Argument and Persuasion

Argument and Persuasion Harrison High School

THE METHOD • PERSUASION aims to influence readers’ actions, or their support for an action, by engaging their beliefs and feelings • Argument aims to win readers’ agreement with an assertion or claim by engaging their powers of reasoning.

The Method • The most effective persuasion or argument contains elements of both methods. • We will use these terms interchangeably.

Transaction between Writer and Reader • To be fair and persuasive, it is important to understand your readers’ views.

Transaction between Writer and Reader • In stating your opinion, you present the truth as you see it. • To persuade your reader that your view makes sense, try to begin by stating what you think your readers probably think, as best as you can infer.

Transaction between Writer and Reader • You don’t consider views that differ from your own merely to flatter your readers, but to correct your own view and make it more accurate. • Argument and persuasion aren’t cynical ways to pull other people’s strings. Writer and reader become two sensible people trying to find common ground.

Thesis Statement • In an argument you champion or defend your opinion about something. This opinion is the THESIS, or CLAIM, of your argument, and it will probably present itself as your THESIS STATEMENT.

Thesis Statement • Usually, but not always, you’ll state your thesis statement at the beginning of your essay, making a play for readers’ attention and cueing them in to your purpose. But if you think readers may have difficulty accepting your thesis until they’ve heard some or all of your argument, then you might save the thesis statement for the middle or end. • In your research papers, I want you to highlight your thesis statements.

Thesis Statement Examples • Your thesis statement should be specific—it should cover only what you will discuss in your paper and should be supported with specific evidence. • The thesis statement usually appears at the end of the first paragraph of a paper. • Your topic may change as you write, so you may need to revise your thesis statement to reflect exactly what you have discussed in the paper.

Example Thesis Statement • “High school graduates should be required to take a year off to pursue community service projects before entering college in order to increase their maturity and global awareness.” • The paper that follows should: • present an argument and give evidence to support the claim that students should pursue community projects before entering college

Example Thesis Statement • Racial profiling is an ugly business. . . But I’m not opposed to allowing-- no, requiring--airlines to pay closer attention to passengers who fit a terrorist profile, which includes national origin. --Linda Chavez, “Everything Isn’t Racial l Profiling”

Expository Thesis non-example • Example of an expository (explanatory) thesis statement: • The life of the typical college student is characterized by time spent studying, attending class, and socializing with peers. • The paper that follows should: • explain how students spend their time studying, attending class, and socializing with peers

Example Thesis Statement • Giving up privacy rights [to government surveillance] can’t guarantee physical safety, but it will almost certainly inhibit intellectual freedom and limit cognitive liberty. We Americans who cherish our freedoms should seriously consider whether or not this is a compromise we are willing to make. --Zara Gelsey, “The FBI Is Reading over your Shoulder”

Thesis Statements • The Thesis statement or main claim must be debatable • An argumentative or persuasive piece of writing must begin with a debatable thesis or claim. In other words, the thesis must be something that people could reasonably have differing opinions on. If your thesis is something that is generally agreed upon or accepted as fact then there is no reason to try to persuade people. • Example of a non-debatable thesis statement: • Pollution is bad for the environment.

“Pollution is bad for the environment.” • This thesis statement is not debatable. First, the word pollution means that something is bad or negative in some way. Further, all studies agree that pollution is a problem, they simply disagree on the impact it will have or the scope of the problem. No one could reasonably argue that pollution is good.

Example of a debatable thesis statement: • At least twenty-five percent of the federal budget should be spent on limiting pollution. • This is an example of a debatable thesis because reasonable people could disagree with it. Some people might think that this is how we should spend the nation's money. Others might feel that we should be spending more money on education. Still others could argue that corporations, not the government, should be paying to limit pollution.

Debatable Thesis • Another example of a debatable thesis statement: • America's anti-pollution efforts should focus on privately owned cars. • In this example there is also room for disagreement between rational individuals. Some citizens might think focusing on recycling programs rather than private automobiles is the most effective strategy.

Narrow Your Thesis • The thesis needs to be narrow • Although the scope of your paper might seem overwhelming at the start, generally the narrower the thesis the more effective your argument will be. Your thesis or claim must be supported by evidence. The broader your claim is, the more evidence you will need to convince readers that your position is right. • Example of a thesis that is too broad: • Drug use is detrimental to society.

Example of a narrow or focused thesis: • Illegal drug use is detrimental because it encourages gang violence. • In this example the the topic of drugs has been narrowed down to illegal drugs and the detriment has been narrowed down to gang violence. This is a much more manageable topic.

Evidence and Appeals • To support the thesis of your argument, you need EVIDENCE--anything that demonstrates what you’re claiming. Evidence may include facts, statistics (facts expressed in numbers), expert opinions, examples, reported experience. It should be accurate, should fairly represent the available facts and opinions, should relate directly to your claims.

Evidence and Appeals • Even the best-supported argument also must appeal to readers’ intelligence and to their feelings. In appealing to reason--A RATIONAL appeal-- you’ll want to rely on conventional methods of reasoning and supply evidence according to appropriate criteria.

Evidence and Appeals • In appealing to feelings--an EMOTIONAL APPEAL--you’ll want to acknowledge what you know of readers’ sympathies and beliefs and also show how your argument relates to them.

Emotional Appeal • Emotional appeal requires vigilance, from both writers and readers, because it can be manipulative. “Do you really want to deprive your children of what’s best for them?” • Used as a pitch for a learn to read program it neglects to include effectiveness of the program.

Emotional Appeal • Inspiring readers/listeners who are already partial to the speaker/reader’s message. • Even in an argument directed at a skeptical audience and based largely on reason and evidence, an emotional appeal can stir readers by fair means to constructive belief and action

Argument • Effective argument makes us feel that a writer’s views are close to our own.

Ethical Appeal • Convincing your reader that you are a well-informed person of good will, good sense,and good moral character--and, therefore, to be believed. You establish your ethos.

Ethical Appeal • You make such an appeal by collecting ample evidence, reasoning carefully, using an appropriate emotional appeal and minding your tone.

Ethical Appeal • In arguing, you don’t prove your assertion in the same irrefutable way in which a chemist demonstrates that hydrogen will burn. • Saying, “Health coverage for the uninsured should be given top priority in Congress” isn’t clearly true or false. Argument invites more than one opinion.

Argument • In writing an argument, you help your reader see and understand just one open-eyed, open-minded view of reality.

Reasoning • When we argue rationally, we reason--that is we make statements that lead to a conclusion. From the time of the ancient Greeks down to our own day, distinctly different methods of proceeding from statements to conclusions have been devised

Toulmin Method • DATA: The evidence to prove something • Claim: What you are proving with the data • Warrant: The assumption or principle that connects the data to the claim • Any clear, explicit argument has to have all three parts.

Toulmin Method • Toulmin’s own example of such an argument is this: Harry was born in Bermuda (data)-------So Harry is a British subject (claim) Since a man born in Bermuda will be a British subject. (warrant)

The Warrant at the Center • The warrant is usually an ASSUMPTION or a GENERALIZATION that explains WHY the claim follows the data. • Often a writer won’t state the warrant because it is obvious

Caution • A flaw in many arguments is that the warrant is not clear. A clear warrant is essential. To understand, a reader needs to understand your assumptions and the thinking that follows from them.

Argument--WEAK • Drug abuse is a serious problem in the United States. Therefore, the United States must help to destroy drug production in Latin America • There is no connection presented between the first and second statement.

Argument STRENGTHENED • Drug abuse is a serious problem in the United States. As long as drugs are manufactured in Latin America, they will be smuggled into the United States, and drug abuse will continue. Therefore, the United States must help to destroy drug production in Latin America.

Unstated Warrant • The unstated warrant can pitch an argument into trouble. Since warrants are usually assumptions or generalizations, rather than assertions of fact, they are valid only if readers accept or agree that they are valid.

Stated Warrants • With stated warrants, any weaknesses are more likely to show. • Assertion: a certain woman should not be elected mayor because women cannot from ideas independently of their husbands and this woman’s husband has bad ideas on how to run the city.

Unstated Warrants • Can be just as absurd, or even just doubtful, and pass unnoticed because they are not exposed. • She shouldn’t be elected mayor because her husband has bad ideas about how to run the city.

Magazine Advertisement • Scientists have no proof, just statistical correlations, linking smoking and heart disease, so you needn’t worry about the connection. • Unstated warrant: Since there is no proof, statistical correlations are worthless as guides to behavior.

Magazine Advertisement • It is true that statistical correlations are not scientific proof, by which we generally mean repeated results obtained under controlled laboratory conditions--the kind of conditions to which humans cannot ethically be subjected.

Magazine Advertisement • But statistical correlations can establish connections and in fact inform much of our healthful behavior, such as getting physical exercise, avoiding fatty foods, brushing our teeth, and not driving while intoxicated. The advertiser’s unstated warrant isn’t valid so neither is the argument.

Aristotle • Inductive reasoning (induction): we collect bits of evidence on which to base generalizations. The more evidence, the more trustworthy your generalization, but it will never be airtight unless you were able to detail all interactions on the topic.

Aristotle • Inductive cont’d: Since such thoroughness is impractical if not impossible, inductive reasoning involves making an inductive leap from the evidence to the conclusion. The smaller the leap--the more evidence you have--the better.

Aristotle • Deductive reasoning: moves from a general statement to particular cases. The basis for the deduction is the SYLLOGISM a three-step form of reasoning practiced by Aristotle: • All men are mortal (major premise) • Socrates is a man (minor premise) • Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

Aristotle Deductive Reasoning • The first statement (the major premise) is a generalization about a large group: It is the result of inductive reasoning.

Aristotle: Deductive Reasoning • The second statement (the minor premise) says something about a particular member of that large group.

Aristotle: Deductive Reasoning • The third statement (the conclusion) follows inevitably from the premises and applies to the generalization to the particular; If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Example #2 • Major Premise: Conservative Republicans favor less government regulation of business • Minor Premise: William F. Buckley, Jr., is a conservative Republican • Conclusion: Therefore, W.F. Buckley, Jr., favors less government regulation of business

Example #3 • Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles. The earth has no limbs and muscles. Hence, the earth does not move. • Bad deductive reasoning

Argument and Persuasion