The claim is the thesis or the central argument of the Toulmin essay.
Grounds
Evidence, reasons, and support comprise the grounds of the Toulmin essay.
Warrants
Warrants answer this question: Exactly how do the reasons offered in support of the conclusion work together?
In other words, what kind of guarantee—or warrant—is provided to demonstrate that the reasons proffered actually do support the claim or lead to the conclusion?
Perhaps the most simple way to explain this is to say that the warrants are the logic used to connect the grounds to the claim.
Example:
Claim: We need harsher fines and possible jail time for texting while driving.
Grounds: In spite of current texting-while-driving laws, the offense is on the rise. In fact, it’s up 50% from last year.
Warrant: Making people dig deeper into their pockets and scaring them with the possibility with heavy jail time will be a more effective deterrent than the current penalties.
Backing
Backing is using further logic to convince reader that you have chosen compelling and appropriate reasons for supporting your claim.
Modal Qualifiers
Modal qualifiers define the character and scope of the proposition or claim.
Unless there is evidence that the current laws are discouraging texting while driving . . .
In most cases, drivers who know that the penalties for texting while driving can be up to $3,000 and 2 years of jail time . . .
Rebuttals
At this point in your essay, you ask what are the possible objections to my argument? And what are the most compelling objections?
Can I state these counterarguments and rebuttal them effectively?
Buy local, shrink the distance food travels, save the planet. The locavore movement has captured a lot of fans. To their credit, they are highlighting the problems with industrialized food. But a lot of them are making a big mistake. By focusing on transportation, they overlook other energy-hogging factors in food production.
Take lamb. A 2006 academic study (funded by the New Zealand government) discovered that it made more environmental sense for a Londoner to buy lamb shipped from New Zealand than to buy lamb raised in the U.K. This finding is counterintuitive–if you’re only counting food miles. But New Zealand lamb is raised on pastures with a small carbon footprint, whereas most English lamb is produced under intensive factory-like conditions with a big carbon footprint. This disparity overwhelms domestic lamb’s advantage in transportation energy.
New Zealand lamb is not exceptional. Take a close look at water usage, fertilizer types, processing methods and packaging techniques and you discover that factors other than shipping far outweigh the energy it takes to transport food. One analysis, by Rich Pirog of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, showed that transportation accounts for only 11% of food’s carbon footprint. A fourth of the energy required to produce food is expended in the consumer’s kitchen. Still more energy is consumed per meal in a restaurant, since restaurants throw away most of their leftovers.
Locavores argue that buying local food supports an area’s farmers and, in turn, strengthens the community. Fair enough. Left unacknowledged, however, is the fact that it also hurts farmers in other parts of the world. The U.K. buys most of its green beans from Kenya. While it’s true that the beans almost always arrive in airplanes–the form of transportation that consumes the most energy–it’s also true that a campaign to shame English consumers with small airplane stickers affixed to flown-in produce threatens the livelihood of 1.5 million sub-Saharan farmers.
Another chink in the locavores’ armor involves the way food miles are calculated. To choose a locally grown apple over an apple trucked in from across the country might seem easy. But this decision ignores economies of scale. To take an extreme example, a shipper sending a truck with 2,000 apples over 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who takes a pickup 50 miles to sell 50 apples at his stall at the green market. The critical measure here is not food miles but apples per gallon.
The one big problem with thinking beyond food miles is that it’s hard to get the information you need. Ethically concerned consumers know very little about processing practices, water availability, packaging waste and fertilizer application. This is an opportunity for watchdog groups. They should make life-cycle carbon counts available to shoppers.
Until our food system becomes more transparent, there is one thing you can do to shrink the carbon footprint of your dinner: Take the meat off your plate. No matter how you slice it, it takes more energy to bring meat, as opposed to plants, to the table. It takes 6 pounds of grain to make a pound of chicken and 10 to 16 pounds to make a pound of beef. That difference translates into big differences in inputs. It requires 2,400 liters of water to make a burger and only 13 liters to grow a tomato. A majority of the water in the American West goes toward the production of pigs, chickens and cattle.
The average American eats 273 pounds of meat a year. Give up red meat once a week and you’ll save as much energy as if the only food miles in your diet were the distance to the nearest truck farmer.
If you want to make a statement, ride your bike to the farmer’s market. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, become a vegetarian.
James E. McWilliams, the author of Just Food, is an associate professor of history at Texas State University.
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is every day foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
According to Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky in their college text From Inquiry to Academic Writing, there are 5 major ways to introduce your argumentative essay.
One. The Inverted-Triangle Introduction
Another way to see the inverted-triangle is to think of moving from a general topic to a specific thesis.
First, we begin with a broad description of the problem we want to address.
Second, we examine some widely held but inadequate or misguided assumptions about the topic.
Third, we respond to those misguided assumptions by presenting our thesis.
For example, we could raise the No Child Left Behind Act as a popular political movement. We could bring up some misguided assumptions about NCLB, namely the idea that NCLB is an “objective” standard that makes students and teachers accountable to core standards. Then the thesis could be to dismantle these assumptions by showing its class bias, its profit-motive for the test makers, and its abysmal, laughably nonsensical questions. We could even show how the top schools in the world, coming from Finland, don’t use standardized tests.
Two. Narrative Introduction
A narrative grabs your reader’s attention. A good narrative should be like a King Cobra snake sinking its fangs into your reader. Or if you’d like a different metaphor, a good metaphor should be like a Muay Thai expert who slams his palm into your solar plexus, compelling you to keel over. In other words, a strong introduction commands your attention.
Example
So your ego’s been damaged. Your girlfriend told you that you both “need to take a breather” and get some “quality alone time” so that maybe you can get back together. But that time never comes. When you start calling her again, she says things like, “I think we need to start seeing other people.” And “Since getting away from you, I feel like I’ve been given my life back.” And worse, “I think being your girlfriend was like dying a slow painful death.” And then the final nail in the coffin: “I’m seeing someone. It’s serious, so you’ll need to stop calling me—or I’ll call the cops.”
At this point, any man with half a brain realizes the relationship is officially over. If you’re a healthy-minded dude, you wish her well and hope she finds the happiness and romantic bliss she couldn’t find with you. But you’re not that dude. You’re a spiteful SOB whose ego needs to see her life miserable in your absence. To see her squirm and fail as she tries to make it in the world without you gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Her miserable existence “proves” that indeed you were the best thing that ever happened to her. You need to hear through the grapevine that she’s unhappy with her “dating life” and that she has a dead-end job with an obnoxious, penny-pinching boss who micromanages her every move. You need to know that her credit card bills and other expenses have crippled her finances and that she has had to move back with her parents.
And then you get what you’ve been craving more than anything—You see her at a party standing all alone by a bowl of potato chips and onion dip. She’s overweight, pouting, makeup running down her face. At which time you walk a circle around her, shake your head in disdain, puff on your Cuban cigar, and say, “Look at you now, sweetheart. Look at you now.” And then with a sneer you walk away from her as you make your grand exit from the party. Of course, you’re flanked by your eye-catching entourage—two slender scandalously dressed super models who accompany you as you get inside your silver Ferrari Barchetta Pininfarina you bought with the riches afforded by your new Fortune 500 company. As you sit in your three-hundred-thousand-dollar Italian sports car and your “girls” run their sensuous fingers through your luxurious head of hair, you see your ex-girlfriend, still alone at the party, now looking at you through the parted curtains and she stares at you like a sad, little puppy dog.
This gratifying scenario would have lasted longer, only your three-hundred-pound mother in a muumuu wakes you from your dream and tells you to get off your fat ass. You promised her you’d find a job by now and you’ve got less than an hour before your interview at Toys R Us. As you lay on your filthy bare mattress and listen to your mother berate you for your failed existence, you think back to your English professor who warned you that dropping out of college would have deleterious effects on both your professional and personal life, which would include ____________________, _________________, ________________________, and _______________________.
Three. The Interrogative Introduction
You ask your readers to enter the controversy at hand by asking one or more pertinent questions about your topic.
Example
Have you ever had a professor in some kind of writing class, whether it be English, history, philosophy, or political science, who seemed to be grading you less on your critical thinking skills and more on your eagerness to conform to his personal worldview? Have you felt that students, who wrote far inferior essays to yours, were being rewarded with higher grades merely for “sucking up” to the professor? Perhaps universities need to pass a Fair Grade Act that holds instructors accountable for not letting their personal biases infringe on their commitment to grading the students’ essays on student learning outcomes and discourage professors for giving high grades based on student sycophantism.
Four. The Paradoxical Introduction
You “appeal to readers’ curiosity by pointing out an aspect of the topic that runs counter to their expectations.”
Example
Dieting actually makes you fatter than you were before. The paradox of dieting is that the more we buy diet books and study the newest advances in nutrition the fatter we get. The only way to lose weight and keep that weight off is to be in a permanent state of semi-hunger and only an infinitesimal percentage of the human race can endure such prolonged agony. The superior alternative to dieting is to _________________________.
Five. The Minding-the-Gap-Introduction
You point out that something is missing in the research about a given topic. Your essay’s purpose is to fill in that gap.
Examples
Current earthquake preparedness fails to address how phone apps can give us twenty minutes warning of an earthquake.
Concussion studies on football players have failed to look at small pre-concussive events.
The benefits of CrossFit training have not been put in context of inadequate training for the trainers and data about permanent injuries resulting from CrossFit training.
Lesson on Using Sources (adapted from The Arlington Reader, fourth edition)
We use sources to establish credibility and to provide evidence for our claim. Because we want to establish credibility, the sources have to be credible as well.
To be credible, the sources must be
Current or up to date: to verify that the material is still relevant and has all the latest and possibly revised research and statistical data.
Authoritative: to insure that your sources represent experts in the field of study. Their studies are peer-reviewed and represent the gold standard, meaning they are the sources of record that will be referred to in academic debate and conversation.
Depth: The source should be detailed to give a comprehensive grasp of the subject.
