One. How might one argue against the sympathetic humanization of Mark Stroman in the book? How might one support this apparent humanizing of Stroman?
As Stroman gains introspection and begins to post on a blog, his pain and “death” from waiting in the Row becomes dramatized. His fatigue, sorrow, and tears are chronicled. Some would say this alone time in prison is bringing out his humanity and speaks to the cruelties of the Row.
Others would say this a “bleeding heart” piece, that Stroman is getting what he deserves, that killers always get soft in prison, getting in touch with their sensitive side and painting themselves as misunderstood misfits who deserve a second chance. Many, like Stroman, claim to have found religion.
Clearly, no matter what the readers believe, Rais is sympathetic and wants Stroman to be spared the death penalty.
My problem with Stroman and murderers like him is that they become part of some grand redemption narrative, with book deals, film makers showing up, and authors showing these amazing character transformations. In other words, these murderers become relevant, they become characters in our imaginations, and I wonder if this relevance they find as they become grand characters in the world’s collective consciousness feeds their vanity and encourages people in a perverse way to become part of this attention-seeking narrative as we try to find meaning in the chaos of violent crime.
Perhaps the biggest, real change in Stroman is that he views his family as the source of his problems, the reason for “being the way he is” (175). He finds a new group of people, such the filmmaker, who represent positive change and support.
Ilan Ziv tells Stroman that Stroman should be in prison for life without parole upon which Stroman says he killed because he believed that what he was doing was right (185). People should be accountable for being that dangerously ignorant.
Two. What does the book say about revenge?
Revenge is a never-ending cycle. Texas kills murderers to get revenge for their crime of murder. The 9/11 hijackers were looking for revenge. Stroman was looking for revenge. The cycle never ends (186). The theme of revenge as a never-ending destructive cycle is masterfully rendered in the 2005 film Munich.
The death penalty shouldn’t focus on revenge; it should focus on the murderer not being able to repeat his crime, either in or out of prison.
Anti-death penalty activist Rick Halperin argues that Stroman is a symbol for American violence in a post-9/11 world. America needed revenge and had “gone off the rails” by forgetting its essential nature of justice, fairness, and human rights as America wanted to lash out blindly and kill in the name of revenge (204). As Stroman turned to violence, so did America. Both Stroman and America “ignored the truth” we invaded Iraq, set up illegal prisons in Guantanamo and committed war crimes.
Three. What is the irony of Stroman’s psychological rehabilitation?
All of his helpers were from outside America. Here’s a man who lived by the “Born in the USA” adage, but ended up wanting his ashes discarded outside the USA.
Another outside influence, ironically enough, is a European Jew, Viktor Frankl, author of Man’s Search for Meaning.
Perhaps the book’s most cogent theme is that we should not be provincial tribalists, but embrace universal moral values that transcend nationality.
This book is about seeing people, not groups (190).
Seeing groups, not people, is at the root of a lot of violence. Think of all the mass killings since time and they are about killing groups without seeing the individual people.
Rais sees people and is a pious, peaceful Muslim who wants to help the poor. He is so good natured, he misinterprets the Koran to say that the Koran would save someone like Stroman from the death penalty, but the author points out that this isn’t true (228, 229).
In contrast, Stroman is a fanatical patriot who blindly wants to avenge the 9/11 attacks and ironically becomes the very terrorist he claims to despise.
McMahon Grammar Exercise: Parallelism
Correct the faulty parallelism by rewriting the sentences below.
One. Parenting toddlers is difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is that toddlers contradict everything you ask them to do; they have giant mood swings, and all-night tantrums.
Two. You should avoid all-you-can-eat buffets: They encourage gluttony; they feature fatty, over-salted foods and high sugar content.
Three. I prefer kettlebell training at home than the gym because of the increased privacy, the absence of loud “gym” music, and I’m able to concentrate more.
Four. To write a successful research paper you must adhere to the exact MLA format, employ a variety of paragraph transitions, and writing an intellectually rigorous thesis.
Five. The difficulty of adhering to the MLA format is that the rules are frequently being updated, the sheer abundance of rules you have to follow, and to integrate your research into your essay.
Six. You should avoid watching “reality shows” on TV because they encourage a depraved form of voyeurism; they distract you from your own problems, and their brain-dumbing effects.
Seven. I’m still fat even though I’ve tried the low-carb diet, the Paleo diet, the Rock-in-the-Mouth diet, and fasting every other day.
Eight. To write a successful thesis, you must have a compelling topic, a sophisticated take on that topic, and developing a thesis that elevates the reader’s consciousness to a higher level.
Nine. Getting enough sleep, exercising daily, and the importance of a positive attitude are essential for academic success.
Ten. My children never react to my calm commands or when I beg them to do things.
One. Critical Thinking is learning to cultivate informed opinions and to purge yourself of uninformed or misguided opinions.
Why do we read and write essays? They're just someone's opinions. Aren't all opinions alike? "
Some people say after reading an essay, “Well, it’s just an opinion.” But are all opinions alike?
Robert Atwan in his American Now textbook writes six major types of opinions.
As you will see, some are more appropriate for the kind of critical thinking an essay deserves than others.
One. Inherited opinions: These are opinions that are imprinted on us during our childhood. They come from “family, culture, traditions, customs, regions, social institutions, or religion.”
People’s views on religion, race, education, and humanity come from their family.
Inherited opinions come from cultural and social norms.
In some cultures, it's okay to tell others your income. It's a taboo in America.
We are averse to eating dogs in America because eating dogs is contrary to America’s cultural and social norms. However, other countries eat dogs without any stigma.
We are also averse to eating insects in America when in some countries grubs are a delicacy.
We think it's normal to slaughter trees every year as part of our celebration of Christmas.
We eat until we're so stuffed we cannot walk in America; in contrast, in Japan they follow the rule of hara hachi bu, which means they stop at 80% fullness.
Peanut butter in America represents Mom's Love; in France and Brazil, however, peanut butter is trash and an insult to place in front of someone.
In America, we put dry cereal into a bowl and then pour milk over it. That is not practiced in a lot of other countries.
In America when a woman says yes to a man's date proposal, the man, Louis C.K. tells us, will shake his fist like a tennis champion and scream, "Yeah!" We admire this behavior because we grow up seeing it.
We soak up these types of opinions through a sort of osmosis and a lot of these beliefs are unconscious.
Two. Involuntary opinions: These are the opinions that result from direct indoctrination and inculcation (learning through repetition). If we grow up in a family that teaches us that eating pork is evil, then we won’t eat at other people’s homes that serve that porcine dish.
Or we may, as a result if our religious training, abjure rated R movies.
Or we may have strong feelings, one way or another, regarding gay marriage based on the doctrines we’ve learned over time.
We may have strong feelings about immigration policy based on what we learn from our family, friends, and institutions.
We may have strong feelings about the police and the prison system based on what we learn from family, friends, and institutions.
Three. Adaptive opinions: We adapt opinions to help us conform to groups we wish to belong to. We are often so eager to belong to this or that group that we sacrifice our critical thinking skills and engage in Groupthink to please the majority.
A student from China back in the 1940s or 1950s was raised in the country. He went to a city school and the richest boy made a sculpture of a butterfly. Everyone loved the butterfly but my student. He explained that a butterfly had 4 wings, not 2. He was sent to the "dunce corner" for the whole day.
He should have kept his mouth shut or pretended that butterflies have 2 wings. That's an example of Groupthink.
Atwan writes that “Adaptive opinions are often weakly held and readily changed . . . But over time they can become habitual and turn into convictions.”
For example, it’s easy for one to be against guns in Santa Monica. However, those views might be less “adaptive” in rural parts of Kentucky or Tennessee.
It's easy to be a vegan in Southern California, but you'll have more challenges being a vegan in certain parts of Texas, Kansas, and the Carolinas where barbecue is king.
Four. Concealed opinions. Sometimes we have strong opinions that are contrary to the group we belong to so we keep our mouths shut to avoid persecution. You might not want to proclaim your atheism, for example, if you were attending a Christian college.
Five. Linked opinions. Atwan writes, “Unlike adaptive opinions, which are usually stimulated by convenience and an incentive to conform, these are opinions we derived from an enthusiastic and dedicated affiliation with certain groups, institutions, or parties.”
For example, the modern “Tea Party” people or self-proclaimed Patriots embrace a series of linked opinions: Obama is not American. Obama is a socialist. Obama is helping terrorists get across the boarder. Terrorists helped elect Obama. Obama wants to strip Americans of their right to own guns so that the government and/or terrorists can move in and take Americans’ freedoms.
As you can see, all these opinions are linked to each other. Believing in one of the above opinions encourages belief in the other.
Six. Considered opinions. Atwan writes, “These are opinions we have formed as a result of firsthand experience, reading, discussion and debate, or independent thinking and reasoning. These opinions are formed from direct knowledge and often from exposure and considering other opinions.”
Often considered opinions result in examining mythologies or fake narratives that are drilled down our throats and we deconstruct these false narratives so that we can see the truth behind them.
There are many fake narratives:
Columbus “discovering” America.
The European pilgrims “sharing” with the American Indians.
White slave owners “blessing” Africans with Christianity.
The pharmaceutical industry making our health job one.
Mexican workers in America "stealing" jobs from Americans.
Poor people "choose" to be poor.
Poor people deserve to be poor because they're bad, morally flawed human beings.
Obese people got fat from being morally flawed such as being selfish and gluttonous.
Developing critical thinking skills means being able to pick apart a false narrative and examine the true narrative behind it.
Some would define literacy as developing critical thinking skills and that failure to do so is to remain a mindless consumer, an obedient child to the parental authorities of market trends and advertising.
It's your choice: You can either swallow the blue pill (blissful ignorance) or the red pill (uncomfortable, often painful truth).
Two. Critical thinking is being alone.
Critical thinking requires solitude in general and solitary reading specifically. You need to quote Sherry Turkle and Louis C.K. You can’t use other people as “spare parts to fix your fragmented self,” as Sherry Turkle says. You have to be alone to connect with yourself before you connect with others. You have to be able to have solitude to sustain focus and critical thought.
Three. Critical thinking repels hype, the bipolar disorder of mass consumerism with the consumer hangover.
Consumerism is based on a sort of bipolar disorder, hype and the promise of ecstasy followed by the crash of disappointment and the hedonic treadmill: acclimating to pleasure to the point of numbness.
Four. Critical thinking repels propaganda, chicanery, and other forms of fallacious thinking.
I read a book about nutrition and it turns out the NYT best seller came up with information
Five. Critical thinking repels binary arguments in favor of nuanced ones. See page 6 of From Inquiry to Academic Writing. Real arguments are not binary (either/or); rather, sophisticated arguments explore the gray area, nuance, and complexity. Any argument that is cut and dry is not worthy arguing about. The death penalty, for example, is full of compelling evidence on the pros and cons.
Six. Critical thinking explores opposing views (and does not live in its own brain loop of fanboys).
If you’re a critical thinker, you stave off bullheaded ignorance by exploring your opponents’ views because your credibility depends on it. Additionally, you have intellectual curiosity and humility, which compel you to not be complacent with your positions.
Seven. Critical thinking is metacognition or The Third Eye, which addresses mindless bad habits (student essay about boyfriend who was a proxy for her hostility against her father).
As we said earlier, some people, either through going to college or some kind of spontaneous epiphany or simply life’s responsibilities and demands, are forced to evaluate their self-destructive behavior and proceed accordingly.
Eight. Critical thinking doesn’t focus on the trees at the expense of the forest. You can give things a macro look.
For example, you don’t major in something for money if that major and career make you miserable and depressed in the long-term.
Use example from film Welcome to the Doll House.
Nine. Critical thinking repels pride.
You can’t say to yourself, “I’m a critical thinker and people who aren’t like me are cave trolls.”
You have to have certain amount of humility to be a critical thinker because a critical thinker always reminds himself of two things:
One. How much stuff out there I don’t know.
Two. How dumb I’ve been in the past and how dumb I can be at any given second under the right circumstances.
Ten. Critical thinking is the accumulating of a vocabulary to give specific qualities to the sophisticated ideas you are pursuing.
You may need to know the following words and terms (a very partial list to be a critical thinker):
Schadenfreude
Make your audience drink your Kool-Aid: Make them believe in whatever it is you’re selling.
Evidence and proof: proof is absolute and conclusive; evidence is neither.
Ad Hominem
Straw Man
Proxy
Passive-aggressive
Canard: an unfounded story that turns out to be B.S.
Meme (imitated behavior that spreads through culture like selfies, photographing one’s restaurant meal and posting on social media, etc.)
Trope is a cultural stereotype that gains popularity in a culture; for example, on TV the bumbling father is a trope, as is the conniving teenage cheerleader and the effete and demure high school English teacher.
Effete means lacking masculinity.
Demure means modest and overly shy.
Elitist
Populist
Oligarchy (small group controls the country)
Corpitocracy (corporations control the country)
Hobbesian: the worldview that people are barbarians and brutes that can only be controlled by absolute authority.
Sturgeon’s Law
Rabelaisian (from French writer Rabelais): grotesque, unrestrained, exaggerated humor
Hedonism: the worship of pleasure as the highest life experience
Nihilist: one who believes in no meaning, no write or wrong, literally nothing.
Moral Absolutist
Moral Relativist
Narcissist
Eleven. When you become a critical thinker, you’ll find, from observing other people who have undergone a rigorous education, that you will be joining a new tribe, so to speak, and that there will be some distance between you and some family members and friends.
Old bonds will be broken. Some people can’t handle this, and they go back to their non-critical thinking ways in order that they can belong to their old tribal allegiances. I’ve taught dozens upon dozens of personal narratives about people’s educational journey, and this painful break between family and friends is a recurring theme.
To add to the pain of breaking ties, there is envy, which can be explained with the analogy of a bucket of crabs.
Non-critical thinkers know deep down that their ignorant state is a form of bondage and they want you to keep them company in their misery.
Clearly, you are better served at becoming a critical thinker and getting the hell out of that crab bucket.
Conclusion
Ignorance is not your friend.
Conformity to the fashion trends is not your friend.
Staying ignorant so as to not offend family and friends is not in your best interests.
And don’t tell family and friends: “I’m educated now; you’re not, so we have to part ways.” That’s obnoxious.
I had a friend who never went to college and as I got more serious in my studies, I never criticized him or explicitly told him we couldn’t be friends anymore; we simply grew apart.
It’s in your best interests, financially, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, etc., to become a critical thinker.
One. How does Rais’ medical bill of over 60,000 dollars speak to his search for the American Dream?
He arrives in America to find vertical upward mobility, gets shot by a racist, is nearly blind, suffers from nightmares and general PTSD, is asked to identify the criminal, and by the way, your bill for getting shot in the head is over 60K and growing with multiple eye operations (63).
Even Rais’ boss Salim, who is initially friendly and pays for the first medical bill, becomes cold and makes Rais say, “I was a dead horse to him” (65).
Two. What was Stroman’s “True American” manifesto?
We read the implications of this manifesto in Laura Miller’s book review:
Stroman would eventually renounce his former racist beliefs and actions, although some skeptics (including his own sisters) question the authenticity of his remorse. It was not lost on the condemned man that, during his final years on death row, it was a passel of mostly foreign strangers — above all the Israeli documentarian Ilan Ziv, but also assorted international opponents of capital punishment — who tried to help and reform him; his family, by contrast, made themselves scarce. During his first days in prison, however, Stroman was unrepentant, claiming, “We’re at war. I did what I had to do,” and mouthing other grandiose, macho and ultimately empty mottos lifted from movies and popular songs. He circulated a manifesto — taken from the Internet and containing the usual denouncements of government, gun control, liberals, racial minorities and immigrants — to which he gave the title “True American.”
The irony, of course, is that Bhuiyan, with his indomitable optimism, energy and determination, is much truer to the American ideal than the man who tried to kill him. In “The True American,” Giridharadas portrays two cultures contemplating each other, not so much Muslim/Bangladeshi and Texan as two versions of America itself. One, Stroman’s, looks back from a faltering present to an idealized past. “He felt himself and people like him to be standing on a shrinking platform at which minorities and immigrants and public dependents were nibbling away,” Giridharadas writes. The other side, Bhuiyan’s, looks toward the future and puzzles over the established Americans’ inability to seize their opportunities and shape their fates. “You guys are born here, you guys speak better than me, you understand the culture better than me, you have more networks, more resource [sic],” Bhuiyan imagined asking Stroman’s people. “Why you have to struggle on a regular basis, just to survive?”
