Comm Midterm

Card Set Information

Author:
tresa
ID:
241279
Filename:
Comm Midterm
Updated:
2013-10-17 19:48:06
Tags:
tresa
Folders:

Description:
Argument and Reasoning
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user tresa on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Occasions for arguments
    • rhetoric (Aristotle)
    • past, future, present
  2. Occasions for arguments – rhetoric (Aristotle)
    past
    forensic/judicial
  3. Occasions for arguments – rhetoric (Aristotle)
    future
    deliberative
  4. Occasions for arguments – rhetoric (Aristotle)
    present
    epideictic/ceremonial
  5. Statis theory
    • when formulating argument, a sequential series
    • of qs may be asked to determine a point of contention in the argument.

    • Did something happen?
    • What is its nature?
    • What is the cause?
    • What actions can be taken?
  6. Kinds of arguments
    • Fact
    • Quality or cause
    • Proposal
  7. kinds of argument: fact
    Fact – a statement that can be proved or disproved w/ specific evidence and testimonyDefinition – determining whether one known object or action belongs in a second and morehighly contested category.
  8. kinds of argument: quality or cause
    Quality or cause – present criteria and measuring ppl/objects to those standardsProposal – determine that a problem does exist, but whatactions may be taken.
  9. Kinds of arguments: proposal
    determine that a problem does exist, but what actions must be taken
  10. The Rhetorical triangle
    • Topic/message (logic)
    • Audience (emotion)
    • Speaker/writer (ethos)
  11. Mastering The Rhetorical Situation
    • Analyze the audience 
    • Anticipate the audiences reaction  
    • Adapt your message to the audience
  12. Rhetorical analysis coordinates
    • Purpose
    • Effective imagery, visuals, sounds
    • Context and tone
    • Persuasive appeals
    • Evidence, how announced, why?    
    • Org, direct, indirect, sequential, ect
  13. Identifying a claim
    • What does the argument achieve   
    • What is the purpose   
    • What audience does the argument address    
    • What pervasive appeals are most effective
  14. Rhetorical analysis response:
    • claim
    • evidence
    • style
    • format
  15. Rhetorical analysis response: claim
    • Is the claim significant enough to the audience
    • Does the claim indicate support
  16. Rhetorical analysis response: evidence
















                                                   i.     Is
    the claim significant enough to the audience

                                                 
    ii.     Does
    the claim indicate support
    • Is enough evidence furnished to support the claim
    • Is the evidence simply announced or explained
    • Does the author use the right kind of evidence
    • What kinds of sources might explain the context
  17. Rhetorical analysis response: style
    • How are the parts of the argument organized (cause/effect, topical)
    • Are transitions clear
    • Is the style tailored appropriately to the audience
    • Which words/phrases seem particularly effective, vague, accurate, or powerful
  18. Aristotle’s Persuasive appeals
    • pathos
    • ethos
    • logos
  19. pathos
    • Pathos – appeals built on presentation of self (credibility, trustworthiness)
    •  
    • Powerful emotions: excitement, fear, jealousy,
    • empathy   
    • Presents itself w/in the argument

    • Emotional consequences: 
    • May build bridges b/w speaker/audience for rapport and a sense of understanding
    • May sustain an argument by making logical claims stronger and more memorable
    • May evoke humor that places an audience at ease or cause a suspension of judgment.

    • Humor pitfalls
    • Humor that reflects bad taste discredits writer
    • Humor that misses its mark can confuse/alienate audience
    • Inappropriate humor can diminish ethos
    • +effective in persuading when sense of truth =
    • known rather than arguing for the truth
    • Often provide the extra spur of enticement when logical appeals do not convince enough.
  20. Ethos
    Ethos – appeals built on statistics, data, exs that demonstrate sound reasoning.

    • Created by reputation and through lang,
    • evidence, images used
    •  
    • When building ethos:
    • What is uncompromisingly important?   
    • What is the foundation?
    • What is the vision? 

    • Metaphors – character, integrity, authority,
    • credibility
    • If the expert has authority to speak on a
    • subject and is trustworthy, the expert may be deemed credible.