Objectivity: The study is relatively free of agenda and bias or the writer is upfront about his or her agenda so that there are no hidden objectives. If you’re consulting a Web site that is larded with ads or a sponsor, then there may be commercial interests that compromise the objectivity.
Checklist for Evaluating Sources
You must assess six things to determine if a source is worthy of being used for your research paper.
The author’s objectivity or fairness (author is not biased)
The author’s credibility (peer reviewed, read by experts)
The source’s relevance
The source’s currency (source is up-to-date)
The source’s comprehensiveness (source has sufficient depth)
The author’s authority (author’s credentials and experience render him or her an expert in the field)
Warning Signs of a Poor Online Source
Site has advertising
Some company or other sponsors site
A political organization or special interest group sponsors the site.
The site has many links to other biased sites.
Integrating Sources and Avoiding Plagiarism
Summarizing Sources
“A summary restates the main idea of a passage in concise terms” (314).
A typical summary is one or two sentences.
A summary does not contain your opinions or analysis.
Paraphrasing Sources
A paraphrase, which is longer than a summary, contains more details and examples. Sometimes you need to be more specific than a summary to make sure your reader understands you.
A paraphrase does not include your opinions or analysis.
Quoting Sources
Quoting sources means you are quoting exactly what you are referring to in the text with no modifications, which might twist the author’s meaning.
You should avoid long quotations as much as possible.
Quote only when necessary. Rely on summary and paraphrase before resorting to direct quotes.
A good time to use a specific quote is when it’s an opposing point that you want to refute.
Using Signal Phrases or Identifying Tag to Introduce Summary, Paraphrase, and Quoted Material
According to Jeff McMahon, the grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor. They’ll all be the same.
Jeff McMahon notes that the grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor. They’ll all be the same.
The grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors, Jeff McMahon observes, that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor.
The grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor, Jeff McMahon points out.
Strategies for Writing Your Essay (adapted from The Arlington Reader, Fourth Edition)
One. Know what type of writing you're doing:
Description
Comparison and contrast
Process analysis (how to do something)
Narrative (we write narratives for many reasons: catharsis of demons, explanation of an epiphany that changed our lives, an account of remarkable suffering and resilience, an account of something that was excruciatingly funny, to name a few examples)
Define a term that your reader needs to understand in greater depth
Persuasion (persuade readers and/or listeners to act as opposed to argumentation which is to win people’s minds over an issue, but not necessarily change their behavior)
Cause and effect analysis
Argumentation
The takeaway from the above is that you should always know what type of essay is generated from the assignment options the professor gives you.
Brainstorm of list of topics and thesis statements that are relevant to the essay.
Most writers need to get the bad stuff out of the way, so there’s no shame in coming up with five bad thesis statements before getting to a good one. That’s a natural course of events.
Always make sure your thesis addresses the essay prompt.
Your thesis is a single sentence that drives your whole essay. The thesis in argumentation is often called your claim.
Generally speaking, a thesis is the main argument or controlling idea of your essay. It makes a claim that intellectually sophisticated, challenging to common assumptions, compelling, and can is supportable with evidence.
The more obvious a thesis, the less compelling it is to write. The more a thesis reaches for insight or challenges common assumptions, the more compelling and sophisticated it is.
Bad thesis:
Smartphones are a nuisance in the class.
Better thesis
Rather than ban students from using their smartphones in the class, college instructors should integrate these and other personal technological devices into their classroom teaching.
Writing an introduction to your essay
Before transitioning from your introduction to your thesis, you should look at some effective introduction strategies:
Briefly narrate a compelling anecdote that captures your readers’ attention.
State a common false argument or false perception that your essay will refute.
Offer a curious paradox to pique your readers’ interest.
Ask a question that your essay will try to answer.
Use a fresh (not overused) quotation or parable to stir your readers’ interest.
How to Set Up a Counterargument in Your Rebuttal Section (The Templates)
Some of my critics will dismiss my claim that . . . but they are in error when we look closely at . . .
Some readers will 0bject to my argument that . . . However, their disagreement is misguided when we consider that . . .
Some opponents will be hostile to my claim that . . . However, their hostility is unfounded when we examine . . .
While Author X is guilty of several weaknesses as described by her opponents, her argument holds up to close examination in the areas of _________________, ______________, _____________, and ______________.
Even though author X shows weakness in her argument, such as __________ and ____________, she is nevertheless convincing because . . .
While author X makes many compelling points, her overall argument collapses under the weight of __________, ___________, ___________, and ______________.
The transition words like also, in addition, and, likewise, add information,reinforce ideas, and express agreement with preceding material.
in the first place
not only ... but also
as a matter of fact
in like manner
in addition
coupled with
in the same fashion / way
first, second, third
in the light of
not to mention
to say nothing of
equally important
by the same token
again
to
and
also
then
equally
identically
uniquely
like
as
too
moreover
as well as
together with
of course
likewise
comparatively
correspondingly
similarly
furthermore
additionally
Opposition / Limitation / Contradiction
Transition phrases like but, rather and or, express that there is evidence to the contrary or point out alternatives, and thus introduce a change the line of reasoning (contrast).
although this may be true
in contrast
different from
of course ..., but
on the other hand
on the contrary
at the same time
in spite of
even so / though
be that as it may
then again
above all
in reality
after all
but
(and) still
unlike
or
(and) yet
while
albeit
besides
as much as
even though
although
instead
whereas
despite
conversely
otherwise
however
rather
nevertheless
nonetheless
regardless
notwithstanding
Cause / Condition / Purpose
These transitional phrases present specific conditions or intentions.
in the event that
granted (that)
as / so long as
on (the) condition (that)
for the purpose of
with this intention
with this in mind
in the hope that
to the end that
for fear that
in order to
seeing / being that
in view of
If
... then
unless
when
whenever
while
because of
as
since
while
lest
in case
provided that
given that
only / even if
so that
so as to
owing to
inasmuch as
due to
Examples / Support / Emphasis
These transitional devices (like especially) are used to introduce examples assupport, to indicate importance or as an illustration so that an idea is cued to the reader.
in other words
to put it differently
for one thing
as an illustration
in this case
for this reason
to put it another way
that is to say
with attention to
by all means
important to realize
another key point
first thing to remember
most compelling evidence
must be remembered
point often overlooked
to point out
on the positive side
on the negative side
with this in mind
notably
including
like
to be sure
namely
chiefly
truly
indeed
certainly
surely
markedly
such as
especially
explicitly
specifically
expressly
surprisingly
frequently
significantly
particularly
in fact
in general
in particular
in detail
for example
for instance
to demonstrate
to emphasize
to repeat
to clarify
to explain
to enumerate
Effect / Consequence / Result
Some of these transition words (thus, then, accordingly, consequently, therefore, henceforth) are time words that are used to show that after a particular time there was a consequence or an effect.
Note that for and because are placed before the cause/reason. The other devices are placed before the consequences or effects.
as a result
under those circumstances
in that case
for this reason
in effect
for
thus
because the
then
hence
consequently
therefore
thereupon
forthwith
accordingly
henceforth
Conclusion / Summary / Restatement
These transition words and phrases conclude, summarize and / or restate ideas, or indicate a final general statement. Also some words (like therefore) from the Effect / Consequence category can be used to summarize.
as can be seen
generally speaking
in the final analysis
all things considered
as shown above
in the long run
given these points
as has been noted
in a word
for the most part
after all
in fact
in summary
in conclusion
in short
in brief
in essence
to summarize
on balance
altogether
overall
ordinarily
usually
by and large
to sum up
on the whole
in any event
in either case
all in all
Obviously
Ultimately
Definitely
Time / Chronology / Sequence
These transitional words (like finally) have the function of limiting, restricting, and defining time. They can be used either alone or as part of adverbial expressions.
at the present time
from time to time
sooner or later
at the same time
up to the present time
to begin with
in due time
as soon as
as long as
in the meantime
in a moment
without delay
in the first place
all of a sudden
at this instant
first, second
immediately
quickly
finally
after
later
last
until
till
since
then
before
hence
since
when
once
about
next
now
formerly
suddenly
shortly
henceforth
whenever
eventually
meanwhile
further
during
in time
prior to
forthwith
straightaway
by the time
whenever
until now
now that
instantly
presently
occasionally
Many transition words in the time category (consequently; first, second, third; further; hence; henceforth; since; then, when; and whenever) have other uses.
Except for the numbers (first, second, third) and further they add a meaning of time in expressing conditions, qualifications, or reasons. The numbers are also used to add information or list examples. Further is also used to indicate added space as well as added time.
Space / Location / Place
These transition words are often used as part of adverbial expressions and have the function to restrict, limit or qualify space. Quite a few of these are also found in the Time category and can be used to describe spatial order or spatial reference.
in the middle
to the left/right
in front of
on this side
in the distance
here and there
in the foreground
in the background
in the center of
adjacent to
opposite to
here
there
next
where
from
over
near
above
below
down
up
under
further
beyond
nearby
wherever
around
between
before
alongside
amid
among
beneath
beside
behind
across
Thesis statements or claims go under four different categories:
One. Claims about solutions or policies: The claim argues for a certain solution or policy change:
America's War on Drugs should be abolished and replaced with drug rehab.
Two. Claims of cause and effect: These claims argue that a person, thing, policy or event caused another event or thing to occur.
Social media has turned our generation into a bunch of narcissistic solipsists with limited attention spans, an inflated sense of self-importance, and a shrinking degree of empathy.
Three. Claims of value: These claims argue how important something is on the Importance Scale and determine its proportion to other things.
Global warming poses a far greater threat to our safety than does terrorism.
Four. Claims of definition. These claims argue that we must re-define a common and inaccurate assumption.
In America the notion of "self-esteem," so commonly taught in schools, is in reality a cult of narcissism. While real self-esteem teaches self-confidence, discipline, and accountability, the fake American brand of self-esteem is about celebrating the low expectations of mediocrity, and this results in narcissism, vanity, and sloth.
Lesson 4: Chapters 5 and 6: Analysis and Development of an Argument
How Can You Improve Your Critical Reading?
