? At birth?) What would be the conse- quences of expanding or limiting a woman's right to an abortion? (One person might stress that legalized abortion leads to greater freedom for women. Another person might respond that it lessens a society's respect for human life.)

Difference between an Issue Question and an Infortnation Question Of course, not all questions are issue questions that can be answered reasonably in differing ways. Some questions ask for information rather than for arguments. Rhetoricians have traditionally distinguished between explication, which is writing that sets out to inform or explain, and argumentation, which sets out to change a reader's mind. The fo llowing example illustrates the difference between an issue question and an information question:

Issue question: Should health insurance policies be required to cover contra- ceptives? (Reasonable persons can disagree.)

22 Chapter 2

Information question: How does the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States compare with the rate in Sweden? (Reasonable persons assume that a "right answer" to this question is available.)

Although the difference between the two kinds of questions may seem simple, the distinction can become blurry. Suppose we asked "Why is the teenage preg- nancy rate in Sweden lower than in the United States?" Although this might seem to be an informative question with a right answer, we can also imagine disagree- ment. One writer might emphasize Sweden's practical, secular sex-education courses, leading to more consistent use of contraceptives among Swedish teenagers. Another writer might point to the higher use of birth-control pills among teenage girls in Sweden (partly a result of Sweden's generous national health program) and to less reliance on condoms for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Another might argue that moral decay in the United States or a breakdown of the traditional fam- ily is responsible for the higher teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. Thus, what initially looks like a simple information question becomes an issue question.

How to Identify an Issue Question You can generally tell whether a question is an information question or an issue question by determining whether your purpose is (1) to explain or teach some- thing to your audience or (2) to change their minds about something. Often the same question can be an information question in one context and an issue ques- tion in another. Let's look at the following examples:

• How does a diesel engine work? (This is an information question because rea- sonable people who know about diesel engines will agree on how they work. This question would be posed by an audience of new learners asking experts for an explanation.)

• Why is a diesel engine more fuel efficient than a gasoline engine? (This also seems to be an information question because experts will probably agree on the answer. Once again, the audience seems to be new learners, perhaps students in an automotive class.)

• What is the most cost-effective way to produce diesel fuel from crude oil? (This could be an information question if experts agree and you are addressing new learners. But if you are addressing engineers and one engineer says process X is the most cost-effective and another engineer argues for process Y, then the question is an issue question.)

• Should the present highway tax on diesel fuel be increased? (This is certainly an issue question. One person says yes; another says no; another offers a compromise.)

For Writing and Discussion Information Questions Versus Issue Questions Working as a class or in small groups, decide wh ich of the fo llowing questions are information questions and wh ich are issue questions. Many of them could be either, depending on the rhetorical context. For those questions, create hypothetical contexts to show your reasoning.

The Core of an Argument 23

1. What percentage of public schools in the United States are failing? 2. Which causes more t raff ic accidents, d runk driving or texting w hile driving? 3. What is the effect on chi ld ren of playing first-person-shooter video games? 4. What effect w ill the advent of self-d riving cars have on truck drivers? 5. Shou ld people get rid of t heir land lines and have only cell phones?

Difference between a Genuine Argum.ent and a Fseudo-Argum.ent Although every argument is sparked by an issue question w ith alternative answers, not every disp ute over answers constitutes a rational argument. Ratio- nal arguments require three additional factors: (1) reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of reasonable behavior; (2) potentially sharable assumptions that can serve as a starting place or foundation for the argument; (3) confidence that evidence used in an argument is verifiable. Lacking these con- ditions, disagreements remain stalled at the level of pseudo-arguments. Let's look at each of these conditions in turn.

PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOR Reasonable behavior in argument assumes the possibility of growth and change; disputants may modify their views as they acknowledge strengths in an alternative view or weaknesses in their own. Such growth becomes impossible and argument degenerates to pseudo-argument when disputants are so rigid ly committed to their positions that they can't imagine alternative views. Consider the case of the true believer and the fanatical skeptic.

From one perspective, true believers are admirable persons, guided by unwavering values and beliefs. True believers stand on solid rock, unwilling to compromise their principles or bend to the prevailing w inds. But from another perspective, true believers can seem rigidly fixed, incapable of growth or change. In Chapter 1, we mentioned that arguers can cling to sacred values either reli- gious or secular princip les that they consider absolute, inviolable, indisputable. When true believers from two clashing belief systems each with its own set of sacred values try to engage in dialogue with each other, a truth-seeking exchange of views becomes difficult. They talk past each other; dialogue is replaced by monologue from within isolated silos. Once true believers push each other's buttons on global warming, guns, health care, taxes, political cor- rectness, or some other issue, each disputant resorts to an endless replaying of the same prepackaged arguments based on absolute principles. Disagreeing with a true believer is like ordering the surf to quiet down. The only response is another crashing wave.

In contrast to the true believer, the fanatical skeptic d ismisses the possibility of ever believing anything. Skeptics often demand proof where no proof is pos- sible. So what if the sun has risen every day of recorded history? That's no proof that it will rise tomorrow. Short of absolute proof, which never exists, fanatical skeptics accept nothing. In a world where the most we can hope for is increased audience adherence to our ideas, the skeptic demands an ironclad, logical dem- onstration of our claim's rightness.

24 Chapter 2

PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY LACK OF SHARED ASSUMPTIONS As we have seen, reasonable argument degenerates to pseudo-argument when there is no possibility for listening, learning, growth, or change. In this section, we look more closely at a cause of unreasonableness in argument: lack of shared assumptions.

A lack of shared assumptions necessarily dooms arguments about purely personal opinions for example, someone's claim that opera is boring or that pizza tastes better than nachos. Of course, a pizza-versus-nachos argument might be possible if the disputants assume a shared criterion about nutrition. For example, a nutritionist could argue that a vegetable-laden pizza is better than nachos because pizza provides more balanced nutrients per calorie than nachos do. But if one of the disputants responds, "Nah, nachos are better than pizza because nachos taste better," then he makes a different assumption "My sense of taste is better than your sense of taste." This is a wholly personal standard, an assumption that others are unable to share.

Lack of shared assumptions can also doom arguments when the disputants have different ideologies, as we saw in the discussion of true believers. Ideology is an academic word for belief systems or world views. We all have our own ideolo- gies. We all look at the world through a lens shaped by our life's experiences. Our beliefs and values are shaped by our family background, our friends, our culture, our particular time in history, our race or ethnicity, our gender or sexual orienta- tion, our social class, our religion, our education, and so forth. Because we tend to think that our particular lens for looking at the world is natural and universal rather than specific to ourselves, we must be aware that persons who disagree with us may not share our deepest assumptions and beliefs.

This lack of shared assumptions is evident in many disputes concerning poli- tics or religion. For example, consider differences over how to interpret the Bible within communities identifying as Christian. Some Christian groups choose a straightforward, literal interpretation of the Bible as God's inerrant word, some- times quoting Biblical passages as "proof texts" to support their stand on civic issues. Others believe the Bible is divinely inspired, meant to lead humans to a relationship with God, but transmitted through human authors. Other groups tend to read the Bible metaphorically or mythically, focusing on the paradoxes, historical contexts, and interpretive complexities of the Bible. Still other Christian groups read it as an ethical call for social justice. Members of these different Christian groups may not be able to argue rationally about, say, evolution or gay marriage because they have very different ways of reading Biblical passages and invoking the Bible's authority. Similarly, within other religious traditions, believers may also differ about the meaning and applicability of their sacred texts to scientific issues and social problems.

Similar disagreements about assumptions occur in the political arena as well. Our point is that certain religious or political beliefs or texts cannot be evoked for evidence or authority when an audience does not assume the belief's truth or does not agree on the way that a given text should be read or interpreted.

PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN EVIDENCE Finally, pseudo-arguments arise when disputants can't agree about the trustwor- thiness of particular evidence or about the possibility of trustworthy evidence existing at all, as if all facts are relative an especially troublesome problem in

The Core of an Argument 25

an era where many have raised concern s about "fake news" and "alternative facts." Reasonable arguments must be grounded in evidence that can be verified and trusted. Sometimes unethical writers invent facts and data to create propa- ganda, advance a conspiracy theory, or make money from the sale of fake stories. Scientific fraud has also occasionally occurred wherein scientists have fudged their data or even made up data to support a claim. Tabloids and fringe news sites are notorious for spreading fake news, often in their attention-grabbing but bizarre headlines ("Farmer shoots 23-pound grasshopper").

For disputants with different ideologies, pseudo-arguments may even occur w ith issues grounded in science. Liberals may distrust scientific data about the safety of genetically modified organisms, whereas conservatives may distrust the scientific data about climate change. Genuine argument can emerge only when all sides of the dispute agree that any given evidence derives from verifiable facts or data. We don't mean that reasonable disputants must use the same facts: Arguers necessarily and always select and frame their evidence to support their points (see the discussion of angle of vision in Chapter 4). But no matter what evidence is chosen, disputants must agree that the evidence is verifiable that it is real news or evidence, not fake news or evidence.

For Writing and Discussion Reasonable Arguments Versus Pseudo-Arguments

Individual task: Which of the following questions wil l lead to reasonable arguments, and which wil l lead only to pseudo- arguments? Explain your reasoning.

1. Are the Star Wars films good science fiction? 2. Is it ethically justifiable to capture dolphins or orca whales and train them for human entertainment? 3. Should cities subsidize professional sports venues? 4. Is this abstract oil painting created by a monkey smearing paint on a canvas a true work of art? 5. Are nose rings and tongue studs attractive?

Group task: Working in pairs, small groups, or as a class, share your reasoning about these questions with classmates.

Frame of an Argument: A Claim Supported by Reasons 2.4 Describe the basic frame of an argument.

We said earlier that an argument originates in an issue question, which by defini- tion is any question that provokes disagreement about the best answer. When you w rite an argument, your task is to take a position on the issue and to support it w ith reasons and evidence. The claim of your essay is the position you want your

26 Chapter 2

audience to accept. To put it another way, your claim is your essay's thesis state- ment, a one-sentence summary answer to your issue question. Your task, then, is to make a claim and support it with reasons.

What Is a Reason? A reason (also called a premise) is a claim used to support another claim. In speaking or writing, a reason is usually linked to the claim with a connecting word such as because, since, for, so, thus, consequently, or therefore, indicating that the claim follows logically from the reason.

Let us take an example of a controversial issue that frequently gets reported in the news the public debate over keeping large sea mammals such as dol- phins, porpoises, and orcas (killer whales) in captivity in marine parks where they entertain large crowds with their performances. This issue has many dimen- sions, including safety concerns for both the animals and their human trainers, as well as moral, scientific, legal, and economic concerns. Popular documentary films have heightened the public's awareness of the dangers of captivity to both the animals and the humans who work with them. For example, The Cove (2009) exposes the gory dolphin hunts in Japan in which fishermen kill dolphins en masse, capturing some for display in shows around the world. Blackfish (2013) tells the history of the orca Tilikum, who in 2010 killed his trainer, Dawn Blancheau, at Sea World in Orlando, Florida. The death of Tilikum in 2017 resparked public debates about treatment of marine animals in captivity. Recently a flurry of legal efforts to release the captive orca Lolita back into the wild has also contributed to the larger battle among advocacy, governmental, scientific, and commercial groups over the value of marine parks.

In one of our recent classes, students heatedly debated the ethics of capturing wild dolphins and training them to perform in marine parks. One student cited his sister's internship at Sea World San Diego, where she worked on sea mammal rescue and rehabilitation, one of the marine park's worthy projects. In response, another student mentioned the millions of dollars these marine parks make on their dolphin and orca shows as well as on the stuffed animals, toys, magnets, T-shirts, and hundreds of other lucrative marine park souvenirs. Here are the frameworks the class developed for two alternative positions on this public issue:

One View

CLAIM: The public should not support marine parks.

REASON 1: Marine parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats.

REASON 2: The education these parks claim to offer about marine mammals is just a series of artificial, exploitive tricks taught through behavior modification.

REASON 3: These parks are operated by big business with the goal of mak- ing large profits.

REASON 4: Marine parks encourage artificial breeding programs and cruel hunts and captures.

REASON 5: Marine parks promote an attitude of human dominance over animals.

The Core of an Argument 27

Alternative View

CLAIM: The public should continue to enjoy marine parks.

