Basics of Argument and Rhetoric Although arguing, speaking our minds, and getting our points across are

common activities for most of us, applying specific terminology to these activities may not seem so familiar. Below is a collection of terms and concepts applicable to both classical notions of rhetoric and our own everyday arguments.1
I. Claim: a concise summary, stated or implied, of an arguments main idea, or point. Many arguments will present multiple claims. Types of Claims: Factual: states that certain circumstances or conditions exist beyond doubt. The validity of a factual claim can be definitively shown. Example: Mobile, Alabama receives the most annual rainfall, on average, of any .!. city. This claim asserts that a certain circumstance is true "Mobile receives the most annual rainfall on average#. This circumstance can be proven through a historical analysis of weather data. Causal: states that one thing, or event, is causally lin$ed to another thing, or event. %ausal claims often deal with effects, results, conse&uences, products, and, of course, causes. Example: The 'anthers terrible season was the result of ineffective coaching "ineffective coaching was the cause of a terrible season#. %ausal claims may also include predictions for the future. Example: if we continue to rely upon internal combustion engines, our air &uality will continue to decrease "internal combustion engines cause air pollution#. %ausal claims often use phrases li$e because, since, as a result, therefore, and if/then.

Many of the terms and concepts presented here are adapted from )atherine *. Mayberrys Everyday Arguments: A Guide to Writing and Reading Effective Arguments and The Little, ro!n "andboo#, Eighth Edition.

Evaluative: ma$es a +udgment about the &uality of something. Evaluative claims are often found in reviews of movies "$onster%s all is profound, but endlessly depressing#, restaurants ",a+a -rill serves the best Tex.Mex in town#, and boo$s "the plot was too convoluted to appreciate#. Evaluative claims always use evaluative words: terrible, un&ust, s'lendid, en&oyable, s'ectacular, obscene, etc., and are usually limited to statements of personal opinion or preference.

Recommendation: A recommendation claim attempts to convince an audience to ta$e a certain course of action and suggests what should or should not happen in the future. Example: you should wor$ on this paper over the wee$end. /ecommendations often combine with evaluative and causal claims. Example: 0ou should eat at The ,a+a -rill because their food is terrific1 we must see$ alternative energy sources or our air &uality will continue to suffer. 2ords li$e should, must, need, necessitates, obliges, and demands give away recommendation claims.

Most arguments use a combination of these claims. 2hen analy3ing an argument loo$ for wordings that identify what types of specific claims are being made. 4otes: II. Support: Any information or techni&ue that strengthens the credibility of a claim. 5ifferent types of support usually belong to the following categories: Secondary Claims: Almost all primary claims are in turn supported by additional secondary claims. 6or instance, a primary recommendation claim of 7we need stricter gun control laws8 might be supported by a secondary causal claim of 7because fewer guns on our streets would save lives.8 !econdary claims themselves need support, preferably factual evidence. Comparisons: This method of support compares a situation or scenario with a similar situation or scenario. 6or example, a recommendation that 'resident ,ush establish an international coalition before invading 9ra& might compare his administrations situation to his fathers during the -ulf 2ar.

Appeals to Authority: ses the opinion of an expert"s# in the pertinent field as support. 6or appeals to authority to be effective, the authority must truly be an expert on the topic youre debating. %elebrity spo$espersons are often mista$en for legitimate 7authorities.8

Appeals to Audience Needs and Values: !upport targeted toward a specific audiences needs, concerns, and values. This type of support may also include emotional appeals.

Addressin the Counterar ument: An ac$nowledgement of opposing ideas or viewpoints. Addressing the counterargument allows you to respond to ob+ections point by point, and demonstrates your own fair.mindedness.

!efinition: 5efinitions can serve as support by clarifying unfamiliar terminology, ma$ing abstract words more accessible, and manipulating controversial terms.

E"ample: !pecific examples of larger, more abstract claims give your argument more credibility. Examples can be real or hypothetical. Examples that refer to real people and events can connect emotionally with your audience.

4otes: III. Fallacies: Errors in argument, intentional or accidental, that misrepresent the nature of an argument and mislead listeners:readers. Most fallacies either evade the argument or oversimplify it. ;ere is a partial list of some of the most common fallacies: #e in the $uestion: assumes a debatable part of an argument is already agreed upon. Example: the heavily polluted %ape 6ear /iver cant provide ade&uate drin$ing water for 2ilmington "assumes river is heavily polluted#. Non se$uitur: occurs when a conclusion doesnt logically follow its premises. Example: because you borrowed my psyche notes, 9 flun$ed my !panish test "no connection between premise and conclusion#.

Red herrin : introduces unrelated information to distract the audiences attention. Example: you should +ust extend the due date since the 'anthers are playing tonight "the 'anthers game is an unrelated distraction from the real issue#.

False authority: using a non.authority in an appeal to authority. Example: ,ritney !pears recommends we give end.of.year tests to all school children ",ritney !pears isnt an education expert#.

