COMP 2 WEEK 1Taking a Closer Look at the Five Canons of Rhetoric

Description (1000 words)

This week we are going to familiarize ourselves with the western, ancient origins of Rhetorical Theory. As we move through our chapter readings and assigned media, we will begin to craft connections between what what Aristotle and the great Sophists have to do with argument today.

Particularly when we think of “making argument,” we should be considered what comes to mind. Conflict? Pro-Con? Winners and Losers? Compromise? Resolution? These are all ideas we will confront this week as we dive into the history of rhetorical theory and begin a framework of argument together!

Objectives

Discuss the classical origins of Rhetorical Theory
Identify the five canons of rhetoric
Classify the definition of argument

Readings

Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to Writing 2e, Issue 1: Why Rhetoric p. 50-69

Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings 11e, Chapter 1: Argument: An Introduction p. 2-16

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Invention (Links to an external site.)

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Invention

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Arrangement (Links to an external site.)

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Arrangement

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Style (Links to an external site.)

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Style

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Memory (Links to an external site.)

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Memory

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Delivery (Links to an external site.)

Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Delivery

Instructions

Follow the prompts in the

Canons of Rhetoric Assignment Sheet and Rubric

ELEVENTH orr.

• •

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

© 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-

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

Ala Carte ISBN 10: 0-134-76096-

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-

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 Argument: An Introduction

2 The Core of an Argument : A Claim
with Reasons

3 The Logical Structure of Arguments:
Logos

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 1

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

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

250

280

306

341

342

360

375

397

405

406

431

461

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

1
2
3
3
3
4
5
5

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

10
12

17
17

21
21

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

30
30
32

“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

••
VI

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

74
74

76
77

89
90
91

Example of a Student Essay Using Refutation
Strategy

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

240
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

Title

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

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

Page-52
Page-53
Page-54
Page-55
Page-56
Page-57
Page-58
Page-59
Page-60
Page-61
Page-62
Page-63
Page-64
Page-65
Page-66
Page-67
Page-68
Page-69
Page-70
Page-71
Page-72
Page-73
Page-74
Page-75
Page-76
Page-77
Page-78
Page-79
Page-80
Page-81
Page-82
Page-83
Page-84

Week 1: Introduction to Argument and Rhetorical Theory

Taking a Closer Look at the Five Canons of Rhetoric
Assignment Sheet and Grading Rubric

Instructions:
You will first choose two of the five canons of Rhetoric to practice (e.g. Invention, Arrangement,
Style, Memory, or Delivery). Below are activities/writing prompts which corresponding with the
canon of Rhetoric you select. After completing the activity, Answer the following reflective
questions:

1. Using the assigned readings, what are the five canons of rhetoric and what is the
definition of the canons you selected?

2. What activities did you select and what did you learn while doing the activities? What did
you notice while doing the activity? Did anything surprise you or did you find something
difficult?

3. How did this activity make you practice one of the Canons of Rhetoric? Why was this
process significant?

4. How does this activity relate to the way you formulate argument in both professional and
personal contexts?

You are only required to do two of the canon activities, but every student needs to answer the
reflection questions. Reflections must be a minimum of 750-1000 words and draw upon
assigned readings. MLA formatting and citation is expected. Please include an original title
using the (2) canons you selected (the Latin or English word is acceptable). Note: Some
activities require you to submit additional materials, follow directions accordingly.

Criteria Below Expectation
(0-1.5)

Meeting Expectations
(2-3.5)

Outstanding
(4-5) Total Points

Nuts and Bolts

Did student fully complete (2) canon activities and assignment
reflection meeting a minimum length of 750-1000 words? Did
students submit in an acceptable word doc or docx format?

__/ 5

Style

Did students create an original title following assignment criteria?
Are the (2) canon activities clearly defined? i.e. the instructor is not
struggling to figure out which activity was done

__/ 5

Development

Did students adequately developed and explain ideas? Are the
canon activities are supported by specific and original examples?

__/ 5

Focus

Did students draw upon assigned weekly readings to complete
activities and reflection?

__/ 5

MLA Citation
and Formatting

Times New Roman 12-point font, 1-inch margins, double-spaced,
MLA heading, header (last name and page numbers in upper right
corner), works Cited page included and correctly done

__/ 5

Canons of Rhetoric Prompt Options:

1. Invention (Inventio): Persuasion in Film
The art of persuasion is not only used in debates or public speeches, but also in marketing,
music, and in the digital media we consume each day. For this assignment you will need to
select a film of your choice. This can be something you want to see, something you have
already seen, or one of your favorite movies of all time. Once you select your film, locate it’s
movie poster and original trailer. In your reflection, you need to clearly include 1) the movie title,
2) the image of the movie poster, and 3) the link to the original trailer.

Elaborate on why you chose this specific film and then reflect on all the techniques you notice
that aims to persuade the audience to see this film. What appeals do you notice (i.e. ‘sex sells’,
thrilling music, humor, emotion)? Based on the movie title, poster, and trailer, who do you think
is the intended audience for a film like this?

2. Arrangement (Dispositio): What did you do last weekend?
It’s pretty expected when you walk into your place of work or into a social situation on a Monday
morning you are greeted with something that sounds like “Hello! How are you? What did you do
last night?” or “How was your weekend?” Depending on the social situation, you might offer a lot
of details or share a specific story about what you did or if in a time crunch, you might simply
say, “ah, it was okay!”

Whenever you meet someone over the next day, and they ask you what you did last night, last
weekend, yesterday, etc., try to always tell the same story. But mix up the events, and order
how you tell the story. Try to find the most exciting, most boring, most informative, and more
elaborate way of telling about your experience. Record notes about each interaction and
summarize how you told each story and what happened when you arranged your story in
different ways. Reflect on what characteristics matter when it comes to holding different
audiences attention?

Complete this activity with at least 4 different people and include your interaction notes in your
journal submission.

3. Style (Elocutio): Selling the “Ordinary” to Four Different Clients
Give four descriptions of an object close to you. It does not matter what object this is (i.e. cell
phone, coat hanger, water bottle, remote control, etc). You are going to craft four different
description of this object as if to “sell” it to four very different clients. Every description should be
different, since they have a different audience and a different rhetorical situation. All descriptions
should be between 350-400 words–be creative and embrace a different style as you compose
each situation.

• Situation 1: The object is part of an exhibition in an art museum. Give a description of
the object on display for the catalogue of the museum.

• Situation 2: The object is being sold by the company you work for. Give a description of
the object for an advertisement.

• Situation 3: You are writing an exordium (the introduction to a speech) about this object.
Give a description in which you explain why this object is so useful and amazing.

• Situation 4: You are writing a text about this object to explain why it should be
forbidden. Give a description in which you explain why this object is so horrible and why
it should be forbidden

Please attach each of your four situation, “sales” pitches to your journal reflection. Note: The
four situation descriptions will not count toward your reflection word count requirement.

4. Memory (Memoria): Are you Remembering Correctly?
I want you to think of a memory involving another person you currently have access to. This
could be a painful memory, one marked by joy, love, embarrassment or any strong emotion that
makes this memory salient.

Set a timer for 5 minutes and write down everything you can remember about this memory.
Draw upon the five senses and use as much detail as possible. At the end of 5 minutes, stop
writing. You then need to contact (over the phone, video chat, meet in person, etc.) the person
the memory is about and ask them to explain their version of the memory. Using the same
instructions, give them 5 minutes to recite the memory and encourage them to use as much
detail as possible, bringing in the five senses. While they are telling you about the memory, take
detailed notes.

Now you should have two, unique accounts of the same memory. Please reflect upon the
following questions as you compare and contrast the versions:

• How similar/different are the accounts?
• Do you believe memories have mass…motion…inertia? How is memory the

same/different from imagination?
• What does memory have in common with forgetting? Do you think one account is “more

right?”
Please include both memory accounts and the answers to these questions in your journal
submission.

5. Delivery (Pronuntiatio): The Pen is Mighty
Locate the script for a famous speech online (i.e. “I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King Jr.,
“Gettysburg Address” by Abraham Lincoln, “Ain’t I a Woman?” by Sojourner Truth, “Women’s
Rights Are Human Rights” by Hillary Clinton, etc). Try to read a script with a pen in your mouth.
This will force you to focus on your articulation, speed, and volume. The lesson that this game
teaches is that it is very helpful to always talk like there is a pen in your mouth when you have to
perform. Many people have a tendency to talk too fast in front of an audience. However, you
have to keep in mind that for your audience it is the first time that they hear what you say. By
talking like you have a pen in your mouth, you make sure that you do not talk too fast, and you
articulate well enough. Please record 3-5 minutes of your Mighty Pen Speech and include a link
in your reflection.

*Assignment Adapted from Luscombe A. and Nonnenberg H. (2015) “Practicing the Five Cannons of Rhetoric”

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ COMP 2 WEEK 1Taking a Closer Look at the Five Canons of Rhetoric ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order