One. Identify the main idea, claim, or thesis in a piece of writing.
Two. Identify the form and structure. Essays use a variety of expository modes: contrast, comparison, argumentation, description, narrative, cause and effect analysis, extended definition, to name several.
Three. What problem is the writer trying to define?
Four. What bias, if any, does the writer bring to the topic?
Five. Notice the shifts from specificity to generality (induction) or generality to specificity (deduction).
Six. Notice the transitions used to establish a number of reasons (additionally), contrast (however, on the other hand, to the contrary), and comparison (similarly).
Seven. Use annotations, writing key ideas in the margins and underlining key words and phrases. Annotating increases your memory and reading comprehension. Using a pen is better than a highlighter because you can write your own specific response to what you’re reading whereas a highlighter is too fat to make comments. Another advantage of using a pen is that you might come up with ideas for your essay response, even a thesis, and you don’t want to forget that material.
Eight. Look up unfamiliar words to build your vocabulary and increase your understanding of the piece.
Nine. Identify the writer’s style and tone (voice). The voice could be conversational, supercilious (arrogant), morally outraged, friendly, condescending, ironic, etc.
Ten. Notice if the writer is being implicit, using implication or suggestion, rather than being direct and explicit in the expression of the main idea.
Eleven. Ask if the writer considered opposing views fairly before coming to his or her conclusion.
Twelve. What political point of view, if any, informs the piece?
Thirteen. How strong is the evidence in the piece that is used to support the writer’s claim?
Fourteen. What is the intended readership? Educated adults? Experts? Children?
Your first job in analyzing a text, is to determine the author’s thesis or purpose.
Was the purpose to persuade you to think about something differently or take action, analyze causes and effects, take you through the process of changing your car battery (process analysis), expose the corruption of a bureaucracy?
Once you determine the thesis, examine the author’s methods:
Does the writer quote authorities? Are these authorities competent and credible in the field?
Does the writer also address competent authorities that take a different, perhaps contrarian point of view?
Does the writer use credible statistics? Are the statistics current? Have the statistics been interpreted fairly and accurately?
Does the writer build the argument by using solid examples and analogies? Are they compelling? Why? Why not?
Are the writer’s assumptions acceptable?
Does the writer consider all relevant factors? Has she omitted some points that you think should be discussed? For instance, should the author recognize certain opposing positions and perhaps concede something to them?
Does the writer seek to persuade by means of ridicule and mockery? If so, is the ridicule fair and appropriate? Is the ridicule further supported by rational argument?
Is the argument aimed at a particular audience?
What tone, voice or persona is evident in the essay? Does the voice or persona give the essay credibility? Why or why not?
Some voices to consider:
Confident and straightforward
Arrogant and pompous
Mocking and self-aggrandizing
Bullheaded incuriosity for opposing views
So sanctimonious and pious as to be cloying and saccharine
So sanctimonious as to be unctuous
Persnickety
Whimsical, playful, capricious
Deadpan ironical
Gleeful self-righteousness
Curmudgeonly misanthropic
Bitter and pessimistic
Effulgently optimistic
When you evaluate an author’s text (essay or book), your argument about whether or not the author’s thesis was effectively supported or not is your thesis.
The mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey has defeated 11 opponents, the most recent one in only 14 seconds. Perhaps predictably, this has led to questions about whether she will fight men.
In an interview with Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast, Ms. Rousey answered in the negative: “I don’t think it’s a great idea to have a man hitting a woman on television,” she said. “I’ll never say that I’ll lose, but you could have a girl getting totally beat up on TV by a guy—which is a bad image to put across.” She also alluded to the recent string of domestic-violence arrests among N.F.L. players.
Her reluctance to risk subjecting viewers to such an image is understandable. But even laying aside the issue of domestic violence, it’s worth asking another question: Why do we assume that a successful female athlete should move on to competing with male ones?
Ms. Rousey is undefeated in her weight class. Is her achievement somehow less legitimate because her opponents have been women? Is the only mark of true athleticism the ability to beat a man?
Those who would like to see Ms. Rousey in a mixed-gender bout might argue it would simply be an opportunity for her to fight the best of the best. But the presence of weight classes in mixed martial arts is an acknowledgment that it doesn’t always make sense to compare athletes with different bodies. If Ms. Rousey wouldn’t typically fight someone twice her size, does it make sense for her to fight someone who may have different bone density, different body fat percentage, a different center of gravity? Isn’t she already, by the accepted standards of her sport, the best of the best?
Gender segregation in sports has a complicated history, and it’s possible that more sports will one day be mixed-gender. It’s also possible that sports will one day adopt groupings that have nothing to do with gender — that are based on muscle mass, for instance, or skeletal structure. And if female athletes want to compete against men, they shouldn’t be barred from doing so.
But in the system we have now, expecting a woman to face a male opponent when she’s expressed no interest in doing so implies that excelling at women’s sports is a secondary achievement. It suggests that women’s sports are like the minor leagues — get good enough, and maybe you can play with the men.
And indeed, female athletes are too often treated as secondary. Last year, Lindsey Adler of BuzzFeed estimated that Kobe Bryant made almost three times as much for the 2013-2014 season as all the players in the W.N.B.A. combined. And a recent analysis of seven British newspapers found that just 4 percent of sports articles during a particular week in 2013 focused on women’s sports.
Female athletes deserve better than this — they deserve the same respect their male counterparts get. And that means treating Ronda Rousey as a champion in her own right, not just good for a girl.
Comments
Alexander Hamilton: Is there a sane person in America who believes Ronda Rousey needs to fight any man? Good, that's settled. Now here's the question I'd like to see answered: 2,000 years after the Coliseum was closed for business, why are people still watching one person beat up another? Is this as far as society has come? And what kind of person takes pleasure in intentionally hurting another? The difference between this barbarism and what Michael Vick did is one of degree, not of kind.
RobW: Female athletes are not "treated as secondary." They generally ARE secondary. Anna North complains that Kobe Bryant made three times as much as the rest of the WNBA combined. That is not because sports fans are sexists: it's because Kobe Bryant is approximately three times more interesting to watch that the rest of the WNBA combined. Fans pay to see the best, and there is not a single woman in the WNBA that could even sit the bench on any NBA team.
As an under-six-foot male, I was always a little bitter growing up that I didn't have any realistic chance of success basketball (Spud Webb notwithstanding). There are some under-six-foot leagues, however; is the fact that there is zero coverage of these in the sports pages evidence of rampant heightism? Ms. North believes that female athletes "deserve the same respect their male counterparts get." I assume that she would also believe, then, that under-six-foot players should get the same respect as their taller counterparts. No, of course she wouldn't. That would be silly--as silly as saying vastly inferior female athletes deserved exactly the same respect, box office, and press that the best male athletes get.
Sorry, but until Rousey demonstrates that she can routinely beat men in her weight class, she will remain merely "good for a girl." And, frankly, I don't think the sight of a woman fighter getting bloodily brutalized by a man would be negative--it might make plain to men the potentially devastating power they wield.
Jim Waddell: We need to recognize that men and women are different, in many ways. There are very few sports where the top female athletes could beat the top male athletes.
But there are areas where women excel more than men, beginning with education (and in staying out of jail.) Just because one sex does better than another in any given area is not prima facie evidence of discrimination.
Analyzing the Text
What is the author Anna North's purpose?
She wants to answer this question: "Why do we assume that a successful female athlete should move on to competing with male ones?"
North goes on to ask these two question:
"Is her achievement somehow less legitimate because her opponents have been women? Is the only mark of true athleticism the ability to beat a man?"
In other words, does Rousey have to beat a man in a fight to be legit?
These questions lead us to the author's thesis, which can be formulated this way:
"Rousey and female athletes in general don't have to compete against men to prove their greatness because we already have weight classes that compare to the different bone and muscle density between men and women."
Any weaknesses with the thesis? Yes, it has only one mapping component and it doesn't address the fact that the best fighter in Rousey's weight class can't compete against the best male fighter in the same weight class.
Does the author have a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph?
Those who would like to see Ms. Rousey in a mixed-gender bout might argue it would simply be an opportunity for her to fight the best of the best. But the presence of weight classes in mixed martial arts is an acknowledgment that it doesn’t always make sense to compare athletes with different bodies. If Ms. Rousey wouldn’t typically fight someone twice her size, does it make sense for her to fight someone who may have different bone density, different body fat percentage, a different center of gravity? Isn’t she already, by the accepted standards of her sport, the best of the best?
Do you notice any weaknesses in the author's argument?
But in the system we have now, expecting a woman to face a male opponent when she’s expressed no interest in doing so implies that excelling at women’s sports is a secondary achievement. It suggests that women’s sports are like the minor leagues — get good enough, and maybe you can play with the men.
How would you formulate a thesis in response to the author's column?
While North makes a good point that Rousey is a great woman fighter, her larger claim that Rousey is a first-rate champion equal to male fighters is muddled by the fact that Rousey's greatness is a combination of her fighting dominance in the female category combined with her celebrity that transcends MMA competition.
“A summary restates the main idea of a passage in concise terms” (314).
A typical summary is one or two sentences.
A summary does not contain your opinions or analysis.
Paraphrasing Sources
A paraphrase, which is longer than a summary, contains more details and examples. Sometimes you need to be more specific than a summary to make sure your reader understands you.
A paraphrase does not include your opinions or analysis.
Quoting Sources
Quoting sources means you are quoting exactly what you are referring to in the text with no modifications, which might twist the author’s meaning.
You should avoid long quotations as much as possible.
Quote only when necessary. Rely on summary and paraphrase before resorting to direct quotes.
A good time to use a specific quote is when it’s an opposing point that you want to refute.
Using Signal Phrases or Identifying Tag to Introduce Summary, Paraphrase, and Quoted Material
According to Jeff McMahon, the grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor. They’ll all be the same.
Jeff McMahon notes that the grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor. They’ll all be the same.
The grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors, Jeff McMahon observes, that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor.
The grading rubric in English classes is used in such a way by instructors that soon there will be no such thing as an “easy” or “hard” professor, Jeff McMahon points out.
Mockery and Ridicule Only Work When Supported by Rational Argument
Ways to Improve Your Critical Reading and Assess the Quality of Your Sources
Do a background check of the author to see if he or she has a hidden agenda or any other kind of background information that speaks to the author’s credibility.
Check the place of publication to see what kind of agenda, if any, the publishing house has. Know how esteemed the publishing house is among peers of the subject you’re reading about.
Learn how to find the thesis. In other words, know what the author’s purpose, explicit or implicit, is.
Annotate more than underline. Your memory will be better served, according to research, by annotating than underlining. You can scribble your own code in the margins as long as you can understand your writing when you come back to it later. Annotating is a way of starting a dialogue about the reading and writing process. It is a form of pre-writing. Forms of annotation that I use are “yes,” (great point) “no,” (wrong, illogical, BS) and “?” (confusing). When I find the thesis, I’ll also write that in the margins. Or I’ll write down an essay or book title that the passage reminds me of. Or maybe even an idea for a story or a novel.
When faced with a difficult text, you will have to slow down and use the principles of summarizing and paraphrasing. With summary, you concisely identify the main points in one or two sentences. With paraphrase, you re-word the text in your own words.
When reading an argument, see if the writer addresses possible objections to his or her argument. Ask yourself, of all the objections, did the writer choose the most compelling ones? The more compelling the objections addressed, the more rigorous and credible the author’s writing.
Lesson Five Chapters 8 and 9 From Critical Thinking to Argument
Logic and Logical Fallacies (adapted from Chapter 5 of Practical Argument, Second Edition)
Logic comes from the Greek word logos, meaning, word, thought, principle, or reason. Logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning.
Deductive reasoning starts with general premises and ends in specific conclusions. This process is expressed in a syllogism: major premise, minor premise, and conclusion.
Major Premise: All bald men should wear extra sunscreen on their bald head.
Minor Premise: Mr. X is a bald man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. X should apply extra sunscreen.
A sound syllogism, one that is valid and true, must follow logically from the facts and be based on premises that are based on facts.
Major Premise: All state universities must accommodate disabled students.
Minor Premise: UCLA is a state university.
Conclusion: Therefore, UCLA must accommodate disabled students.
A syllogism can be valid without being true as we see in this example from Robert Cormier’s novel The Chocolate War:
Bailey earns straight A’s.
Straight A’s are a sign of perfection.
But only God is perfect.
Can Bailey be God? Of course not.
Therefore, Bailey is a cheater and a liar.
In the above example it’s not true that the perfection of God is equivalent to the perfection of a straight-A student (faulty comparison, a logical fallacy). So while the syllogism is valid, following logically from one point to the next, it’s based on a deception or a falsehood; therefore, it is not true.
Syllogism with an Illogical Middle Term Is Invalid
Flawed logic occurs when the middle term has the same term in the major and minor premise but not in the conclusion.
Major Premise: All dogs are mammals.
Minor Premise: Some mammals are porpoises.
Conclusion: Therefore, some porpoises are dogs.
Syllogism with a Key Term Whose Meaning Shifts Cannot be Valid
Major Premise: Only man is capable of analytical reasoning.
Minor Premise: Anna is not a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Anna is not capable of analytical reasoning.
The key term shift is “man,” which refers to “mankind,” not the male gender.
Syllogism with a Negative Premise
If either premise in a syllogism is negative, then the conclusion must also be negative. The following syllogism is not valid:
Major Premise: Only the Toyota Prius can go in the fast-track lane.
Minor Premise: The BMW 4 series is not a Toyota Prius.
Conclusion: Therefore, the BMW can drive in the fast-track lane.
If both premises are negative, the syllogism cannot have a valid conclusion:
Major Premise: The Toyota Prius cannot be denied entrance into the fast-track lane.
Minor Premise: The BMW 4 series is not a Toyota Prius.
Conclusion: Therefore, the BMW cannot be denied entrance into the fast-track lane.
Enthymemes
An enthymeme is a syllogism with one or two parts of its argument—usually, the major premise—missing.
Robert has lied, so he cannot be trusted.
We’re missing the major premise:
Major Premise: People who lie cannot be trusted.
Minor Premise: Robert has lied.
Conclusion: Therefore, Robert cannot be trusted.
When writers or speakers use enthymemes, they are sometimes trying to hide the flaw of the first premise:
Major Premise: All countries governed by dictators should be invaded.
Minor Premise: North Korea is a country governed by a dictator.
Conclusion: Therefore, North Korea should be invaded.
The premise that all countries governed by dictators should be invaded is a gross generalization and can easily be shot down under close scrutiny.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning begins with specific observations or evidence and moves to a general conclusion.
My Volvo was always in the shop. My neighbor’s Mini Cooper and BMW are always in the shop. My other neighbor’s Audi is in the shop.
Now my wife and I own a Honda and Nissan and those cars are never in the shop.
European cars cost more to maintain than Japanese cars and the empirical evidence and data support my claim.
If you have an average-size dinner table, four feet by six feet, put a dime on the edge of it. Think of the surface of the table as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The dime is larger than the piece of the coastal plain that would have been opened to drilling for oil and natural gas. The House of Representatives voted for drilling, but the Senate voted against access to what Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and presidential aspirant, calls "a few drops of oil." ANWR could produce, for 25 years, at least as much oil as America currently imports from Saudi Arabia.
Six weeks of desultory Senate debate about the energy bill reached an almost comic culmination in... yet another agriculture subsidy. The subsidy is a requirement that will triple the amount of ethanol, which is made from corn, that must be put in gasoline, ostensibly to clean America's air, actually to buy farmers' votes.
Over the last three decades, energy use has risen about 30 percent. But so has population, which means per capita energy use is unchanged. And per capita GDP has risen substantially, so we are using 40 percent less energy per dollar output. Which is one reason there is no energy crisis, at least none as most Americans understand such things--a shortage of, and therefore high prices of, gasoline for cars, heating oil for furnaces and electricity for air conditioners.
In the absence of a crisis to concentrate the attention of the inattentive American majority, an intense faction--full-time environmentalists--goes to work. Spencer Abraham, the secretary of Energy, says "the previous administration... simply drew up a list of fuels it didn't like--nuclear energy, coal, hydropower, and oil--which together account for 73 percent of America's energy supply." Well, there are always windmills.
Sometimes lofty environmentalism is a cover for crude politics. The United States has the world's largest proven reserves of coal. But Mike Oliver, a retired physicist and engineer, and John Hospers, professor emeritus of philosophy at USC, note that in 1996 President Clinton put 68 billion tons of America's cleanest-burning coal, located in Utah, off-limits for mining, ostensibly for environmental reasons. If every existing U.S. electric power plant burned coal, the 68 billion tons could fuel them for 45 years at the current rate of consumption. Now power companies must import clean-burning coal, some from mines owned by Indonesia's Lippo Group, the heavy contributor to Clinton, whose decision about Utah's coal vastly increased the value of Lippo's coal.
The United States has just 2.14 percent of the world's proven reserves of oil, so some people say it is pointless to drill in places like ANWR because "energy independence" is a chimera. Indeed it is. But domestic supplies can provide important insurance against uncertain foreign supplies. And domestic supplies can mean exporting hundreds of billions of dollars less to oil-producing nations, such as Iraq.
Besides, when considering proven reserves, note the adjective. In 1930 the United States had proven reserves of 13 billion barrels. We then fought the Second World War and fueled the most fabulous economic expansion in human history, including the electricity-driven "New Economy." (Manufacturing and running computers consume 15 percent of U.S. electricity. Internet use alone accounts for half of the growth in demand for electricity.) So by 1990 proven reserves were... 17 billion barrels, not counting any in Alaska or Hawaii.
In 1975 proven reserves in the Persian Gulf were 74 billion barrels. In 1993 they were 663 billion, a ninefold increase. At the current rate of consumption, today's proven reserves would last 150 years. New discoveries will be made, some by vastly improved techniques of deep-water drilling. But environmental policies will define opportunities. The government estimates that beneath the U.S. outer continental shelf, which the government owns, there are at least 46 billion barrels of oil. But only 2 percent of the shelf has been leased for energy development.
Opponents of increased energy production usually argue for decreased consumption. But they flinch from conservation measures. A new $1 gasoline tax would dampen demand for gasoline, but it would stimulate demands for the heads of the tax increasers. After all, Americans get irritable when impersonal market forces add 25 cents to the cost of a gallon. Tougher fuel-efficiency requirements for vehicles would save a lot of energy. But who would save the legislators who passed those requirements? Beware the wrath of Americans who like to drive, and autoworkers who like to make, cars that are large, heavy and safer than the gasoline-sippers that environmentalists prefer.
Some environmentalism is a feel-good indulgence for an era of energy abundance, which means an era of avoided choices. Or ignored choices--ignored because if acknowledged, they would not make the choosers feel good. Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine, imagines an oh-so-green environmentalist enjoying the most politically correct product on the planet--Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Made in a factory that depends on electricity-guzzling refrigeration, a gallon of ice cream requires four gallons of milk. While making that much milk, a cow produces eight gallons of manure, and flatulence with another eight gallons of methane, a potent "greenhouse" gas. And the cow consumes lots of water plus three pounds of grain and hay, which is produced with tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and is transported with truck or train fuel:
"So every time he digs into his Cherry Garcia, the conscientious environmentalist should visualize (in addition to world peace) a pile of grain, water, farm chemicals, and energy inputs much bigger than his ice cream bowl on one side of the table, and, on the other side of the table, a mound of manure eight times the size of his bowl, plus a balloon of methane that would barely fit under the dining room table."
Thesis statements or claims go under four different exposition categories:
One. Claims about solutions or policies: The claim argues for a certain solution or policy change:
America's War on Drugs should be abolished and replaced with drug rehab.
Two. Claims of cause and effect: These claims argue that a person, thing, policy or event caused another event or thing to occur.
Social media has turned our generation into a bunch of narcissistic solipsists with limited attention spans, an inflated sense of self-importance, and a shrinking degree of empathy.
Three. Claims of value: These claims argue how important something is on the Importance Scale and determine its proportion to other things.
Global warming poses a far greater threat to our safety than does terrorism.
Four. Claims of definition. These claims argue that we must re-define a common and inaccurate assumption.
In America the notion of "self-esteem," so commonly taught in schools, is in reality a cult of narcissism. While real self-esteem teaches self-confidence, discipline, and accountability, the fake American brand of self-esteem is about celebrating the low expectations of mediocrity, and this results in narcissism, vanity, and sloth.
Ways to Improve Your Logical Thinking
Study the Templates of Argumentation
While Frankl’s arguments for meaning are convincing, they fail to consider . . .
While Frankl’s supports make convincing arguments, they must also consider . . .
These arguments, rather than being convincing, instead prove . . .
While these authors agree with Frankl on point X, in my opinion . . .
Although it is often true that . . .
While I concede that my opponents make a compelling case for point X, their main argument collapses underneath a barrage of . . .
While I see many good points in my opponent’s essay, I am underwhelmed by his . . .
While my opponent makes some cogent points regarding A, B, and C, his overall argument fails to convince when we consider X, Y, and Z.
My opponent makes many provocative and intriguing points. However, his arguments must be dismissed as fallacious when we take into account W, X, Y, and Z.
While the author’s points first appear glib and fatuous, a closer look at his polemic reveals a convincing argument that . . .
The Importance of Definition in Your Essays
Often we’re analyzing a term that needs clarification. For example, what is morality? Is morality a divine-inspired quality? Or does morality evolve from society’s struggle to learn to create a community that flourishes as a result of cooperation and other cultural values that lift it beyond the individual animal fighting tooth and claw against his competition?
Definition by Synonym
One of the weakest ways to define a term is by naming it with its equivalent name, otherwise known as a synonym. The problem with renaming a term is the trap of the circular definition.
What is pornography?
Pornography is obscenity.
What is obscenity?
Obscenity is pornography.
Definition by Example
A more effective form of definition is to use an example, also called an ostensive definition from the Latin ostendere, “to show.”
What is happiness?
An example of happiness is a society, like Iceland, that nurtures its artists by encouraging them to fail. As a result, Iceland has the highest artists per capita in the world. A key example of happiness is a society that has flourishing artists.
Definition by Stipulation
Stipulations are conditions or requirements that you and your opponents agree to when debating a term.
For example, a ban on weapons needs the stipulation of assault weapons.
A parent is not merely a biological relation to the child; a parent must be present, engaged, and involved in the child’s upbringing.
Meaning is a form of purpose, but that purpose must be attached to a moral code; otherwise, Hitler’s “meaning,” a vision for an all-white race is allowed to be confused with real meaning.
An Extended Definition
An extended definition has three things: term, class, and distinguishing characteristics.
Water is a liquid comprised of H2O.
A parent is a person who is engaged and involved with her child’s upbringing, not merely a biological relation.
A chimera is an obsessive mental state characterized by projection of one’s fantasies, unrealistic expectations, and inevitable failure to meet those expectations.
Meaning is an orientation that gives us purpose, life force, morality, and character.
Love is a deformed mental state resulting in obsession, capriciousness, madness, and death.
Jim Crow is the perpetuation of White Supremacy characterized by the insidious reinvention of slavery through segregation laws, slave wages, and police abuse.
Identifying Claims and Analyzing Arguments from Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky’s From Inquiry to Academic Writing, Third Edition
We’ve learned in this class that we can call a thesis a claim, an assertion that must be supported with evidence and refuting counterarguments.
There are 3 different types of claims: fact, value, and policy.
Claims of Fact
According to Greene and Lidinsky, “Claims of fact are assertions (or arguments) that seek to define or classify something or establish that a problem or condition has existed, exists, or will exist.
For example, Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow argues that Jim Crow practices that notoriously oppressed people of color still exist in an insidious form, especially in the manner in which we incarcerate black and brown men.
In The Culture Code Rapaille argues that different cultures have unconscious codes and that a brand’s codes must not be disconnected with the culture that brand needs to appeal to. This is the problem or struggle that all companies have: being “on code” with their product. The crisis that is argued is the disconnection between people’s unconscious codes and the contrary codes that a brand may represent.
Many economists, such as Paul Krugman, argue that there is major problem facing America, a shrinking middle class, that is destroying democracy and human freedom as this country knows it. Krugman and others will point to a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots, a growing class of temporary workers that surpasses all other categories of workers (warehouse jobs for online companies, for example), and de-investment in the American labor force as jobs are outsourced in a world of global competition.
All three examples above are claims of fact. As Greene and Lidinsky write, “This is an assertion that a condition exists. A careful reader must examine the basis for this kind of claim: Are we truly facing a crisis?”
We further read, “Our point is that most claims of fact are debatable and challenge us to provide evidence to verify our arguments. They may be based on factual information, but they are not necessarily true. Most claims of fact present interpretations of evidence derived from inferences.”
A Claim of Fact That Seeks to Define Or Classify
Greene and Lidinsky point out that autism is a controversial topic because experts cannot agree on a definition. The behaviors attributed to autism “actually resist simple definition.”
There is also disagreement on a definition of obesity. For example, some argue that the current BMI standards are not accurate.
Another example that is difficult to define or classify is the notion of genius.
In all the cases above, the claim of fact is to assert a definition that must be supported with evidence and refutations of counterarguments.
Claims of Value
Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of fact is different from a claim of value, which expresses an evaluation of a problem or condition that has existed, exists, or will exist. Is a condition good or bad? Is it important or inconsequential?
In other words, the claim isn’t whether or not a crisis or problem exists: The emphasis is on HOW serious the problem is.
How serious is global warming?
How serious is gender discrimination in schools?
How serious is racism in law enforcement and incarceration?
How serious is the threat of injury for people who engage in Cross-Fit training?
How serious are the health threats rendered from providing sodas in public schools?
How serious is the income gap between the haves and the have-nots?
Claims of Policy
Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of policy is an argument for what should be the case, that a condition should exist. It is a call for change or a solution to a problem.
Examples
We must decriminalize drugs.
We must increase the minimum wage to X per hour.
We must have stricter laws that defend worker rights for temporary and migrant workers.
We must integrate more autistic children in mainstream classes.
We must implement universal health care.
If we are to keep capital punishment, then we must air it on TV.
We must implement stricter laws for texting while driving.
Greene and Lidinsky write, “Part of the strategy of developing a main claim supported with good reasons is to offer a concession, an acknowledgment that readers may not agree with every point the writer is making. A concession is a writer’s way of saying, ‘Okay, I can see that there may be another way of looking at the issue or another way to interpret the evidence used to support the argument I am making.’”
“Often a writer will signal a concession with phrases like the following:”
“It is true that . . .”
“I agree with X that Y is an important factor to consider.”
“Some studies have convincingly shown that . . .”
Identify Counterarguments
Greene and Lidinsky write, “Anticipating readers’ objections demonstrates that you understand the complexity of the issue and are willing at least to entertain different and conflicting opinions.”
Developing a Thesis
Greene and Lidinsky write that a thesis is “an assertion that academic writers make at the beginning of what they write and then support with evidence throughout their essay.”
They then give the thesis these attributes:
Makes an assertion that is clearly defined, focused, and supported.
Reflects an awareness of the conversation from which the writer has take up the issue.
Is placed at the beginning of the essay.
Penetrates every paragraph like the skewer in a shish kebab.
Acknowledges points of view that differ from the writer’s own, reflecting the complexity of the issue.
Demonstrates an awareness of the readers’ assumptions and anticipates possible counterarguments.
Conveys a significant fresh perspective.
Working and Definitive Thesis
In the beginning, you develop a working or tentative thesis that gets more and more revised and refined as you struggle with the evidence and become more knowledgeable of the subject.
A writer who comes up with a thesis that remains unchanged is not elevating his or thinking to a sophisticated level.
Only a rare genius could spit out a meaningful thesis that defies revision.
Not just theses, but all writing is subject to multiple revisions. For example, the brilliant TV writers for 30 Rock, The Americans, and The Simpsons make hundreds of revisions for just one scene and even then they’re still not happy in some cases.
Four Models for Developing a Working Thesis
The Correcting-Misinterpretations Model
According to Greene and Lidinsky, “This model is used to correct writers whose arguments you believe have been misconstrued one or more important aspects of an issue. This thesis typically takes the form of a factual claim.
Examples of Correcting-Misinterpretation Model
Although LAUSD teachers are under fire for poor teaching performance, even the best teachers have been thrown into abysmal circumstances that defy strong teaching performance evidenced by __________________, ___________________, ________________, and _____________________.
Even though Clotaire Rapaille is venerated as some sort of branding god, a close scrutiny exposes him as a shrewd self-promoter who relies on several gimmicks including _______________________, _______________________, _________________, and ___________________.
The Filling-the-Gap Model
Greene and Lidinsky write, “The gap model points to what other writers may have overlooked or ignored in discussing a given issue. The gap model typically makes a claim of value.”
Example
Many psychology experts discuss happiness in terms of economic wellbeing, strong education, and strong family bonds as the essential foundational pillars of happiness, but these so-called experts fail to see that these pillars are worthless in the absence of morality as Eric Weiners’s study of Qatar shows, evidenced by __________________, __________________, ___________________, and _____________________.
The Modifying-What-Others-Have-Said Model
Greene and Lidinsky write, “The modification model of thesis writing assumes that mutual understanding is possible.” In other words, we want to modify what many already agree upon.
Example
While most scholars agree that food stamps are essential for hungry children, the elderly, and the disabled, we need to put restrictions on EBT cards so that they cannot be used to buy alcohol, gasoline, lottery tickets, and other non-food items.
The Hypothesis-Testing Model
The authors write, “The hypothesis-testing model begins with the assumption that writers may have good reasons for supporting their arguments, but that there are also a number of legitimate reasons that explain why something is, or is not, the case. . . . That is, the evidence is based on a hypothesis that researchers will continue to test by examining individual cases through an inductive method until the evidence refutes that hypothesis.”
For example, some researchers have found a link between the cholesterol drugs, called statins, and lower testosterone levels in men. Some say the link is causal; others say the link is correlative, which is to say these men who need to lower their cholesterol already have risk factors for low T levels.
As the authors continue, “The hypothesis-testing model assumes that the questions you raise will likely lead you to multiple answers that compete for your attention.”
The authors then give this model for such a thesis:
Some people explain this by suggesting that, but a close analysis of the problem reveals several compelling, but competing explanations.
Types of Argument
Informal argument is a quarrel, or a spin or BS on a subject; or there is propaganda. In contrast, formal or academic argument takes a stand, presents evidence, and uses logic to convince an audience of the writer’s position or claim.
In a formal argument, we are taking a stand on which intelligent people can disagree, so we don’t “prove” anything; at best we persuade or convince people that our position is the best of all the positions available.
Thesis Must be Debatable
Therefore, in formal argument the topic has compelling evidence on both sides.
The thesis or claim, the main point of our essay, must therefore be debatable. There must be substantial evidence and logic to support opposing views and it is our task to weigh the evidence and come to a claim that sides with one position over another. Our position may not be absolute; it may be a matter of degree and based on contingency.
For example, I may write an argumentative essay designed to assert America’s First Amendment rights for free speech, but my support of the First Amendment is not absolute. I would argue that there are cases where people can cross the line.
Groups that spread racial hatred should not be able to gather in a public space. Nor should groups committed to abusing children be able to spread their newsletters and other information to each other. While I believe in the First Amendment, I’m saying there is a line that cannot be crossed.
Thesis Is Not a Fact
We cannot write a thesis that is a statement of fact. For example, online college classes are becoming more and more available is a fact, not an argument.
We cannot write a thesis that is an expression of personal taste or preference. If we prefer working out at home rather than the gym, our preference is beyond dispute. However, if we make the case that there are advantages to home exercise that make gym memberships a bad idea, we have entered the realm of argumentation.
It is an over simplification to reduce all arguments to just two sides.
Should torture be banned? It’s not an either/or question. The ban depends on the circumstances described and the definition of torture. And then there is the matter of who decides who gets tortured and who does the torturing? There are so many questions, qualifications, edicts, provisos, clauses, condition, etc., that it is impossible to make a general for/against stand on this topic.
Why Argumentation Is Relevant
You make arguments for daily life problems all the time:
Should I go on Diet X or is this diet just another futile fad like all the other diets I’ve gone on?
Should I buy a new car or is my old car fine but I’m looking for attention and a way to alleviate my boredom, so I’m looking for the drama of a colossal purchase, which will be the source of conversations with others? In other words, am I looking for false connection through my rampant consumerism?
Should I break up with my girlfriend to give me more time to study and give me the “alone time” I need, or continue navigating that precarious balance between the demands of my job, my academic load, and my capricious, rapacious, overbearing, manipulative, emotionally needy girlfriend? (here the answer is embedded in the question)
Should I upgrade my phone to the latest generation to get all the new apps or am I just jealous that all my friends are upgrading and I fear they’ll leave me out of their social circle if I’m languishing with an outdated smartphone?
Should I go to Cal State and graduate with 20K debt or go to that prestigious private college that gives my résumé more punch on one hand but leaves me with over 100K in debt on the other?
Do I really want to get married under the age of thirty or am I just jealous of all the expensive presents my brother got after he got married?
Whether you are defining an argument for your personal life or for an academic paper, you are using the same skills: critical analysis, defining the problem, weighing different types of evidence against each other; learning to respond to a problem intellectually rather than emotionally; learning to identify possible fallacies and biases in your thinking that might lead you down the wrong path, etc.
We live in a win-lose culture that emphasizes the glory of winning and the shame of defeat. In politics, we speak of winning or losing behind our political leaders and their political agendas. But this position is doltish, barbaric, and often self-destructive.
Many times, we argue or I should say we should argue because we want to reach a common understanding. “Sometimes the goal of an argument is to identify a problem and suggest solutions that could satisfy those who hold a number of different positions on an issue” (8) Sometimes the solution for a problem is to make a compromise. For example, let's say students want more organic food in the college cafeteria but the price is triple for these organic foods and only one percent of the student body can afford these organic foods. Perhaps a compromise is to provide less processed, sugar-laden foods with fresh fruits and vegetables, which are not organic but at least provide more healthy choices.
Your aim is not to win or lose in your argument but be effective in your ability to persuade. Persuasion refers to how a speaker or writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or to follow a course of action.
3 Means of Persuasion
According to Aristotle, there are three means of persuasion that a speaker or writer can use to persuade his audience:
The appeal of reason and logic: logos
The appeal of emotions: pathos
The appeal of authority: ethos
Smoking will compromise your immune system and make you more at risk for cancer; therefore, logic, or logos, dictates that you should quit smoking.
If you die of cancer, you will be abandoning your family when they need you most; therefore an emotional appeal, or pathos, dictates that you quit smoking.
The surgeon general has warned you of the hazards of smoking; therefore the credibility of an authority or expert dictates that you quit smoking. If the writer lacks authority or credibility, he is often well served to draw upon the authority of someone else to support his argument.
The Rhetorical Triangle Connects All the Persuasive Methods
Logos, reason and logic, focuses on the text or the substance of the argument.
Ethos, the credibility or expertise from the writer, focuses on the writer.
Pathos, the emotional appeal, focuses on the emotional reaction of the audience.
The Elements of Argument
Thesis Statement (single sentence that states your position or claim)
Evidence (usually about 75% of your body paragraphs)
Refutation of opposing arguments or objections to your claim (usually about 25% of your body paragraphs)
Concluding statement (dramatic restatement of your thesis, which often also shows the broader implications of your important message).
Thesis
Thesis is one sentence that states your position about an issue.
Thesis example: Increasing the minimum wage to eighteen dollars an hour, contrary to “expert” economists, will boost the economy.
The above assertion is an effective thesis because it is debatable; it has at least two sides.
Thesis: We should increase the minimum wage to boost the economy.
Antithesis: Increasing the minimum wage will slow down the economy.
Evidence
Evidence is the material you use to make your thesis persuasive: facts, observations, expert opinion, examples, statistics, reasons, logic, and refutation.
Refutation
Your argument is only as strong as your understanding of your opponents and your ability to refute your opponents’ objections.
If while examining your opponents’ objections, you find their side is more compelling, you have to CHANGE YOUR SIDE AND YOUR THESIS because you must have integrity when you write. There is no shame in this. Changing your position through research and studying both sides is natural.
Conclusion
Your concluding statement reinforces your thesis and emphasizes the emotional appeal of your argument.
Learn to Identify the Elements of Argument in an Essay by Using Critical Thinking Skills
To read critically, we have to do the following:
One. Comprehend the author's purpose and meaning, which is expressed in the claim or thesis
Two. Examine the evidence, if any, that is used
Three. Find emotional appeals, if any, that are used
Four. Identify analogies and comparisons and analyze their legitimacy
Five. Look at the topic sentences to see how the author is building his or her claim
Six. Look for the appeals the author uses be they logic (logos), emotions (pathos), or authority (ethos).
Lesson for Rhetorical Analysis (Chapter 4 from Practical Argument, Second Edition)
Rhetoric refers to “how various elements work together to form a convincing and persuasive argument” (90).
“When you write a rhetorical analysis, you examine the strategies a writer employs to achieve his or her purpose. In the process, you explain how these strategies work together to create an effective (or ineffective) argument.”
To write a rhetorical analysis, you must consider the following:
The argument’s rhetorical situation
The writer’s means of persuasion
The writer’s rhetorical strategies
The rhetorical situation is the writer, the writer’s purpose, the writer’s audience, the topic, and the context.
We analyze the rhetorical situation by doing the following:
Read the title’s subtitle, if there is one.
Look at the essay’s headnote for information about the writer, the issue being discussed, and the essay structure.
Look for clues within the essay such as words or phrases that provide information about the writer’s preconceptions. Historical or cultural references can indicate what ideas or information the writer expects readers to have.
Do a Web search to get information about the writer.
Example of How the Rhetorical Situation Gives Us Greater Understanding About the Text
I came across a book about the alleged limitations of alternative energy only to find that the author is paid by the oil industry to write his books.
I came across a book by an author who writes about nutrition and I learned that his findings were contradicted by new research, which the writer did not address because the research refuted his book’s main premise and the publisher had already paid him a .75 million-dollar advance.
I came across a book that refuted the health claims of veganism only to find that the author blamed her severe health problems on a twenty-year vegan diet. This last example could hurt or help the argument depending on how the argument is documented. Was the author showing a strong causal relationship between her illness and her vegan diet? Or was her connection correlational?
When we examine the writer, we ask the following:
What is the writer’s background? Does he work for a think tank that is of a particular political persuasion? Is he being paid by a lobbyist or corporation to regurgitate their opinions?
How does the writer’s background affect the argument’s content?
What preconceptions about the subject does the writer seem to have?
When we analyze the writer’s purpose, we ask the following:
Does the writer state his or her purpose directly or is the purpose implied?
Is the writer’s purpose simply to convince or to encourage action?
Does the writer rely primarily on logic or on emotion?
Does the writer have a hidden agenda?
How does the author use logos, pathos, and ethos to put the argument together?
When we analyze the writer’s audience, we ask the following:
Who is the writer’s intended audience?
Does the writer see the audience as informed or uninformed?
Does the writer see the audience as hostile, friendly, or neutral?
What values does the writer think the audience holds?
On what points do the writer and the audience agree? On what points do they disagree?
Consider the Author’s Stylistic Techniques
Simile: A simile is a figure of speech that compares two unlike things using the word like or as.
Example: “We must not educate the masses because education is like a great flame and the hordes of people are like moths that will fly into the flames at their own peril.”
In the above example “like a great flame” is a simile.
“Gorging on plate after plate of chicken fried steak at HomeTown Buffet, I felt like Jonah lost in the belly of a giant, dyspeptic whale on the verge of spitting me back into the throng of angry people.”
Metaphor: A metaphor is a comparison in which two dissimilar things are compared without the word like or as. “We must educate the masses to protect them from the disease of ignorance.”
Allusion: An allusion (not to be confused with illusion) is a reference within a work to a person, literary or biblical text, or historical event in order to enlarge the context of the situation being written about.
“Even though I am not a religious man, I would agree with Jesus who said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to Heaven, which is why rich people are in general against the minimum wage and the social and economic justice a healthy minimum wage exacts upon our society.”
Parallelism: Parallelism is the use of similar grammatical structures to emphasize related ideas and make passages easier to follow.
“Failure to get your college education will make you languish in the abyss of ignorance, weep in the chasm of unemployment, and wallow in the crater of self-abnegation.”
Repetition: Intentional repetition involves repeating a word or phrase for emphasis, clarity, or emotional impact (pathos).
“Are you able to accept the blows of not having a college education? Are you able to accept the shock of a low-paying job? Are you able to accept the disgrace of living on life’s margins?”
Rhetorical questions: A rhetorical question is a question that is asked to encourage readers to reflect on an issue, not to elicit a reply.
“How can you remain on the outside of college when all that remains is for you to walk through those open gates? How can you let an opportunity as golden as a college education pass you by when the consequences are so devastating?”
Checklist for Analyzing an Argument (your own or a reading you’re evaluating)
What is the claim or thesis?
What evidence is given, if any?
What assumptions are being made—and are they acceptable?
Are important terms clearly defined?
What support or evidence is offered on behalf of the claim?
Are the examples relevant, and are they convincing?
Are the statistics (if any) relevant, accurate, and complete?
Do the statistics allow only the interpretation that is offered in the argument?
If authorities and experts are cited, are they indeed authorities on this topic, and can they be regarded as impartial?
Is the logic—deductive and inductive—valid?
Is there an appeal to emotion—for instance, if satire is used to ridicule the opposing view—is this appeal acceptable?
Does the writer seem to you to be fair?
Are the counterarguments adequately considered?
Is there any evidence of dishonesty or of a discreditable attempt to manipulate the reader?
How does the writer establish the image of himself or herself that we sense in the essay? What is the writer’s tone, and is it appropriate?
Applying your critical thinking to academic writing
You will find that your task as a writer at the higher levels of critical thinking is to argue.
You will express your argument in 6 ways:
One. You will define a situation that calls for some response in writing by asking critical questions. For example, is the Confederate flag a symbol of honor and respect for the heritage of white people in the South? Or is the flag a symbol of racial hatred, slavery, and Jim Crow?
Two. You will demonstrate the timeliness of your argument. In other words, why is your argument relevant?
Why is it relevant for example to address the decision of many parents to NOT vaccinate their children?
Three. Establish your personal investment in the topic. Why do you care about the topic you’re writing about?
You may be alarmed to see exponential increases in college costs and this is personal because you have children who will presumably go to college someday.
Four. Appeal to your readers by anticipating their thoughts, beliefs, and values, especially as they pertain to the topic you are writing about. You may be arguing a vegetarian diet to people who are predisposed to believing that vegetarian eating is a hideous exercise in self-denial and amounts to torture.
You may have to allay their doubts by making them delicious vegetarian foods or by convincing them that they can make such meals.
You may be arguing against the NFL to those who defend it on the basis of the relatively high salaries NFL players make. Do you have an answer to that?
Five. Support your argument with solid reasons and compelling evidence. If you're going to make the claim that the NFL is morally repugnant, can you support that? How?
Six. Anticipate your readers’ reasons for disagreeing with your position and try to change their mind so they “see things your way.” We call this “making the readers drink your Kool-Aid.”
Being a Critical Reader Means Being an Active Reader
To be an active reader we must ask the following when we read a text:
One. What is the author’s thesis or purpose?
Two. What arguments is the author responding to?
Three. Is the issue relevant or significant? If not, why?
Four. How do I know that what the author says is true or credible? If not, why?
Five. Is the author’s evidence legitimate? Sufficient? Why or why not?
Six. Do I have legitimate opposition to the author’s argument?
Seven. What are some counterarguments to the author’s position?
Eight. Has the author addressed the most compelling counterarguments?
Nine. Is the author searching for truth or is the author beholden to an agenda, political, business, lobby, or something else?
Ten. Is the author’s position compromised by the use of logical fallacies such as either/or, Straw Man, ad hominem, non sequitur, confusing causality with correlation, etc.?
Eleven. Has the author used effective rhetorical strategies to be persuasive? Rhetorical strategies in the most general sense include ethos (credibility), logos (clear logic), and pathos (appealing to emotion). Another rhetorical strategy is the use of biting satire when one wants to mercilessly attack a target.
Twelve. You should write in the margins of your text (annotate) to address the above questions. Using annotations increases your memory and reading comprehension far beyond passive reading. And research shows annotating while reading is far superior to using a highlighter, which is mostly a useless exercise.
An annotation can be very brief. Here are some I use:
?
Wrong
Confusing
Thesis
Proof 1
Counterargument
Good point
Genius
Lame
BS
Cliché
Condescending
Full of himself
Contradiction!
Two. How do we generate ideas for an essay?
We begin by not worrying about being critical. We brainstorm a huge list of ideas and then when the list is complete, we undergo the process of evaluation.
Sample Topic for an Essay: Parents Who Don’t Immunize Their Children
Most parents who don’t immunize their children are educated and upper class.
They read on the Internet that immunizations lead to autism or other health problems.
They follow some “natural guru” who warns that vaccines aren’t organic and pose health risks.
They panic over anecdotal evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous.
They confuse correlation with causality.
Why are these parents always rich?
Are they narcissists?
Are they looking for simple answers for complex problems?
Would they not stand in line for the Ebola vaccine, if it existed?
These parents are endangering others by not getting the vaccine.
Thesis that is a claim of cause and effect:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children tend to be narcissistic people of privilege who believe their sources of information are superior to “the mainstream media”; who are looking for simple explanations that might protect their children from autism; who are confusing correlation with causality; and who are benefiting from the very vaccinations they refuse to give their children.
Thesis that is a claim of argumentation:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be prosecuted by the law because they are endangering the public and they are relying on pseudo-intellectual science to base their decisions.
To test a thesis, we must always ask: “What might be objections to my claim?”
Prosecuting parents will only give those parents more reason to be paranoid that the government is conspiring against them.
There are less severe ways to get parents to comply with the need to vaccinate their children.
Generating Ideas for Our Essays
How do we prepare our minds so we have “Eureka” (I found it) moments and apply these moments to our writing?
The word eureka comes from the Greek heuristic, a method or process for discovering ideas. The principle posits that one thought triggers another.
Diverse and conflicting opinions in a classroom are a heuristic tool for generating thoughts.
Here’s an example:
One student says, “Fat people should pay a fat tax because they incur more medical costs than non-fat people.”
Another student says, “Wrong. Fat people die at a far younger age. It’s people who live past seventy, non-fat people, who put a bigger drain on medical costs. In fact, smokers and fat people, by dying young, save us money.”
Another heuristic method is breaking down the subject into classical topics:
Definition: What is it? Jealousy is a form of insanity in which a morally bankrupt person assumes his partner is as morally bankrupt as he is.
Comparison: What is it like or unlike? Compared to the risk of us dying from global warming, death from a terrorist attack is relatively miniscule.
Relationship: What caused it, and what will it cause? The chief cause of our shrinking brain and its concomitant reduced attention span is gadget screen time.
Testimony: What is said about it by experts? Social scientists explain that the United States’ mass incarceration of poor people actually increases the crime rate.
Another heuristic method is finding a controversial topic and writing a list of pros and cons.
Consider the topic, “Should I become a vegan?”
Here are some pros:
I’ll focus on eating healthier foods.
I won’t be eating as many foods potentially contaminated by E.coli and Salmonella.
I won’t be contributing as much to the suffering of sentient creatures.
I won’t be contributing as much to greenhouse gasses.
I’ll be eating less cholesterol and saturated fats.
Cons
It’s debatable that a vegan diet is healthier than a Paleo (heavy meat eating) diet.
Relying on soy is bad for the body.
My body craves animal protein.
Being a vegan will ostracize me from my family and friends.
One. Checklist for Critical Thinking
My attitude toward critical thinking:
Does my thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity? Or do I exist in a circular, self-feeding, insular brain loop resulting in solipsism? The latter is also called living in the echo chamber.
Am I willing to honestly examine my assumptions?
Am I willing to entertain new ideas—both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
Am I willing to approach a debatable topic by using dialectical argument, going back and forth between opposing views?
Am I willing to exert myself—for instance, to do research—to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?
My skills to develop critical thinking
Can I summarize an argument accurately?
Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
Can I present my ideas effectively—for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?
NOT long ago, friends of mine confessed over dinner that they had put spyware on their 15-year-old son’s computer so they could monitor all he did online. At first I was repelled at this invasion of privacy. Now, after doing a fair amount of research, I get it.
Make no mistake: If you put spyware on your computer, you have the ability to log every keystroke your child makes and thus a good portion of his or her private world. That’s what spyware is — at least the parental monitoring kind. You don’t have to be an expert to put it on your computer. You just download the software from a vendor and you will receive reports — weekly, daily, whatever — showing you everything your child is doing on the machine.
Scary. But a good idea. Most parents won’t even consider it.
Maybe it’s the word: spyware. It brings up associations of Dick Cheney sitting in a dark room, rubbing his hands together and reading your most private thoughts. But this isn’t the government we are talking about — this is your family. It’s a mistake to confuse the two. Loving parents are doing the surveillance here, not faceless bureaucrats. And most parents already monitor their children, watching over their home environment, their school.
Today’s overprotective parents fight their kids’ battles on the playground, berate coaches about playing time and fill out college applications — yet when it comes to chatting with pedophiles or watching beheadings or gambling away their entire life savings, then...thentheir children deserve independence?
Some will say that you should simply trust your child, that if he is old enough to go on the Internet he is old enough to know the dangers. Trust is one thing, but surrendering parental responsibility to a machine that allows the entire world access to your home borders on negligence.
Some will say that it’s better just to use parental blocks that deny access to risky sites. I have found that they don’t work. Children know how to get around them. But more than that — and this is where it gets tough — I want to know what’s being said in e-mail and instant messages and in chat rooms.
There are two reasons for this. First, we’ve all read about the young boy unknowingly conversing with a pedophile or the girl who was cyberbullied to the point where she committed suicide. Would a watchful eye have helped? We rely in the real world on teachers and parents to guard against bullies — do we just dismiss bullying on the Internet and all it entails because we are entering difficult ethical ground?
Second, everything your child types can already be seen by the world — teachers, potential employers, friends, neighbors, future dates. Shouldn’t he learn now that the Internet is not a haven of privacy?
One of the most popular arguments against spyware is the claim that you are reading your teenager’s every thought, that in today’s world, a computer is the little key-locked diary of the past. But posting thoughts on the Internet isn’t the same thing as hiding them under your mattress. Maybe you should buy your children one of those little key-locked diaries so that they too can understand the difference.
Am I suggesting eavesdropping on every conversation? No. With new technology comes new responsibility. That works both ways. There is a fine line between being responsibly protective and irresponsibly nosy. You shouldn’t monitor to find out if your daughter’s friend has a crush on Kevin next door or that Mrs. Peterson gives too much homework or what schoolmate snubbed your son. You are there to start conversations and to be a safety net. To borrow from the national intelligence lexicon — and yes, that’s uncomfortable — you’re listening for dangerous chatter.
Will your teenagers find other ways of communicating to their friends when they realize you may be watching? Yes. But text messages and cellphones don’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet. They are usually one-on-one with someone you know. It is far easier for a predator to troll chat rooms and MySpace and Facebook.
There will be tough calls. If your 16-year-old son, for example, is visiting hardcore pornography sites, what do you do? When I was 16, we looked at Playboy centerfolds and read Penthouse Forum. You may argue that’s not the same thing, that Internet pornography makes that stuff seem about as harmful as “SpongeBob.”
And you’re probably right. But in my day, that’s all you could get. If something more graphic had been out there, we probably would have gone for it. Interest in those, um, topics is natural. So start a dialogue based on that knowledge. You should have that talk anyway, but now you can have it with some kind of context.
Parenting has never been for the faint of heart. One friend of mine, using spyware to monitor his college-bound, straight-A daughter, found out that not only was she using drugs but she was sleeping with her dealer. He wisely took a deep breath before confronting her. Then he decided to come clean, to let her know how he had found out, to speak with her about the dangers inherent in her behavior. He’d had these conversations before, of course, but this time he had context. She listened. There was no anger. Things seem better now.
Our knee-jerk reaction as freedom-loving Americans is to be suspicious of anything that hints at invasion of privacy. That’s a good and noble thing. But it’s not an absolute, particularly in the face of the new and evolving challenges presented by the Internet. And particularly when it comes to our children.
Do you tell your children that the spyware is on the computer? I side with yes, but it might be enough to show them this article, have a discussion about your concerns and let them know the possibility is there.
Harlan Coben is the author of the forthcoming novel “Hold Tight.”
Harlan Coben Acknowledges Opposing Views
In paragraph 1, his gut reaction was to reject his friend’s use of spyware on his children’s computers.
In paragraphs 2 and 3, Coben concedes that it is scary to contemplate the ability to invade your child’s privacy with spyware, but he says it’s worth it.
In paragraph 4, he concedes that this is scary totalitarian tactic that “reeks of Dick Cheney” but he counters by writing we’re not government; we’re parents.
In paragraph 5, he makes a comparison argument: “parents fight their kids’ battles on the playground, berate coaches about playing time and fill out college applications—yet when it comes to chatting with pedophiles or watching beheadings . . . then their children deserve independence?”
In paragraph 6, he addresses the rebuttal that we should “just trust” our children, but he rejects this notion because we’re not talking about trust; we’re talking about neglect: “surrendering parental responsibility to a machine that allows the entire world access to your home borders on negligence.”
In paragraph 7, he counters the claim that parental blocks, not spyware, should be used by saying that he tried parental blocks, and they do not work. For example, they do not work with cyber-bullying or cyber-pedophiles.
In paragraph 9, he makes the rebuttal that the Internet already violates privacy; children should learn that the Internet is “not a haven of privacy.”
In paragraph 10, Coben rejects the comparison of private thoughts kept in a diary with Internet activities.
In paragraph 11, Coben distinguishes the notion of “being responsibly protective and irresponsibly nosy.”
In paragraph 12, Coben shows that texting on a phone is less dangerous than the Internet because the latter is more porous, allowing thousands of predators into the child’s world.
Coben concedes in paragraph 13, that there will be tough choices. At what point does a child’s curiosity for porn cross the line?
Coben concludes by saying freedom and privacy are not absolutes; they are relative terms that have to be addressed in a radically different way in our Internet age.
In “The Undercover Parent” (Op-Ed, March 16), the novelist Harlan Coben writes that putting spyware on a child’s computer is a “good idea.”
As a mother and advice columnist for girls, I disagree. For most families, spyware is not only unnecessary, but it also sends the unfortunate message, “I don’t trust you.”
Mr. Coben said a friend of his “using spyware to monitor his college-bound, straight-A daughter, found out that not only was she using drugs but she was sleeping with her dealer.” He confronted her about her behavior. “She listened. There was no anger. Things seem better now.”
Huh?! No anger? No tears or shouting or slammed doors? C’mon. If only raising teenagers were that simple.
Parenting is both a job and a joy. It does not require spyware, but it does require love, respect, time, trust, money and being as available as possible 24/7. Luck helps, too.
Carol Weston New York, March 16, 2008
Checklist for Evaluation Letters of Response (or any rebuttal for that matter)
What assumptions does the letter-writer make? Do you share those assumptions?
What is the writer’s claim?
In what ways does the writer consider the audience?
What evidence, if any, does the writer offer to support the claim?
Is there anything about the style of the letter—the distinctive use of language, the tone—that makes the letter especially engaging or especially annoying?
A Checklist for Examining Assumptions
What assumptions does the writer's argument presuppose?
Are these assumptions explicit or implicit?
Are these assumptions important to the author's argument or only incidental?
Does the author give any evidence of being aware of the hidden assumptions in her argument?
Would a critic be likely to share these assumptions, or are they exactly what a critic would challenge?
What sort of evidence would be relevant to supporting or rejecting these assumptions?
Am I willing to grant the author's assumptions? Would most readers gran them? If not, why not?
Assumptions in Carol Weston's letter:
One. She assumes that proclaiming herself to be a mother and an advice columnist for girls gives her credibility and superior moral standing. Some might say, her opening phrase sounds cliched and pompous.
Two. She assumes that spyware means "I don't trust you." That assumption could be in error. The parent could be saying, "I don't trust predators."
Three. She assumes that because the parent used spyware to catch his daughter using drugs and sleeping with the drug dealer that the discovery is somehow compromised because it hurt the daughter's feelings. This assumption is erroneous. The girl's welfare, not her feelings about getting caught or invasion of privacy, are the priority.
Four. When she lectures Coben by writing, "Parenting is both a job and a joy," she is implicitly saying that Coben is ignorant of the hard work and joys of parenting. In fact, she has proven neither. Again, she comes across as a pompous, ignorant scold.
Five. When she lectures Coben by saying parening requires "love, respect, time, trust," she again implies that Coben is abnegating his parental responsibilities by using spyware. To the contrary, Coben has made the case that Internet predators make spyware another took parents must use their toolbox to protect their children. Carol Weston's letter is not only wrong; it's insufferable.
Study the Templates of Argumentation
While the author’s arguments for meaning are convincing, she fails to consider . . .
While the authors' supports make convincing arguments, they must also consider . . .
These arguments, rather than being convincing, instead prove . . .
While these authors agree with Writer A on point X, in my opinion . . .
Although it is often true that . . .
While I concede that my opponents make a compelling case for point X, their main argument collapses underneath a barrage of . . .
While I see many good points in my opponent’s essay, I am underwhelmed by his . . .
While my opponent makes some cogent points regarding A, B, and C, his overall argument fails to convince when we consider X, Y, and Z.
My opponent makes many provocative and intriguing points. However, his arguments must be dismissed as fallacious when we take into account W, X, Y, and Z.
While the author’s points first appear glib and fatuous, a closer look at his polemic reveals a convincing argument that . . .
In-Class Exercise
Write an argumentative thesis that addresses Coben's essay and be sure your thesis has 3 mapping components.
Ways to Improve Your Critical Reading
Do a background check of the author to see if he or she has a hidden agenda or any other kind of background information that speaks to the author’s credibility.
Check the place of publication to see what kind of agenda, if any, the publishing house has. Know how esteemed the publishing house is among peers of the subject you’re reading about.
Learn how to find the thesis. In other words, know what the author’s purpose, explicit or implicit, is.
Annotate more than underline. Your memory will be better served, according to research, by annotating than underlining. You can scribble your own code in the margins as long as you can understand your writing when you come back to it later. Annotating is a way of starting a dialogue about the reading and writing process. It is a form of pre-writing. Forms of annotation that I use are “yes,” (great point) “no,” (wrong, illogical, BS) and “?” (confusing). When I find the thesis, I’ll also write that in the margins. Or I’ll write down an essay or book title that the passage reminds me of. Or maybe even an idea for a story or a novel.
When faced with a difficult text, you will have to slow down and use the principles of summarizing and paraphrasing. With summary, you concisely identify the main points in one or two sentences. With paraphrase, you re-word the text in your own words.
When reading an argument, see if the writer addresses possible objections to his or her argument. Ask yourself, of all the objections, did the writer choose the most compelling ones? The more compelling the objections addressed, the more rigorous and credible the author’s writing.