REASON 1: These parks observe accreditation standards for animal welfare, h ealth, and nutrition.

REASON 2: These marine p arks enable scientists and veterinarians to study animal behavior in ways not possible w ith field studies in the wild.

REASON 3: These marine parks provide environmental education and memorable entertainment.

REASON 4: Marine parks use some of their profits to support research, conservation, and rescue and rehabilitation programs.

REASON 5: In their training of dolphins and orcas, these marine parks reinforce natural behaviors, exercise the animals' intelligence, and promote beneficial bonding with humans.

Formulating a list of reasons in this way breaks your argumentative task into a series of subtasks. It gives you a frame for building your argument in parts. In this example, the frame for the argument opposing commercial use of sea mammals suggests five different lines of reasoning a writer might pursue. You might use all five reasons or select only two or three, depending on which reasons would most persuade the intended audience. Each line of reasoning would be developed in its own separate section of the argument. For example, you m ight begin one section of your argument w ith the follow ing sentence: "The public should not support marine parks because they teach dolphins and orcas clownish tricks and artificial behaviors, which they pass off as 'education' about these animals." You would then provide examples of the tricks that dol- phins and orcas are taught, explain how these stunts contrast with their natu- ral behaviors, and offer examples of erroneous facts or information provided by commercial marine parks. You might also need to support the underlying assumption that it is good to acquire real knowledge about sea mammals in the wild. You would then proceed in the same manner for each separate section of your argument.

To summarize: The frame of an argument consists of the claim (the essay's thesis statement), which is supported by one or more reasons, which are in turn supported by evidence or sequences of further reasons.

For Writing and Discussion Using Images to Support an Argument In Chapter 1, we discussed the way that images and photographs can make implicit arguments. This exercise asks you to consider how images can shape or enhance an argument. Imag ine that your task is to argue why a nonprofit group in your city should (or should not) offer as a fund- raising prize a trip to Sea- World in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; or San Diego, Cal ifornia. Examine the photographs of orcas in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 and describe the implicit argument that each photo seems to make about these whales. How might one or both of these photos be used to support an argument fo r or against the prize t rip to Sea- World? What reasons for going (or not going) to SeaWorld are implied by each photo? Briefly sketch out you r argument and explain your choice of t he photograph(s) that support your position.

28 Chapter 2

Figure 2.3 Orca performance at a marine park

Figure 2.4 Orcas breaching

The Core of an Argument 29

Expressing Reasons in Because Clauses Chances are that when you were a child, the word because contained magical explanatory powers. (I don't want that kind of butter on my toast! Why? Because. Because why? Just because.) Somehow because seemed decisive. It persuaded people to accept your view of the world; it changed people's minds. Later, as you got older, you discovered that because only introduced your arguments and that it was the reasons following because that made the difference. Still, because introduced you to the powers potentially residing in the adult world of logic.

This childhood power of because perhaps explains why because clauses are the most common way of linking reasons to a claim. For example:

The public should not support marine parks because these parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats.

Of course, there are also many other ways to express the logical connection between a reason and a claim. Our language is rich in ways of stating because relationships:

• Marine parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats. Therefore, the public should not support marine parks.

• Marine parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats, so the public should not support these parks.

• One reason that the public should not support marine animal parks is that these parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats.

• My argument that the public should not support marine animal parks is grounded on evidence that these parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats.

Even though logical relationships can be stated in various ways, writing out one or more because clauses seems to be the most succinct and manageable way to clarify an argument for yourself. We therefore suggest that at some time in the writing process, you create a working thesis statement that summarizes your main reasons as because clauses attached to your claim.*

When you compose your own working thesis statement depends largely on your writing process. Some writers like to p lan their whole argument from the start and compose their working thesis statements with because clauses before they write their rough drafts. Others discover their arguments as they write. Some writers use a combination of both techniques. For these writers, an extended working thesis statement is something they might write halfway through the composing process as a way of ordering their argument when various branches seem to be growing out of control. Or they might compose a working thesis

* A working thesis statement opposing the commercial use of captured dolphins and orcas might look like this: The public should not support marine parks because marine parks inhu- manely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats; because marine parks are mainly big businesses driven by profit; because marine parks create inaccurate and incom- plete educational information about dolphins and orcas; because marine parks encourage inhumane breeding programs, hunts, and captures; and because marine parks promote an attitude of human dominance over animals. You probably would not put a bulky thesis statement like this into your essay; rather, a working thesis statement is a behind-the-scenes way of summarizing your argument so that you can see it fully and clearly.

30 Chapter 2

statement after they've written a complete first draft as a way of checking the essay's unity.

The act of writing your extended thesis statement can be simultaneously frustrating and thought provoking. Composing because clauses can be a power- ful discovery tool, causing you to think of many different kinds of arguments to support your claim. But it is often difficult to wrestle your ideas into the because clause shape, which may seem overly tidy for the complex network of ideas you are working with. Nevertheless, trying to summarize your argument as a single claim with reasons should help you see more clearly the emerging shape of your argument.

For Writing and Discussion Developing Claims and Reasons Try this group exercise to help you see how writing because clauses can be a discovery procedure. Divide into smal l groups. Each group member should contribute an issue with potentially opposing c laims. Whi le thinking of your issue, imagine a person who might disagree w ith you about it. This person w ill become your audience. Discussing each group member's issue in turn, help each member develop a claim supported by several reasons that might appeal to the imagined aud ience. Express each reason as a because clause. Then write out the working thesis statement for each person's argument by attaching the because c lauses to the claim. Finally, try to create because clauses in support of an alternative claim for each issue. Each group should select two or three working thesis statements to present to the c lass.

Conclusion This chapter introduced you to the structure of classical argument, to the rhetorical triangle (message, writer or speaker, and audience), and to the classical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos. It also showed how arguments originate in issue ques- tions, how issue questions differ from information questions, and how reasonable arguments differ from pseudo-arguments. The frame of an argument is a claim supported by reasons. As you generate reasons to support your own arguments, it is often helpful to articulate them as because clauses attached to the claim.

In the next chapter we will see how to support a reason by examining its logical structure, uncovering its unstated assumptions, and planning a strategy of development.

Writing Assignment An Issue Question and Working Thesis Statements Decide on an issue and a claim for a classical argument that you wou ld like to write. Also imagine a reader who might be skeptical of your claim. Write a one-sentence question that summarizes the controversial is- sue that your c laim addresses. Then draft a working thesis statement for your proposed argument. Organize the thesis as a claim w ith bulleted because clauses for reasons. You should have at least two reasons, but it is okay to have three or four. Also include an opposing thesis statement-that is, a claim with because

The Core of an Argument 31

clauses for an alternative position on your issue. Think of this opposing argument as your imagined reader's starting position.

Unless you have previously done research on an issue, it is probably best to choose an issue based on your personal experiences and observations. For example, you might consider issues related to your college or high school life, your work life, your experiences in clubs or family life, your prospective career, and so forth. (Part Two of this text introduces you to research-based argument.) As you think about your claim and because clauses for this assignment, take comfort in the fact that you are in a very early stage of the writing process: the brainstorming stage. Writers almost always discover new ideas when they write a first draft. As they take their writing project through multiple drafts and share their drafts with readers, their views may change substantially. In fact, honest writers can change positions on an issue by discovering that a counter- argument is stronger than their own. Thus the working thesis statement that you submit for this assignment may evolve when you begin to draft your essay.

Below, as well as in Chapters 3 and 4, we follow the process of student writer Carmen Tieu as she constructs an argument on violent video games. During a class discussion, Carmen mentioned a psychol- ogy professor who described playing violent video games as gendered behavior (overwhelmingly male). The professor ind icated his dislike for such games, pointing to their antisocial, dehumanizing values. In class, Carmen described her own enjoyment of violent video games-particularly first-person-shooter games- and reported the pleasure that she derived from beating boys at Halo 2 and 3. Her classmates were inter- ested in her ideas. She knew that she wanted to write an argument on this issue. The following is Carmen's submission for this assignment.

Carmen's Issue Question and Working Thesis Statements Issue Question: Should girls be encouraged to play f irst-person-shooter video games? My claim: First-person-shooter (FPS) video games are great activities for girls,

• because they empower girls when they beat guys at their own game. • because they equip girls with skills that free them from feminine stereotypes. • because they give girls a different way of bonding with males. • because they give girls new insights into a male subculture.

Opposing claim: First-person-shooter games are a bad activity for anyone, especially girls, • because they promote antisocial values such as indiscriminate kil ling. • because they amplify t he bad, macho side of male stereotypes. • because they waste valuable time that could be spent on something constructive. • because FPS games could encourage women to see themselves as objects.

Chapter 3 •

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

3.1 Explain the logical structure of argument in terms of claim, reason, and assumption granted by the audience.

3.2 Use the Toulmin system to describe an argument's logical structure.

3.3 Use the Toulmin system to generate ideas for your argument and test it for completeness.

In Chapter 2 you learned that the core of an argument is a claim supported by reasons and that these reasons can often be stated as because clauses attached to a claim. In this chapter, we examine the logical structure of arguments in more depth.

An Overview of Logos: hat Do e Mean by the "Logical Structure" of an Argument? 3.1 Explain the logical structure of argument in terms of claim, reason,

and assumption granted by the audience.

As you will recall from our discussion of the rhetorical triangle, logos refers to the strength of an argument's support and its internal consistency. Logos is the argu- ment's logical structure. But what do we mean by "logical structure"?

The Logical Structure of Arguments 33

Forinal Logic Versus Real-World Logic First of all, what we don't mean by logical structure is the kind of precise certainty you get in a philosophy class in formal logic. Logic classes deal with symbolic assertions that are universal and unchanging, such as "If all ps are qs and if r is a p, then r is a q." This statement is logically certain so long asp, q, and rare pure abstractions. But in the real world, p, q, and r turn into actual things, and the rela- tionships among them suddenly become fuzzy. For example, p might be a class of actions called "Sexual Harassment," while q could be the class called" Actions That Justify Getting Fired from One's Job." If r is the class "Telling Off-Color Sto- ries," then the logic of our p-q-r statement suggests that telling off-color stories (r) is an instance of sexual harassment (p), which in turn is an action justifying getting fired from one's job (q).

Now, most of us would agree that sexual harassment is a serious offense that might well justify getting fired. In turn, we might agree that telling off-color stories, if the jokes are sufficiently raunchy and are inflicted on an unwilling audi- ence, constitutes sexual harassment. But few of us would want to say categorically that all people who tell off-color stories are harassing their listeners and ought to be fired. Most of us would want to know the particulars of the case before making a final judgment.

In the real world, then, it is difficult to say that rs are always ps or that every instance of a p results in q. That is why we discourage students from using the word prove in claims they write for arguments (as in "This paper will prove that euthanasia is wrong"). Real-world arguments seldom prove anything. They can only make a good case for something, a case that is more or less strong, more or less probable. Often the best you can hope for is to strengthen the resolve of those who agree with you or weaken the resistance of those who oppose you.

The Role of Assuinptions A key difference, then, between formal logic and real-world argument is that real- world arguments are not grounded in abstract, universal statements. Rather, as we shall see, they must be grounded in beliefs, assumptions, or values granted by the audience. A second important difference is that in real-world arguments, these beliefs, assumptions, or values are often unstated. So long as writer and audience share the same assumptions, it's fine to leave them unstated. But if these underlying assumptions aren't shared, the writer has a problem.

To illustrate the nature of this problem, suppose that you are an environmen- talist opposed to the use of plastic bags in grocery stores. You have several reasons for opposing these bags, one of which is their role in polluting the oceans. You express this reason in a because clause as follows:

States should ban plastic bags from grocery stores because banning bags will reduce plastic pollution in the ocean.

On the face of it, this is a plausible argument, but it depends on the audience's accepting the writer's assumption that it is good to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean. In other words, you might agree that plastics are polluting the ocean, but unless you also believe that this pollution is significantly harming the oceans, you might not automatically agree that plastic bags should be banned from grocery stores. What if you believe that pollution-caused damage to the ocean is not as

Cover
Title
Copyright
Brief Contents
Contents
Preface
Part One Principles of Argument

1 Argument:An Introduction
2 The Core of an Argument:A Claim with Reasons
3 The Logical Structure of Arguments:logos