Bhuiyan has a few theories about that, not all of which Giridharadas endorses. But what both men seem to concur on is the broken nature of poor white American communities, particularly the weakened ties between parents and children. “So much lonely, so much alone, even detached from their own family,” Bhuiyan tsked when he looked around him after first arriving on these shores. (That — however much he respected, loved and felt indebted to them — he’d still left his own parents behind in Bangladesh suggests that Bhuiyan may not find American isolationism a totally alien impulse.)
In the final chapters of “The True American,” Giridharadas recounts hanging out with Stroman’s troubled daughters and ex-wife over the course of a few days, delivering a finely textured portrait of lower-class despair and excruciatingly incremental struggles to regain control of life. This is where the power of his book makes its deepest impression, where it becomes more than Bhuiyan’s tale of immigrant gumption and almost superhuman mercy. Not that Bhuiyan doesn’t remain a shining figure, one of those individuals the rest of us want to cluster around like a campfire on a chilly night, but the truth is that most of us are a lot more like the Stromans: blinkered, self-justifying and swamped by our circumstances. This juxtaposition of the clay-footed reality of most lives with the incandescence of our potential pretty much defines not just the American condition, but the human one, as well. The whole story will always include both.
We read on page 77 that Stroman’s manifesto is a
worldview braided together by a variety of ideologies and outlooks: Fox News talking-head points . . . Aryan Brotherhood racism and Texan exceptionalism; Cato Institute libertarianism and middle-aged white-guy bitterness; old-fashioned nativism and Focus on the Family-style concern about social decay; “True American” national pride and a post-9/11 clamoring for “moral clarity.”
But Stroman is not portrayed as having well thought ideas or informed opinions; rather, he has mindlessly absorbed propaganda to support his “affirmed instincts” (77).
Three. How does our profile of Stroman add to the irony of the book’s title?
We read on page 86 that he is an unloved, abused boy, an isolated American who grows up hating The Other. Xenophobia and hating the stranger, or the other, is too often a fake cause of Americans’ problems.
In contrast, Rais comes from a loving family. He embodies America’s “family values” more than Stroman who claims to be protecting “American values.” With one eye, Rais doesn’t give up. He gets a job at an Olive Garden (116). Rais has some good luck. A friend gets him into computer training (128) and the Texas Crime Victims’ Compensation Program gives Rais $50,000 (129).
In America, the family is a “weakening institution” (87). Children become transients, alienated from their stepfathers, going in and out of the legal system, going to special ed, getting unskilled labor and then blaming the other, the “foreigner” (87).
Four. What insight about human freedom does Rais learn about human freedom on page 121?
Conspiracies aside, what Rais was perhaps discovering was that the liberty and selfhood that America gave, that had called to him from across the oceans, could, if carried to their extremes, fail people as much as the strictures of a society like Bangladesh. The failures looked different, but they both exacted the toll of wasted human potential. To be, on one hand, a woman in Bangladesh locked at home in purdah [female seclusion], unable to work or choose a husband, voiceless against her father; and to be, on the other, a poor, overworked, drug-taking woman in Dallas, walking alone in the heat on the highway’s edge, unable to make her children’s fathers commit, too estranged from her parents to ask for help—maybe these situations were less different than they seemed. What Rais was coming to see, though his Olive Garden immersion, was the limits of freedom for which had had come to America—how chaos and hedonism and social corrosion could complicate its lived experience.
In other words, Rais came from a society where freedom was too limited and now he was in a country where freedom was starving for boundaries.
3 Types of Claims Or Thesis Statements
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% to 80% 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?
One. What are the key similarities and differences of Bangladesh and America?
The poverty hell of America is less of a hell than in Bangladesh with one exception: The poor in America, Raisuddin observes, often suffer their squalor in a state of pitiable loneliness.
At least in Bangladesh, poverty is a communal experience.
Loneliness bears pathologies that Raisudden didn’t see in Bangladesh, a sort od craziness and desperation that leads to addictive behavior as people become more and more disconnected from people.
We read on page 4:
A fearsome wildness could thrive amid this isolation. The people around Rais seemed to him to live largely unobliged to their parents, their teachers, even in many cases their God. They had no one to answer to. Every man for himself, they sometimes called it. Four months at the Buckner Food Mart was plenty of time to discover what a terrifying idea that was. He was coming to see how the poverty of a place that is breaking can differ from the poverty of a place still being made.
It could be argued that Rais’ attacker was one of these lonely people who go crazy.
Two. What are Rais’ psychological characteristics?
He is longsuffering, full of fortitude, values charity, values sacrifice of short-term comfort for long-term success.
He shut his mouth when he broke his wrists during Air Force military training. He quit the Air Force Academy to go to America and pursue the American Dream.
He has a sense of justice and fairness. He is loyal to his employer. He is loyal to his long-distance love Abida.
He knows success, was in the military, and has enough education to work in computers, but suffers a gas station job, working from 5 AM to 1 AM.
He sees the 9/11 terrorists not as real Muslims but as evil people who because of their evil deed cannot be real Muslims (25).
Three. What irony in Mark Stroman’s shooting of Rais and how does this irony not only point to the book’s main theme but the writing assignment?
Mark Stroman sees himself as a protector of American soil, but in fact he is a crazy, drug-addicted, ignorant, racist, emotionally unhinged, attention-craving, suicidal, murderous xenophobe who represents a cancer on the American dream of justice and freedom. As such, even though he is a true believer full of conviction that he is a real American patriot, he is no more a true patriot, in Rais’ eyes, than are the 9/11 hijackers real Muslims.
In fact, Stroman has more in common with the 9/11 hijackers than any real American patriot and Rais has more in common with real patriotism and American values.
Essay One, drawn from The True American, is Due September 21:
Develop a thesis that addresses these questions: What are the challenges of achieving the American Dream as we find ourselves in a place where the terror that threatens America from the outside collides with the barbarian within? In other words, how does this collision of forces make the American Dream more precarious and fragile than ever? What forces of light and wisdom are illuminated in The True American that might help us navigate out of this crisis?
Your thesis is the one sentence in your essay that announces your argument to your reader.
Your thesis is your essay's central argument that can demonstrated with evidence and logic.
Your thesis is often debatable and allows you to address opposing views.
Your thesis is more than a general statement about your main idea. It needs to establish a clear position you will support with balanced proofs (logos, pathos, ethos). Use the checklist below to help you create a thesis.
Thesis Examples
Thesis That Supports Accepting Syrian Refugees
Americans should accept Syrian refugees because the intangible benefits outweigh the tangible risks.
The tangible risks are a lack of assimilation and financial burden on American tax payer and that some are ISIS recruits. However, to turn our backs on a humanitarian crisis makes us morally ugly and moral ugliness is not a legacy we want to pass down to our children. Moral ugliness is a disease that spreads evil. For two examples, America stood by during the Armenian genocide and stood by when European Jews were sent back to Europe as their ships waited for entry on America's coastline. Refugees from Honduras and El Salvador are being sent back to gang-ruled societies where children are forced to be foot soldiers for gang leaders.
Morally ugly societies rank low on the Happiness Index.
Another thesis example:
Even though we give lip service to having moral integrity, we find that none of us truly has moral integrity because our self-interest always compromises it evidenced by every day circumstances (cheating on a college test if you knew you could get away with it; finding millions of dollars of stolen money if you knew you would never get caught; finding a wallet, etc.)
The following section is adapted from Writing with a Thesis: A Rhetoric Reader by David Skwire and Sarah Skwire:
Make sure you avoid the following when creating your thesis:
A thesis is not a title: Homes and schools (title) vs. Parents ought to participate more in the education of their children (good thesis).
A thesis is not an announcement of the subject: My subject is the incompetence of the Supreme Court vs. The Supreme Court made a mistake when it ruled in favor of George W. Bush in the 2000 election.
A thesis is not a statement of absolute fact: Jane Austen is the author of Pride and Prejudice.
A thesis is not the whole essay: A thesis is your main idea/claim/refutation/problem-solution expressed in a single sentence or a combination of sentences.
Please note that according to the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Seventh Edition, "A thesis statement is a single sentence that formulates both your topic and your point of view" (Gibaldi 42). However, if your paper is more complex and requires a thesis statement, your thesis may require a combination of sentences.
Quick Checklist for Your Thesis Statement:
_____ The thesis/claim follows the guidelines outlined above
_____ The thesis/claim matches the requirements and goals of the assignment
_____ The thesis/claim is clear and easily recognizable
_____ The thesis/claim seems supportable by good reasoning/data, emotional appeal
Successful Thesis Template Examples
McMahon's argument that we should embrace Syrian refugees is flawed evidenced by ____________, ______________, ______________, and ___________________.
McMahon's contention that as a general principle we do not have moral integrity is form of cheap cynicism that collapses under the weight of various fallacies, which include ______________, _____________, ____________, and __________________.
The New Jim Crow is a failed/successful analogy to the original Jim Crow because __________________, ________________, _____________________, and __________________.
While Alexander makes a compelling critique of the mass incarceration system, her analogy between Jim Crow and incarceration as "The New Jim Crow" collapses when we consider ______________, ______________, ___________, and ______________.
While through Alexander's own admission the analogy between Jim Crow and mass incarceration as "The New Jim Crow" is not a perfect one, we can make the case that those who would dismiss her analogy entirely are in grave error when we consider these major flaws in their thinking, which include ___________, ___________, _____________, and _______________.
Michelle Alexander has written a brilliant critique of mass incarceration in which she points out its moral bankruptcy in ways that are beyond dispute. However, her book is a failure because she squandered the opportunity to point out the real causes of this moral bankruptcy, which include __________, ___________, __________, and ____________.
The assertion that Alexander's book falls short because it fails to address the deeper problems caused by free market capitalism collapses when we consider ___________, __________, ___________, and ________________.
While Alexander's book is hardly perfect and contains some serious flaws, her overall argument is compelling when we consider ____________, ____________, __________, and _______________.
Avoid an Either/Or Thesis
Going to college is in your best interests because ___________, _____________, ______________, and ________________.
Use stipulation (show conditions or requirements) and nuance (showing subtle distinctions) to inform your thesis and give it appropriate sophistication for a complicated topic:
If you keep your costs down and major in something that utilizes your passions and has strong market value, getting a college degree, while not guaranteeing financial success, is your best play for entering the job market.
Use concession clause
While majors in the humanities would probably not be in your best financial interests, marketable majors such as finance, accounting, computer science, and engineering should give you upward economic mobility if you can keep your costs down.
While the job market is declining while college costs continue to skyrocket, going to college is still your best play for upward economic mobility unless you are a tech or sales whiz.
Use refutation thesis
The argument of going to college or not is a false argument since there is overwhelming evidence that compels us to conclude that going to college is our best financial play. The real argument is WHAT kind of major do we pursue and at WHAT cost? In other words, the argument should focus on the ratio of financial potential to college costs.
The question isn't going to college or not; the real question is do I major in a "safe bet" and approach my career like a soulless mercenary or do I choose my major based on my passions and say the hell with making money?
We should not either major in a "safe bet" or a passion-based guarantee of lifelong poverty; rather, we should seek a balance.
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 . . .
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.
We can also use the bicycle spokes method in which we begin with a circle and make bicycle spokes all around the wheel. In truth, the spokes branch out more like tree branches.
Professional Hollywood writers use these methods.
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?
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.
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).
Eight. Do you recognize any bias in the essay that diminishes the author's argument?
Nine. Do we bring any prejudice that may compromise our ability to evaluate the argument fairly?
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!
Critical Writing
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.”
He can’t even articulate his hatred or the target of his hatred. He felt “anger and the hate towards an unknown force” and anyone with “shawls on their face.”
He bullied anyone who looked different, and his violence escalated.
In many ways, he is like the terrorist Mohammed Atta. We read, “He would become the patriotic American inverse of ‘Mohammed Atta and all them fanatics’ from 9/11.
