You should stop smoking [Claim] because studies show that almost [Qualifier] 80% of smokers can develop lung cancer [Data/Ground]. Stopping a bad habit can help reduce the occurence of its bad consequences [Warrant, *can be stated or left unstated]. Life
1. Data/Grounds
These are the evidence that you will use to support your claim or position.
2. Claim
The statement which you are offering for others, such as your readers or listeners, to accept.
3. Warrants
These link your data/grounds with your claim. T
Argumentation
Argument is good if it is GROUND! allows for a quality discussion
Argument (1) the noun: it is a thing
Argument (2) the verb: we engage in with others.
what is effective?
1. audience
2. the speaker
3. the occasion
discovery of knowledge and its 2. persuasive functions.
o tells us about argumentation its self
o does knowledge exist?
o Is there truth?
How to evaluate the evidence:
Test of eternal consistency: Data is consistent internally with itself
Relevance: Evidence has to support conclusion
Clear definitions
Results and good: understand if you accept the premise. Do they result in good
Expert support: Someone who is an expert
Test the data!
11th Source Identification: is that source identifiable. Can we trace this article back to someone?
12th Source Ability: is the news source capable to interpret the information? Are they qualified to talk about that subject? Area of expertise? How much we
S.H.I.T.S
Sig: significance (ILLS)
Harms (ILLS)
Inherency (Cause)
Topicality (jurisdiction) relevant to what you are talking about (correct issues)
� Fact/Policy
Solvency (Cure) show how you are going to fix it. Revert back to sig and harms.
Credibility: when your speaking
1. direct credibility: statement that you make about yourself
2. secondary credibility: Idea of citing your sources. Things you say from other sources...THE DATE, makes a better distinction. (cite cases)
3. indirect credibility: developed through the form
Propositions
A formal statement expressing the basis of the controversy.
4 Standards:
1. should be phrased to indicate a change from present beliefs or policies
2. should indicate both the nature and direction of the change desired.
3. should contain 1 central idea
4.
Presumption
Sticking with what you have
describes the inherent advantage in opposing change. It recognizes that absent change, what already exists continues to exist in all fields. It functions in argument as a fundamental decision rule.
In law, assumption or inference that a fact exists, on th
Burden of Proof
Burden of Rebuttal: the right to respond
Burden of Proof: (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position, to that party's own position.
The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim
Issues
are inherent questions vital to the advocate's cause.
Prima Facie Case "at first sight
Is one that initially overcomes the presumption, fulfills the burden of proof, and provides response to each of the issues.
2 Basic types of propositions
1. Propositions of fact/value
2. Propositions of policy
3 different Claims of Fact:
1.Crab catching is an extremely dangerous profession.
2.Eco-Friendly technology will not replace petroleum.
3. The availability of Montessori
Propositions of fact/value: These are descriptive, predictive, or evaluative statements that assert the existence or worth of something.
Propositions of policy are statements that assert a courts of action should be taken.
Inductive reasoning
Major Premise (MP)Inductive (Gravity =9.8msec(a) on earth(b))
argument by example
argument by analogy
argument by causal correlation
Arguments by analogy: looking at two things and all the characteristics they share with one another.
Takes specific info and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, but the conclusion may be false even if all the premises are true.
I hear you are going to get an Old English sheepdog as a pet That's great. I've seen a lot of sheepdogs
Deductive reasoning: Arguments from casual generalizations.
Minor Premise (mp) Deductive Pen is on earth (specific notion)
Syllogism: shows the structural bias
Conditional Syllogism: If A is true then B is also true
Each premise contains a very general claim "all men" or "always" and the conclusions are specific.
All persons are mortal. Plato is a person. Therefore, Plato is mortal.
Premise: Socrates is a man and all men are mortal
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal
Fallacies (Sounds true until we learn it's a false causation)
...
Ad Hominem
I don't care whether she is an expert on national health care. She's a jerk.
1. ("That guy is drunk", So he's bad)
launch an irrelevant attack on the person not the argument.
Ad Pupulum
Appeal to the audience or the popularity of something doesn't necessarily make it good.
a. "everyone else is doing it" Not a valid reason (justification for the claim)
b. voter fraud
Begging the Question
attempting to argue, premise of the argument is the same as the conclusion.
a. "Can I go here", no, why, "because I said so"
b. Arguing in circles
c. "Everyone wants to see the new Avengers movie because it's the hottest this summer
Ad Verecundiam
He obviously knows that the new legislation will result in lost jobs. After all, he is the president of the U.S.
Arguments are created because of a generalized appeal to a greater/higher authority without consideration.
a. "Because I'm your mother"
b. Britney Spears" Do everything the president says you to do"
c. Reluctant evidence: Superior to other evidence, the b
Ag Ignorantiam
Appeal to ignorance (just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean it is)
a. UFO
b. God
Ignoring the Question
mistake the conclusions we've proven/ tried to prove as having no importance to the actual issue themselves.
a. Political debates, shifting the focus
Slippery slope
Regulation of the Internet demonstrates that a totalitarian government is coming in the U.S.
reject a policy no matter how good or bad it is because it has implications that it might lead us to something bad in the long run.
a. 1st link of a chain that's 100 links long
b. Montanan's need passports
c. Free speech
Non Sequitur
the data support and evidence does not reach the conclusion they just met.
a. People like the beach because of sand so we should have sand floors
Pseudo Question/Plurium Interrogationum
when you misuse the question
a. Lawyers want yes or no answers because they don't want you to explain.
i. Do you still beat your wife? Yes, means yes, no means I used to but not anymore
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc/False Causation
I ate 5 candy bars, 2 liters of soda, received an A
Correlation:
Statistical trend: Patterns, can be more effective to convince people.
3 factors:
? mean: the average score
? mode: the value that appears most often
? median: the middle
High frequency of occurrences but NOT a DIRECT causation. (link)
a. other factors that play.
Syllogisms: Syllogisms are arguments that take several parts, typically with two statements which are assumed to be true (or premises) that lead to a conclusion.
There are 3 major types of syllogism:
* Conditional syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B).
Example:
You are sad.
I am qualified to help people who are sad.
I can make you happy.
* Categorical syllogism: If A is in C then B is in C.
Example: