9:22-End of Fall 2011

9:22-End of Fall 2011 - 17:11 COMM200 9/22/11 Reasoning...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
17:11 COMM200 9/22/11 Reasoning Example -Individual (one or two) vs. Aggregate (bunching lots of examples giving the claim more weight, many times through statistical evidence) examples - Factual (examples that have actually occurred, verifiable) vs. Hypothetical (made up but make sense, no real verifiable underpinning) examples Brief (more examples, less extended) vs. Extended (digging down and developing one example more fully) Analogy: Comparing one thing to another that have something in common -Literal- two things with many things obviously in common -Figurative- not as obviously alike, share one common thing Sign: Observable relationship between evidence and claim (see the sign and draw a conclusion) Physical observation - seeing it and jumping to claim Statistical Index - recorded measures
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Institutional regularity - tradition of the idea of something that happens over and over again, leading you to come to the conclusion (ex. Knowing it’s a sporting event because they’re singing the national anthem if you’re watching on TV) Cause: Relationship b/w two things and the impact they have on each other (ex. One thing in society leads to crime), genre of argument Prediction: making a causal link in evidence, blame and responsibility for phenomenon (ex. Global warming, “Inconvenient Truth) Explanation Responsibility Testimony: Brief individual example that credibility can come from Expert (taken more seriously) v lay (all about cred) Quoted v paraphrased argumentative choices Narrative: The way most people argue, anecdotal, leading people to conclusion based on a story or experience Narrative Resonance Reasoning/ Logic Fallacies -Ad Populum : claim is true because majority of people agree -Ad hominem : Attacking the arguer (arguing there’s something wrong with the person as opposed to the argument), below the belt -Appeal to pity : Try to win argument by making opponent feel guilty/bad -Appeal to fear: Accept the claim out of fear of what will happen if you don’t -Tu quoque : “you did it too”, genre of “everyone else does it” - Appeal to tradition: Notion that you should do x,y, or z because it’s always been done that way -Slippery Slope : one thing builds off of another, do one thing and it’ll snowball into a lot more. You can stop it at any point, but it’s the reasoning fallacy that goes along with causal inference (this will cause this which will cause this, etc) -Straw Man: Redirecting issue to part of dispute that’s not really in question -Fallacy of Composition: What is true of the parts is true of the whole (whole bad apple concept in families, because one person is bad, whole family is) -Fallacy of Division: What is true of the whole is true of the individual parts
Background image of page 2
-Fallacy of False Dichotomy (Dilemma): Positioning something as an either/or, when there’s a 3 rd part; false dilemma -Shifting the Burden of Proof: Rather than proving your point, use the fact that someone hasn’t disproven the claim as supporting material -Begging the Question:
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 16

9:22-End of Fall 2011 - 17:11 COMM200 9/22/11 Reasoning...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online