    • Authority – how much command a writer has over a subject.
    • Credibility – degree of honesty and respect for an audience and its values.
    • Establishing credibility – Connecting your
    • beliefs to core principles that are well established, Using respectful lang.

    • Conditions of rebuttal
    • Admitting limitations to your knowledge and understanding of the topic.
    • Acknowledging any exceptions, qualifications, or weakness in your arguments
  21. Authority
    Authority – how much command a writer has over a subject.
  22. Credibiliy
    Credibility – degree of honesty and respect for an audience and its values.Establishing credibility – Connecting yourbeliefs to core principles that are well established, Using respectful lang.
  23. Conditions of rebuttal
    Admitting limitations to your knowledge and understanding of the topic.Acknowledging any exceptions, qualifications, or weakness in your arguments
  24. Logos
    • Aristotle’s categorization of facts
    • Inartistic appeals: hard evidence
    • including statistics, testimonies, witnesses.
    • Artistic appeals: soft evidence built
    • on common sense
    •   
    • Forms of evidence
    • Facts – may stand alone in a low stakes
    • argument& challenge biases of sources.
    • Statistics – #s must be interpreted by
    • writers, who understandably serve an agenda
    • Surveys and polls – verify
    • popularity of an idea as a representation of pub opinion.
    • Testimonies and narratives – personal experiences reported to support a claim.
    • In absence of hard facts, claims must be
    • supported w/ other kinds of compelling reasons   

    • Syllogism: Deductive reasoning (formal logic)
    • All human beings are mortal (maj premise)
    • Socrates is a human being (min premise)
    • Therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion)
    • Valid: conclusions follow logically from the premises

    • Enthymeme – deductive reasoning informal logic. Ex: Socrates is a man, (missing premise),
    • therefore Socrates is mortal.

    • Logical argument structures
    • Degree – perceived a self-evident, more
    • of a good thing/less of a bad thing
    • Analogies
    • Precedent – focuses on comparable
    • situations w/ comparable institutions.
  25. Aristotle's categorization of facts
    • Inartistic appeals: hard evidence including statistics, testimonies, witnesses.
    • Artistic appeals: soft evidence built on common sense
  26. Syllogism
    Syllogism: Deductive reasoning (formal logic)All human beings are mortal (maj premise)Socrates is a human being (min premise)Therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion)Valid: conclusions follow logically from the premises
  27. Logical argument structures
    • Degree – perceived a self-evident, more of a good thing/less of a bad thing
    • Analogies
    • Precedent – focuses on comparablesituations w/ comparable institutions.
  28. Academic Arguments
    • Addressed to a well-informed audience
    • Attempts to convey a clear and compelling point
    • in a somewhat formal style.   
    • Follows agreed-upon conventions of usage,
    • punctuation, and format
  29. Academic argument criteria
    • Authoritative    
    • Reviews what is known about the topic
    • Creates knowledge about the topic
    • Focuses on issues that are relevant to author’s
    • peers
    • Includes logical appeals based on research
    • Cites sources
    • Written in an agreed-upon style
    • Holds an evenhanded tone
  30. reasoning types
    • Inductive reasoning – generalizing on the basis of a number of specific ex.
    • Deductive reasoning – major/minor premise to reach a conclusion
  31. five canons of rhetoric - cicero
    • invention
    • arrangement
    • style
    • memory
    • delivery
  32. Rogerian Argument
    • Can’t respond until can fully, fairly, and
    • sympathetically state the other person’s position.
    • acknowledges that alternatives to your claim
    • exist and may be reasonable.
  33. Toulmin arguments
    • presented structures to describe the way
    • people make reasonable arguments
    • Humans use “sometimes, often, presumably” that adds qualification to argument  
    • Not as airtight as syllogism. More contemporary    
    • Encourages limit responsibilities in an argument
    • through effective use of qualifiers. 
    • Claim – debatable assertion you wish to prove   
    • Data – experience, facts, stats supporting claim    
    • Warrant – logical connection b/w claim and data  
    • Qualifiers – words that place limits on claims   
    • Backing, Conditions of rebuttal

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview