Moves of Effective Arguments(and bad ones)

But first . . .

Rhetorical situationIn this article, Tom Loftus, who regularly reports on Kentucky state government and state legislature news for The Courier-Journal, discusses the statewide smoking ban bill passed by the House of Representatives in February 2015. The bill passed, House Bill 145, would ban smoking in workplaces and other indoor public places; however, the bill exempts private clubs and cigar bars. This is a big step for the bill to pass considering Kentucky has been under scrutiny for its high smoking mortality rates for several years now. Furthermore, The Courier-Journal, being local to Louisville, Kentucky, makes the issue more personal. The talk of a statewide smoking ban has been very controversial across Kentucky [… also a comment about the paper’s liberal leanings.

Author perspectiveThe author is coming from a personal and

relatable perspective from being a small-scale farmer himself. This also gives him a unique value on the issue being that he is a part of this community and trying to better the community by also giving other members advice and resources. The author is able to give personal experience through his advice and persuade others while being in the same position.

Literacy practicesThe information is presented with an educated and secular perspective and appears to be advocating for rights associated with freedom of religion. It is expected that those involved be educated about government laws and practices surrounding religion and that they also be supportive of the separation of church and state.

Like many Christians, Rodgers’ shows great respect in his writing for his faith. He capitalized “He” and “His” when refereeing to God to emphasize the role played in his story. Rodgers also uses very visually descriptive language and makes connections between biblical stories and his experience.

Back to the Moves of Effective Arguments

4 elements

Complexity Inclusivity

Novelty Usefulness

Complexity:Is it too easy?

ComplexityAvoid easy answers

BinariesDefinition

Avoid easy categoriesStereotypes, mischaracterizations,

misinformation, misdirection

Avoid easy argument strategiesToeing the party lineTypes of evidence

Get META!

Inclusivity:Who’s perspective gets considered?

InclusivityRace

Gender/sexuality

Class

Occupation

“truth” (ways of thinking about an issue or the world in general)

Novelty:What’s new or unique?

NoveltyNew issue

New take on an old issue

Usefulness:What can we do with this?

UsefulnessTimely

Practical

Impact

Interest/Appeal

Group activityRead the excerpt (quickly).

Analyze the effectiveness of the argument using the 4 terms: Complexity, Inclusiveness, Novelty, Usefulness.

Be prepared to tell the class about the strengths and weaknesses of this excerpt.

Logical Fallacies

(Moves good arguments AVOID)

Popular Fallacies

Group WorkSkim through logical fallacy ref memes.

Pick two “bad arguments” from the other class’s blog and:

Match them up with the relevant logical fallacy refs in order to decide whether the argument

Actually has faulty logic, orIs just an argument that the person who

posted it disagrees with

Suggest how the author could make it better using Complexity, Inclusivity, Novelty, Usefulness

Research Group Annotation

Review(4 rounds of 5 minutes)

Round 1: Check MLA style and use of signal phrases/framing to make paraphrase/quotes “smooth.”

Round 2: Make a note about which parts of the prompt the student missed. Write 2 questions about things the student said.

Prompt = rhetorical situation, author’s perspective, questions it leaves you with, and either:

--comparisons to the source in A1, or

--using class terms to analyze the source

Round 3: For the other annotation, check MLA style and use of signal phrases/framing to make paraphrase/quotes “smooth.”

Round 4: For the other annotation, Make a note about which parts of the prompt the student missed. Write 2 questions about things the student said.

Prompt = rhetorical situation, author’s perspective, questions it leaves you with, and either:

--comparisons to the source in A1, or

--using class terms to analyze the source

Moves of Effective Arguments (Part II)

(Have access to the reading from last week if possible)

Specific Rhetorical MovesDefining terms and context

Identifying gap in current conversation

Explain criteria for making judgments

Considering multiple perspectives

Using multiple types of evidence

. . . And all the They Say/I Say templates

Defining terms and context

Any key terms that the readers needs to know to understand you: JargonCommon words that take on a unique definition

(“adult literacy” = social movement)

And background information:History of the issueWhy it matters nowAnything else that could confuse readers if they don’t

know it

You’re essentially explaining what has come before you—what

conversation are you joining?

Creating new terms/Redefining Old OnesPurpose of terms:

Consistency and comprehensionPlace yourself in specific conversationsHelp people understand or reproduce your method

Helps move the conversation in a new direction

Good for addressing “gaps”

Good for questioning the status quo

Could be creating a term where one didn’t exist

All terms come with “baggage” from how they’ve been used in the past. New or redefined terms are

an attempt to control that baggage in order to have a more productive conversation.

Identifying a gap in the current conversation

Exploring the limitations of what people already think

Pursuing answers to things we don’t know

Talking about something no one else has mentioned before

What do you have to add to this conversation? Why does your

research matter? What can you add to what we already (think we) know?

Considering Multiple PerspectivesNo, seriously. Really considering them.

More complex that one single naysayer; multiple differing perspectives:People from different academic fieldsPeople with different jobsTheoretical versus PracticalDiversity in age, politics, race, gender, class,

religion, (dis)ability, etc.Pro, con, and everything in-between

Requires “intellectual empathy” and courage

Approach as BOTH a believer and doubter

Using multiple types of evidencePrimary, secondary, tertiary, etc.

Primary: Personal experience or observation Secondary: example—interviewing a witness Tertiary: scholarly articles

Inductive vs. Deductive reasoning Inductive: specific facts to general conclusions Deductive: general premises to specific fact

Logos, pathos, kairos, ethos

Theoretical vs. Quantitative/Qualitative research

Anecdotes, testimonies, and case studies

Expert opinion

The funny-sounding Greek wordsLogos:

Concerned with structure and content of text itself Textual elements (e.g. terms, organization) that make the piece

more convincing

Pathos Concerned with audience perspective (how they “see” it) Appeal to audience’s emotions and motivations

Ethos Concerned with author’s perspective Appeal to credibility; building author’s rapport

Kairos Concerned with context or timeliness Ex. argument for tapping phones less effective pre-9/11

They Say/I Say templates

Subjective Values

Empiricism/positivism

Social constructionist

$$$$$$

Methods

Individual LibertyCommunal Good

Political Leanings

Theoretical SoundnessPractical Soundness

Local ContextsBroader (even global)

Contexts