USING SOAPSTONE AND RHETORICAL APPEALS

Persuasion and Argument

Argument

Addresses a specific PURPOSEDirected at a specific AUDIENCEKey issuesAnticipated objectionsGathered support Logical reasoningTHESIS, THESIS, THESIS supported by

premises

Organization

Order of importanceChain of reasoningCause and effectRebuttal Concession/refutationProcess analysis

Modes of Discourse

DescriptionNarrationExposition

Comparison Contrast Cause/effect Classification Division Definition

Persuasive Appeals

Logos: appeal to logic Inductive reasoning Deductive reasoning Syllogism Cite evidence Quote sources Argue from precedent

Persuasive Appeals

Pathos: appeal to emotion Sensory details Include bias or prejudice Anecdote Connotative language Euphemisms Description or other figurative language Tone

Persuasive Appeals

Ethos: appeal to ethics—writer is a good person who knows and cares about the topic. Voice Persona of writer as trustworthy Demonstrate research time Support reasons with logical evidence Carefully crafted argument Demonstrate audience respect Concern about communicating with audience Writer is reliable and knowledgeable

Classical Argument Structure

Intro Catch interest Present issue with concrete image or anecdote Provide relevant background info Define terms State claim (THESIS, THESIS ,THESIS)

Classical Argument Structure

Concession and refutation Recognize and argue against OPPOSING VIEWPOINT

Find and point out weaknesses esp. in logical development

“Yes…but…” Demonstrates author’s view as more valid while granting

validity or acknowledging opposing views

Classical Argument Structure

Confirmation Body of the essay that supports the claim with logical

reasons and evidence Develops the argument Appeals

Classical Argument Structure

Wrap upRestate claimNew appeal to pathosEnrichmentFinal plea for call to action or change in

thoughtDO NOT REPEAT INFORMATION

Common Logical Fallacies

Ad hominem“to the individual”—attack

a target’s characteristics, not the argument

Ad populum“to the crowd” assumption that widespread occurrence makes idea true or right

Either/or reasoningseeing an issue as only having two sides

Begging the Questiontaking for granted something that actually needs proving

Hasty generalizationgeneral or premature conclusion based on insufficient evidence—only one or two cases

Non sequitur“it does not follow”

An inference or conclusion that does not follow established premises or evidence

References

College Board. (2002). Rhetoric. In The AP vertical teams guide for English (2nd ed.) (123-153).

Common Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoningattempt to prove one idea with an idea to similar to the first idea

Propagandawriting or images that seek to persuade through emotional appeal not logical proof—using highly connotative words or images without justification

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc“after this therefore because of this”Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident.

Rhetorical Structure—All parts must be included, but organization is writer’s choice.

Introduction Issue and ImageBackground InformationDefinition of Terms

Claim THESIS STATEMENTReasons & Evidence Reason 1-Type of Evidence

Reason 2—Type of EvidenceReason 3—Type of Evidence

Emotional Appeals Need or Value 1Need or Value 2Need or Value 3

Opposing Viewpoints Opposing View 1 Concede/Refute Opposing View 2 Concede/Refute Opposing View 3 Concede/Refute

Conclusion Restatement of Claim

Revisit ImageUrge Leader to

Action