Language Activity C Literary Terms

Card Set Information

Language Activity C Literary Terms
2012-04-30 20:20:18

Show Answers:

  1. arguementation
    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
  2. persuasion
    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
  3. logos
    soundness of argument: facts, statistics, examples, authoritative statements; must be unified, specific, adequate, accurate, and representative
  4. pathos
    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
  5. ethos
    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
  6. assertion
    thesis or proposition of an argumentative paper
  7. claims
    statements that require support
  8. claim of opinion
    judgment based on facts and arguable on the basis of facts
  9. claim of fact
    potentially verifiable and thus not arguable
  10. claim of belief
    while seemingly arguable, is not based on fact and so cannot be contested on the basis of facts
  11. evidence
    must relate to readers’ needs, values, and experience; must be unified, adequate, specific, accurate, and representative
  12. assumption
    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
  13. opposition
    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
  14. induction
    • 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
  15. deduction
    • 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
  16. syllogism
    • 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)
  17. Classical argument
    state claim; provide evidence (weakest to strongest); anticipate and refute counter-claims; conclude
  18. Toulmin arguemnet
    • Three parts of an argument:
    • Claim—thesis, proposition, or conclusion
    • Data—evidence
    • Warrant—underlying assumption that justifies moving from evidence to claim
  19. Rogerian arguement
    • 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.
  20. either/or fallacy
    assuming that a complicated question has only two answers, one good and one bad, both good or both bad
  21. post hoc fallacy (Latin: after this, therefore because of this)
    assuming that because A preceded B, then A must have caused B
  22. reductive fallacy
    oversimplifying the relation between cause and effect
  23. sweeping generalization
    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
  24. hasty generalization
    making a claim on the basis of inadequate evidence
  25. ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”)
    attacking the qualities of the people holding the opposing view rather than the substance of the view itself
  26. bandwagon
    inviting readers to accept a claim because everyone else does
  27. pathos (appeal to fear or pity)
    substituting emotions for reasoning
  28. red herring
    introducing an irrelevant issue intended to distract readers from the relevant issues
  29. non sequitur (Latin: “It does not follow.”)
    linking two or more ideas that in fact have no logical connection
  30. begging the question
    treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved
  31. logical fallacy
    errors in argument, which either evade the issue or treat the argument as if it were much simpler than it is