1 / 29

Reading Appeals

Reading Appeals. Chapter 2 Notes. Appeals. Used in conjunction with evidence and examples Appeals tap into the way humans work- how we think and feel Dominant tools of argument. Appeals to Logic. Without a logical framework , stats and facts mean nothing

hea
Télécharger la présentation

Reading Appeals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reading Appeals Chapter 2 Notes

  2. Appeals • Used in conjunction with evidence and examples • Appeals tap into the way humans work- how we think and feel • Dominant tools of argument

  3. Appeals to Logic • Without a logical framework, stats and facts mean nothing • Engage the audiences intellectual and reasoning capacity • Logical appeals require the reader to move through each premises (logical steps) and see how it relates to the previous one • If we fail to see the connections, the argument falls apart

  4. Inference • Act/process of deriving a logical conclusion based on premises known to be true • It is a logical step from one idea to another • To draw a conclusion based on premises • EXAMPLE: • Walk up to a restaurant. The door is locked and the lights are off. You infer that the restaurant is closed.

  5. Must Ask • What inferences have I made? Am I justified in making that inference? • What other inference might I make? Is that inference justified? • What inference has the arguer made? What assumptions, values, and beliefs are behind that inference?

  6. Line of Reasoning • A series of logical steps (premises) that lead an arguer and the audience to a main claim • A logical progression • For an argument to be successful, the reader must accept each premises in the line of reasoning • Writer must make sure each step is supported or made acceptable so the reader can move forward

  7. Deductive Reasoning General Premises Specific Claims • The supporting claims are more general than the final claim

  8. Deductive Reasoning The winters in Minnesota can be harsh (general statement) Heavy Snow and cold temperatures are constants (general statement) We better pack our wool sweaters if we are spending Christmas in Minneapolis (specific conclusion/claim arrived at through general statements)

  9. Inductive Reasoning Specific Premises General Claims • Any time we make a conclusion based on a few specifics, we are doing induction • Scientific Argument

  10. Inductive Reasoning I found a mouse in the toilet last week (specific point) I saw a mouse in the kitchen yesterday (specific point) Mice have found their way into the house (general claim)

  11. Deductive and Inductive • Intellectual pathways for the writer and reader to follow • Both establish a series of premises that lead to a logical conclusion • Often operate in the same argument

  12. Analogical Reasoning • Move from particular to another particular, instead of from general to specific (deductive) or specific to general (inductive) • If two things are alike in certain respects, they are also alike in other respects • Shed light on something by comparing/contrasting it with something familiar

  13. Analogical Reasoning • The Iraq War was like the Vietnam War • An elusive enemy • Halfway around the world • A divided nation • A questionable cause Line of reasoning: because key circumstances are similar, the results are likely to be similar

  14. Logical Fallacies • A logical falsehood • If a black cat crosses your path, you will have bad luck. • You are either with us or against us.

  15. Ad hominem • Personal attacks- instead of responding to the ideas someone has put forth, the arguers attacks the person • Focus on character instead of the issue at hand

  16. Straw Person • Opposing position has been misrepresented • Example: • Someone argues that dogs should be on leashes as they are walked down Main street • Someone else responds that dogs need to run free and should not always be leashed

  17. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc • Faulty cause and effect • If one thing happened before another thing, then the first thing must have caused the second • Confuse a temporal relationship (time) with cause and effect relationship • If a rooster crows just before the sun rises, claiming that the rooster caused the sun to rise is a post hoc fallacy.

  18. Either/Or • Oversimplify an issue by claiming that only two options exist • Example: • You are either with us or against us

  19. Hasty generalization • Draw conclusions based on too little evidence • Example: • You walk through the hallways of JHHS while classes are in progress and you generalize that the hallways are calm and not overcrowded

  20. Non sequitur • Skips or confuses logical steps • The conclusion may be true or false, but the premises don’t support it • Example: • Because Bob is smart, he will get a good job.

  21. Slippery Slope • A certain way of thinking will necessarily lead to more of the same • Appeals to fear • Example: • Gay Marriage: if we allow gays to marry, it will lead to people marrying animals. (slippery slope)

  22. Begging The Questionor Circular Reasoning • Supporting a claim by restating the claim itself • Example: • Why are you voting for Romney? • He will make a good president. He looks presidential.

  23. Red Herring • Deliberate attempts to change the subject • Instead of dealing with the argument, the arguer introduces and argues irrelevant points as way of distracting the audience

  24. Bandwagon • Because everyone else is doing it, you should, too • Because something is commonplace it is ok

  25. Association • Two people or two tings share a quality just because they are somehow associated, connected, or related • Example • Anything associated with Hitler is evil. • Hitler was a vegetarian…..

  26. Appeals to Character • Draw attention to the arguer’s personal nature, integrity, experience, wisdom or personality • Used to fend off any doubts about the arguer’s credibility • Explicit strategy for building trust or confidence in the arguer • Can be used as a way to avoid focusing on other issues

  27. Appeals to Emotion • Appeals to your feelings • Specific examples and vivid details /connotations of words • The freezing workers shivered uncontrollably and sniffled and sneezed constantly. • People who eat meat are murderers. • The war veteran died alone because the government neglected him. • An ad depicting Nike as the sneaker worn by the ‘in crowd’

  28. Appeals to Need • Make a connection between the subject and a basic human need (food, shelter, belonging, intimacy, self-realization, etc) • Try to reach into an audience, into people’s essential requirements for living • Example: Health Care Debate • Universal health care as a basic human need VS • The other side– concerned about profit

  29. Appeals to Value • Make a connection between the topic and a general value (fairness, equality, kindness, selfishness, duty, responsibility) • Any argument based on equality, justice, duty, responsibility, security, honesty is an appeal to value • When arguers can connect a particular point to a broader value, they tap into something beyond their particular argument and call on the belief system of both their audience and the broader public

More Related