ENGL1133 Essay #1: Critical Response

Types of Argument All arguments use one or more types of claims as basic building blocks. Understanding the types of claims helps focus on argument and generate ideas for it. It teaches characteristic patterns of support for each type; thereby you organize and develop your arguments. Simple Categorical Arguments (Is X a Y?, Where you and your audience agree on the meaning of Y. A categorical argument occurs when persons agree about the category (Y) that a given (X) belongs to. The strategy for conc luding a simple categorical argument is to provide examples or other evidence to show that X does or does not belong to category Y. Ex: Is surfing the Internet a new kind of addiction ? (X) (Y) Provided that the writer and the audience agree upon the meaning of the Y term “addiction,” all the writer has to do is explain whether or not surfing the internet is an addiction. Definitional Argument: (Is X a Y? , Where the definition of Y is contest ed ) In this case you and your audience disagree about the meaning of the Y term, hence you have to define the Y term and defend your definition against objections and alternative definitions. Ex: Using animals for medical research constitutes cruelty to a nimals. Here you would have to define what you mean be “cruelty to animals.” And show how using animals for medical research fits your definition. Definitional arguments usually have a two part structure: 1) A definition part that tries to establish the meaning of the Y term, and 2) The match part, that argues whether a given X meets that definition. Types of Definitions: 1) Aristotelian Definition: Regularly used in dictionaries, defines a term by placing it within the next large r class or category and then showing the specific attributes that distinguish the term from other terms within the same category. Ex: A socially responsible company is any company (next large class) that meets three criteria: It doesn’t pollute the environment; it creates goods or services that promote the wellbeing of the community; and it treats its workers justly (the specific attributes that distinguish the term from other terms within the same c ategory). 2) Operational Definition: In some rhetorical situations, particularly those arising in the physical and social sciences, writers need precise definitions that can be measured empirically ( depending upon experience or observation alone ) and are n ot subject to problems of context and disputed criteria. Ex: Consider an argument involving the concept of “aggression”: “ Do violent television programs increase the incidence of aggression in children?” To do research on this issue, a scientist needs a precise, measurable definition of aggression. Typically a scientist might measure “aggression” by counting the number of blows and kicks a child gives to an inflatable bozo doll over a fifteen minute period when other play options are available. The scie ntist might then define aggressive behavior as six or more blows to a bozo doll. Type 3: Cause/Consequences Arguments: Does X cause Y? , is Y a Consequence of X? This type of an argument entails cause and effect reasoning. Often such arguments arise from disagreement s about the cause of an event or a trend. Ex: What caused the stock market crash in 2002? Or What causes teenage males to become violent? Just as frequently, arguments arise from speculation about the possible consequences of a n action. Ex: What will be the consequences of banning abortion? Or Will gun control legislation reduce violence in the schools? The strategy for conducting Cause/Consequences Arguments is to describe the chain of events that lead from X to Y. If a cau sal chain cannot be directly established, you can argue indirectly, using inductive methods, or analogies. Resemblance Arguments: (Is X like Y) The general strategy for resemblance argument is to compare the first term to the second, pointing out similarities between them (If your goal is to make X like Y) or differences between them (If your goal is to make X unlike Y). Ex: Is killing starlings in your attic like killing rats in your attic? Or Does pornography degrade women the way neo -Nazi prop aganda degrades people of color? Methods of resemblance argument: 1) Argument by Analogy: The use of analogies can constitute the most form of argument. If you don’t like your new boss, you can say she’s like a Marine drill sergeant, the cowardly captain of a sinking ship, or a mother hen. Each of these analogies suggests a different management style, clarifying the nature of your dislike while conveying an emotional charge. 2) Argument by precedent: Precedent arguments are like analogy arguments in that they make comparisons between X and a Y. In precedent arguments, however, the Y term is usually a past event where some sort of decision was reached, often a moral, legal, or political decision. An argument by precedent tries to show that a similar decis ion should be (should not be) reached for the present issue because the situation of X is (is not) like the situation of Y. Evaluation Arguments: (Is X good or bad? Is X a good or bad Y?) Evaluation arguments ask questions about whether X is good or bad/ good or bad Y. Ex: Is a sport -utility vehicle a good urban vehicle? The general strategy for evaluation arguments uses criteria match arguing similar to that used for definitional arguments. You first establish your criteria for “good” in this specific case and then show how your first term does or does not meet the criteria. A special category of evaluation arguments (ethical arguments) deal with ethical and moral issues: Ex: Is it morally justifiable to spank children? Is it ethical to use human stem cells for medical research? Proposal Arguments: (Should we do X?) Argument types 1 -5 all involve changing your audience’s beliefs about something; proposal arguments call for action. Proposals ask your audience to do something, to act in some way. Typically, proposals use words like: should, ought, or must followed by action of some kind. Ex: Should gay marriages be legalized? Should the US provide universal health care for its citizens? The most typical strategy for making proposal arguments is to follow a problem -solution - justification structure whereby the opening section convinces the audience that a problem exists, the second section proposes a solution to solve the problem, and the last section justifies the solution by demonstrating that the benefits of acting upon the proposal outweigh the costs or the inheren t “rightness” of the solution. Arguing Value (What Good is This?) Value arguments fall into the evaluation category. When writers argue value, they are not merely expressing a personal opinion: They are working to shape other’s responses to something – To make others see the same qualities or dimensions as they do. Arguing Crisis: Any one crisis prompts a huge variety of possible responses. But those possibilities dwindle to a few. Arguments about crisis usually get whittled down to two possible options, and advocates of either side A or B argue over the one option while tearing apart the other. Insightful thinkers ofte n see through the crossfire, beyond the two common possibilities, and envision other options. Arguments about crisis often involve two layers: 1) the crisis, and 2) possible solutions.

Arguments about crisis should discuss hidden implications, blurred bo undaries, and potential consequences. Arguing the Past: (What Happened?) Generally, we base the present on the past – unless an argument about the past changes our perspective. Anyone bound for serious study of the present and future must first understa nd the link to the past. Arguments regardless of their specific position or focus make an important link between the past and the present. These types of arguments examine the history and make suggestions about present and future actions. Arguing the F uture (What is Going to Happen?) The future is by nature hypothetical; a strong argument thus actually creates a version of the future. Arguments about the future are always based on the past and present.

Therefore convincing arguments about the future ar e connected to what people already know about patterns of behavior. When we argue about the future, we must take into account not only what has happened and what is likely to happen, but also what could possibly happen. We must imagine a realm of scenario s – and then convince others that one particular path, out of unlimited possibilities, is the most likely