Language Activity C Literary Terms

convincing readers of the soundness of a particular opinion on a controversial issue using clear thinking and logic; incorporates all other modes of writing, including description, narration, exposition, analysis, reporting

utilizes emotional language and dramatic appeals to readers’ concerns, beliefs, and values in order to convince the reader and urge him/her to commit to a course of action

soundness of argument: facts, statistics, examples, authoritative statements; must be unified, specific, adequate, accurate, and representative

emotional power of language; appeals to readers’ needs, values, and attitudes, encouraging them to commit themselves to a viewpoint or course of action; relies on connotative language

credibility and integrity of the writer; establish authority by demonstrating personal knowledge and experience that make you trustworthy, appealing to experts who agree with you, being reasonable, take opposing views into account, avoid excessive emotional appeals

thesis or proposition of an argumentative paper

statements that require support

judgment based on facts and arguable on the basis of facts

potentially verifiable and thus not arguable

while seemingly arguable, is not based on fact and so cannot be contested on the basis of facts

must relate to readers’ needs, values, and experience; must be unified, adequate, specific, accurate, and representative

an opinion, a principle, or a belief that ties evidence to claims: the assumption explains why a particular piece of evidence is relevant to a particular claim assumptions are not flaws, but necessities; however, if your audience does not share your assumptions, it will be harder to convince them of your claims

those who hold an opposing viewpoint; you should respectfully acknowledge your opposition and their counter-claims, make concessions when appropriate, and refute their counter-claims when possible

• inference of generalization based on specific evidence; in inductive reasoning, you present your case and then form a conclusion based on the evidence
• specific to general

• begin with a premise/assumption (generalization, belief, or principle), provide evidence or new information, then draw a conclusion
• general to specific then back to general

• logical equation used in deductive reasoning
• syllogistic errors can lead to faulty conclusions, which are the basis for many logical fallacies (see list 9 terms)

state claim; provide evidence (weakest to strongest); anticipate and refute counter-claims; conclude

• Three parts of an argument:
• Claim—thesis, proposition, or conclusion
• Data—evidence
• Warrant—underlying assumption that justifies moving from evidence to claim

• goal is to reduce conflict rather than produce a “winner” and “loser”
• use a respectful, conciliatory posture and empathetic tone
• emphasize shared interests and values / common ground
• Structure:
• Begin my making a conscientious effort to understand the viewpoints with whom you disagree; put yourself in their shoes and focus on what they believe and why they believe it
• Open your essay with an unbiased, even-handed restatement of opposing points of view (shows you’re fair and open-minded).
• When appropriate, acknowledge the validity of some of the arguments raised by those with differing views.
• Point out the areas of common ground.
• Finally, present evidence for your position.

assuming that a complicated question has only two answers, one good and one bad, both good or both bad

assuming that because A preceded B, then A must have caused B

oversimplifying the relation between cause and effect

making an insupportable statement; these are often absolute statements involving words such as all, always, never, and no one that allow no exceptions; can also be stereotypes

making a claim on the basis of inadequate evidence

attacking the qualities of the people holding the opposing view rather than the substance of the view itself

inviting readers to accept a claim because everyone else does

substituting emotions for reasoning

introducing an irrelevant issue intended to distract readers from the relevant issues

linking two or more ideas that in fact have no logical connection

treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved

errors in argument, which either evade the issue or treat the argument as if it were much simpler than it is