A Lecture on the Elements of Argument

(for Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments)

1.) Defining Some Terms:

"Argument" =

• A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate

• A quarrel; a dispute

• A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood

• A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason

"Argumentation" =

• The presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments

• Deductive reasoning in debate

• A debate

"Persuade" =

• To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty

"Persuasion" =

• The act of persuading or the state of being persuaded

• The ability or power to persuade

• A strongly held opinion; a conviction

2.) The "Rhetorical Triangle."

• Writer

• Audience

• Subject

• Purpose / Position (thesis)

3.) Aristotle's "Three Appeals" Correspond to the "Rhetorical Triangle."

• Writer = ETHOS = Appeal to Ethics

• Audience = PATHOS = Appeal to Emotions

• Subject = LOGOS = Appeal to Logic

4.) Consider the following things to analyze and evaluate ETHOS (the "ethics" of the writer, the appeal to "ethics"):

• The writer's personal credibility = knowledge, experience, observation, evidence of research

• Trustworthiness; honesty

• Open-minded

• Fair -- vs. -- biased

• Thorough research; various "sources" of research -- e.g., personal experiences, observations, conversations/interviews, reading, imagination, etc.

• Respectful of opposition

• Use of appropriate tone(s)

• The presentation of writing -- formatting/document design, minimal/no errors, appropriate for audience, etc.

• Use of good, credible, widely-acknowledged experts

5.) Consider the following things to analyze and evaluate PATHOS (think of "pathetic," the use of emotions, the appeal to the audience's emotions):

• Use of emotions -- e.g., sympathy, empathy, pity, anger, condescension, etc.

• Manipulative?

• Effective?

• Use of [shared?] beliefs, values, assumptions

• Use of appropriate tone(s)

• Consideration of the opposition's views, questions, objections

• Incorporation of the opposition's views, questions, objections -- common ground? acknowledgement? refutation/rebuttal?

6.) Consider the following things to analyze and evaluate LOGOS (the "logic" of the argument, the reasoning in the argument, the appeal to logic):

• Clear structure / organization and coherence

• Clearly stated main ideas / reasons

• Clearly explained reasoning / use of logic

• Deduction -- reasoning from the general to the specific

• Induction -- reasoning from the specific to the general

• Use of strong evidence -- e.g., facts, details, examples/illustrations, statistics, experts/authorities, personal experience/observations, case studies, scenarios (hypothetical), etc.

• Avoidance of fallacies (errors in reasoning)

• Clear and thoughtful responses to the opposition's views, questions, objections -- simple acknowledgement; concession / common ground; refutation / rebuttal