#and%a on: appeals to peoples desire to conform to the larger group. Example: you should try mari+uana because over <=> of Americans have tried it "the fact that many people have done something doesnt automatically ma$e that something +ustifiable#.

Ad populum: inappropriately appeals to peoples general feelings of love, hate, patriotism, fear, etc. Example: if youre a true.blooded American you wont critici3e my ideas "doesnt address the merits of the ideas#.

Ad hominem: distracts from argument by attac$ing the person or persons ma$ing the argument. Example: dont listen to ,ill %lintons advice on economic policy because he cheated on his wife "personal attac$ distracts from merits of suggestion#.

&asty enerali'ation: reaching a generali3ed conclusion from too little evidence. Example: !usie didnt say hello to me when we passed in the hallway. !he hates me? "there isnt enough evidence to reach the conclusion#.

(ost hoc: assuming that since A happened before , A must have caused . Example: After eating a cheeseburger, 9 wrec$ed my car. The cheeseburger must have made me wrec$ my car "no clear connection between A and #.

False analo y: ma$ing implausible comparisons to prove a point. Example: Teachers are li$e doctors1 so dont grade my paper, +ust heal it "not sufficient evidence to support comparison#.

Either)or: assuming there are only two conclusions that can be reached. Example: 9ll either get an A in this class, or 9ll flun$ "doesnt ac$nowledge other possibilities#.

I.

Ethos* (athos* and +o os: The three areas of rhetorical appeal that describe how arguments persuade us. Most often these appeals appear in some combination of mutual support. Ethos: Mainly refers to the image of a writer or spea$er as an ethical, trustworthy person. 2riters and spea$ers will attempt to promote such an image to increase their credibility and influence. Also refers to how some arguments appeal to our sense of morality and +ustice, often in con+unction with 'athos. (athos: The ability of an argument to touch our emotions. (athos appears fre&uently in rousing political speeches and can appeal to any combination of emotions, from envy to greed, love to hate. +o os: The appeal of an argument to our rational, logical side. This appeal lends the credibility of science to any argument by presenting ob+ective facts for an audiences consideration. Logos also often uses formal "deductive# reasoning, as well as statistical or mathematical information.

4otes:

V. !eductive and Inductive Reasonin represent the two basic ways of presenting an argument. 5eductive reasoning begins with a generali3ation and progresses to a specific case. 9nductive reasoning begins with a specific case or observation and progresses toward a generali3ation. !ince the type of reasoning used determines how claims are made and supported, understanding the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning is necessary for reading and responding critically to written arguments. !eductive Reasonin E"ample: 2hen it rains, *ohns old car wont start. 9ts raining. Therefore, *ohns old car wont start. "Applies a broad generali3ation to a specific case.#

Inductive Reasonin E"ample: *ohns old car wont start. 9ts raining. Therefore, *ohns old car wont start when its raining. " ses a specific case to reach a broad generali3ation.# 2hat we thin$ of as formal logic is typically deductive. 9n our everyday reasoning, however, we more often use inductive reasoning: 7An inconsiderate driver +ust cut me off? The driver is from 4ew *ersey. Therefore, all drivers from 4ew *ersey are inconsiderate drivers.8 To better visuali3e the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning imagine each as a triangle. The deductive pyramid is upside down, while the inductive pyramid is right side up: !eductive Reasonin
,road -enerali3ation

Inductive Reasonin
!pecific %ase:@bservation

!pecific %ase:@bservation

,road -enerali3ation

!eductive reasonin can also be illustrated in terms of larger and smaller classes. %ompare this example to the graphic at the right: All humans are mortal. *oe is a human. Therefore, *oe is mortal.

Mortal things ;umans

*oe

4otes:

Although inductive and deductive reasoning give form to simple arguments and help us understand how basic arguments wor$, they are difficult to apply to more complex arguments. 0ou may find the Toulmin ,ethod more effective for interpreting and criti&uing written arguments. The Toulmin Method brea$s arguments down into the basic components of claims, data* and warrants. %laims represent conclusions "thin$ of primary claims#, data represents evidence and support, while warrants explain how data supports the claim. ;ere is an example of the Toulmin Method applied to a visual model: (rocrastination &ust )ou should never 'rocrastinate causes unneeded stress !hen it comes to school !or# !ata--------------------------------------------------------------------------Claim .arrant *nneeded stress is counter'roductive and unhealthy As a written argument, the above example might read simply, 70ou should never procrastinate when it comes to school wor$, because procrastination +ust causes unneeded stress.8 The warrant here is merely implied, yet easily identifiable when placed within the Toulmin model. .ritin Tip: When develo'ing a thesis statement for an argumentative essay, try s#etching it out using a Toulmin model li#e the one sho!n above. This !ill hel' you recogni+e ho! effectively your evidence su''orts your 'rimary claim. 4otes: