6
Argument
Critical thinking. Public debate. Active listening. Argument. These are all crucial to
maintaining a democracy. Aristotle warned that those who understand rhetoric, or
the art of persuasion, can control those who do not. Teaching argument, then, is at
the heart of writing instruction. Through written argument—editorials, civic and
professional proposals, letters of application and complaint—students claim their
place in society. The writing of argument also involves the reading of argument—
and the understanding of the features of argument and why it is (or is not)
persuasive. Argument, some critics claim, is the basis of all writing. Chapter 6
explains argument: planning, collecting and using evidence, organizing and
drafting, eliminating fallacies through revision. Students have the opportunity to
watch Matt Fisher as he works his way through the issue of drug testing in the
workplace, producing a final draft that acknowledges the various points of view but
argues for a position.
INVESTIGATING THE ARGUMENT: PLANNING
Selecting a debatable subject is crucial to effective argument. Many students need
help with this process; they want to argue highly emotional subjects about which
they have strong opinions and little information. Or they do not want to take a side
at all; instead, they want to “present both sides and let the reader decide.”
Exercise (p. 132)
1. This assertion is open to debate; it cannot be proved that all people who use
the Net will be exploited by government agencies. It is the opinion of the
author.
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
1
2. This is a statistical fact Jamie found in an online Macworld survey; other
surveys by other foundations would be useful here.
2
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
3
3. This is an opinion, which is also open to debate. The claim that cryptographic
software itself encourages international terrorism is overly simplistic.
4. This is a fact, although it requires embellishment to distinguish between
criminal acts of interception and interception performed by law enforcement
officials who are investigating potential criminal activity.
5. This is Jamie’s opinion, which he uses to formulate a thesis. The point is
arguable, which is one reason why it is the basis of a good thesis.
Collecting and Using Evidence
Collecting and using evidence must be done judiciously, and as Anna Quindlen
suggests, one needs to know when to stop and write: “You never get it all. You
simply run out of time.”
Exercises (pp. 134–135)
1. The statement addresses limitations to the use of the Internet in terms of
security. It is a judgment that is clearly pertinent and verifiable. The source is
reliable.
2. Steven Levy reports in Newsweek on the fact that the “Crypto Anarchy Clock”
presumes that criminal activity will flourish unless the government regulates
cryptography. This fact can be verified, and it is pertinent.
3. Duncan Chambers’s personal testimony reveals that he cheats with under-thetable packages. His testimony is not reliable.
4. The computer science professor presents a reliable judgment inferred from
verifiable facts. It is pertinent and reliable.
5. That strong cryptography software is available in other parts of the world is a
fact that can be verified. The judgment that trying to establish limits on the
export of cryptography is impossible is biased and not fully reliable.
6. The statistics from 1996 are verifiable and pertinent facts. What’s missing is
the method of forecasting used to project future figures. The company “Killed
and Associates” needs to be further identified to see if it is reliable.
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
4
Teaching with a Purpose
Considering the Opposition
To write “Their Side” fairly requires a kind of decentering that many students have
not heretofore experienced. Consequently, this writing task should prove eyeopening. In their attempt to present their opponent’s position without distortion or
misrepresentation, students are likely to understand and appreciate the opponent’s
position and the complexity of the issue in a way they have not before.
Exercises (p. 136)
Those in favor of governmental policy regulating key recovery will not be
disappointed in Jamie’s treatment of their point of view. He uses pertinent,
verifiable facts from reliable sources, and he presents the issues in nontechnical,
easy-to-understand language. Most students who write on computer technology tend
to be overly technical in their descriptions of how cryptography works, ignoring the
needs of their nontechnical readers. Jamie has avoided this pitfall, and instead
focuses on the argument itself rather than the many technical details about
cryptography.
Jamie presents numerous facts about the problem of “sniffing,” citing the
authority of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. He also quotes from
Netscape’s warning about security, provides statistics from an online Macworld
survey regarding the public attitude toward using the Internet to send sensitive
information. He could have represented more strongly the problem of unsavory
cyber underworlds by spending more time describing how criminal activity affects
all who use the Internet. His analogy of telephone wiretapping as a means of
arguing the acceptability of governmental intervention weakens the paper. Many
readers will recall governmental misuse of wiretapping during Watergate, and will
not agree that such activity is acceptable to the public. His final comment about the
key recovery proposal helping us all to maintain our right to privacy will please
supporters of the proposal, although he might have stressed this more by offering
more evidence about how this might increase security.
ORGANIZING THE ARGUMENT: DRAFTING
Anna Quindlen makes an important point in her interview comments: “In a true
controversy, the debate is taking place on so many levels—emotional, ethical,
social—that I can’t choose sides.” As Quindlen suggests and as we see in the case
of Matt, the more deeply one investigates a “true controversy,” the more difficult it
is to take a dogmatic stand and the less inclined one is to harangue the audience.
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
5
Exercise (p. 141)
Jamie does a good job of identifying specific groups of readers. Classifying each
group as “pro,” “con,” or “some of each” involves a certain amount of guesswork:
pro—software cryptographers, Internet consumers, employers who provide workers
with computers, competitors, stockbrokers, American Civil Liberties Union; con—
recovery key designers, Internet vendors, third-party designates, employees who use
the company computers, law enforcement groups; some of each—PC users,
hackers, legal defense attorneys. Of course, categorizing entire groups as for or
against unrestricted cryptography is not an exact science; no doubt there is an equal
distribution of supporters for Jamie’s point of view among all these groups.
Those who tend to support unrestricted cryptography argue generally against
other types of governmental intervention as well. Clearly those who create
cryptography would be in favor of the use of private keys, as would hackers. Both
groups are engaged in the making and breaking of codes. The American Civil
Liberties Union generally opposes all governmental restrictions on privacy.
Your students might conduct a classroom poll to find out what the breakdown
is of support for Jamie’s point of view. What specific types of readers do the
students fall into, apart from being PC users? You might have both criminal justice
students and software designers in the class. Find out if their perspectives are
predictable, or if they resist classification. This could be instructive for students as
they learn to consider audience profile.
Arranging the Evidence
The text simplifies the methods of logical arrangement and keeps technical terms to
a minimum. Although syllogistic logic is a fascinating study in and of itself and is
an unquestionably valuable method of reasoning, there is usually not time for such a
study in a writing course, and cursory treatment can cause confusion.
Accommodation, which derives from Rogerian logic, is an innovative form to
include, one that offers a useful alternative to the other two. In addition, students
learn how to control tone when they use accommodation because they are finding
common ground with the opposition and therefore learning to respect the opposing
point of view.
Exercise (p. 145)
1. The overall method of arrangement Jamie uses in his outline is that of
accommodation, along with deduction. He also uses claims and warrants. Part
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
6
Teaching with a Purpose
I acknowledges the need for online security and problems with cryptography.
Part II accommodates the key recovery proposal. Part III picks up with
problems with key recovery (which also creates cohesion by paralleling his
opening attention to problems with cryptography). Using deduction, he
concludes that only the honest will be monitored under a system of registered
keys.
2. All parts of the outline suggest the possibility for combining several methods
of arrangement. Students might discuss in groups what methods would best
support Jamie’s argument. They also might spend time discussing their own
methods of arrangement and compare what they decide to do in their papers
with what Jamie has done.
Monitoring the Appeals
The text adequately interrelates and puts into perspective emotional, ethical, and
logical appeals. Students may initially distrust emotional appeals while at the same
time unwittingly use them in their own arguments. The key to effective argument is
a combination of appeals.
Several points merit some in-class discussion. First, the writer’s attitude
toward audience or tone is one element in ethical appeal. Readers are more
persuaded by arguments that sound fair-minded and seem well informed. Second,
the idea that logical appeals are always matters of probability, not of certainty, is
worth repeating. Third, the idea that clear connections between evidence and
conclusions are what make appeals logical needs to be stressed. Often unclear or
missing connections in the inductive or deductive process make an argument faulty.
Exercise (p. 147)
Jamie uses all three kinds of appeals—emotional, ethical, and logical—in his
discovery draft. He begins his first paragraph by pointing out the increased need for
online security (a logical appeal), and he ends by establishing an emotional bond
with his readers by asking, “Did you badmouth your boss in that e-mail?” In the
following paragraph, Jamie uses the same pattern, first logically explaining the
concept of cryptography, then ending with an emotional judgment about the
“crooked souls” of criminals. He links this to the proposed system of third-party key
recovery, using an ethical appeal in explaining their reasoning.
When Jamie quotes from George Orwell, he acknowledges the melodramatic
(or emotional) appeal of 1984, which is presented as an authority. His use of Orwell
is both emotional and ethical and leads into the use of an authority for the other
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
7
side, which he questions. His explanation of key recovery as compared to
wiretapping is presented with a logical appeal as he points out the flawed
comparison.
Once Jamie has set up the argument and need for expanded cryptography, he
then dismantles the government’s argument for key recovery through the use of
logical appeal. His comparison of “digital domains” with one’s home, however,
presents a subtle emotional appeal, which works well with his logical analysis.
Overall, Jamie’s paper does a fine job of concentrating on the various types of
appeal. Many students who write papers on such topics as cryptography get mired
in technical explanations far too detailed for their audience, and they fail to address
issues of argument. Jamie’s paper, by contrast, explains cryptography in simple,
nontechnical language and highlights the argument rather than the technical detail.
His is a paper with a clear sense that the audience needs to be convinced of his point
of view rather than technical detail.
ELIMINATING FALLACIES: REVISING
As a way of reviewing the fallacies presented in this section, you might have the
class think of everyday examples of them (such as political speeches and
advertising). The class might brainstorm as a whole or in small groups, with each
group taking two or three different types of fallacies and reporting its findings back
to the class.
Exercises (p. 152)
1. a. Faulty analogy and begging the question: While there may be some
similarities between cryptography and the lock on your home, the two are
not exact parallels. The rhetorical question suggests that the issue is one of
trust rather than control. Proposed revision: Just as you choose who holds
keys to your home, so should you have the right to choose who has access
to your computer files.
b. Either/or: This statement allows only two options, ignoring other
possibilities. Proposed revision: Adopting a key recovery program may be
one way to help eliminate criminal activity over the Internet.
c. Faulty analogy: The statement assumes that wiretapping and a key
recovery program are alike in all ways. Proposed revision: Governmental
wiretapping in criminal investigations has helped control crime. A way to
control criminal activity on the Internet would be to adopt a key recovery
program.
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
8
Teaching with a Purpose
d. Red herring: The quote asserts that Americans want to use the Internet as
a means of controlling the world, diverting attention from the real issue of
Iraqi desire for world dominance. Jamie cannot revise someone else’s
quote, but the source of the quote should be pointed out.
e. Ad hominem: The argument is distorted by the attack on the ethical profile
of corporations that disagree with the key recovery program. The
statement is also an example of either-or thinking (either corporations
agree with key recovery or they are engaged in questionable practices).
Proposed revision: Some corporations conducting business overseas may
object to the key recovery program because governmental intervention
may restrict their ability to conduct legitimate business transactions in
other countries.
f. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Jamie makes the mistake of assuming that
adopting a key recovery program will definitely result in governmental
ability to unscramble the messages of criminals. The cause and effect is
not established. Proposed revision: Adopting a key recovery program will
make it easier for the government to check on possible criminal and
terrorist activity.
g. Hasty generalization: First National Bank is not the ideal third party
simply because it has branches in most cities. Other factors need to be
examined. Proposed revision: One reason First National Bank should be
considered as an ideal candidate to serve as third party for the key
recovery program is because it has branches in most cities.
h. Ad hominem: Workers are attacked as unsavory drug dealers out to
defraud the government. Proposed revision: All corporations and
government agencies need a key recovery program to protect them from
the possibility of becoming victims of criminal behavior.
i. Begging the question: The assertion assumes privacy now exists on the
Internet. Proposed revision: If the government adopted a key recovery
program, all electronic mail would be subject to monitoring for criminal
activity.
2. Both of Jamie’s drafts contain fallacies, among which are the following
examples: “Their Side” makes several hasty generalizations about
“cybercrooks” and their motives. Statistics from an online Macworld survey
are used to set up a binary opposition of “you-they” (either-or), with “you” as
the good guy and “they” as the bad who will use decryption to unlock
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
9
computer codes. Wiretapping and decryption key recovery are set up in a
faulty analogy.
“Our side” also makes hasty generalizations, overstating the case by
equating concern over online security with “paranoia about sniffing” among
Internet users. Jamie begs the question of motive when he asks “And since
when do we allow our government to monitor what we say?” He assumes the
motive is negative. By aligning the government with Orwell’s “Thought
Police,” he attacks the character of the government (ad hominem). He also
assumes the worst of the third party when he asks, “And who’s to keep that
third party from misusing your key against you?” He uses a limited “either-or”
logic when he states that “Key recovery should be abandoned in favor of the
positive effects of unrestricted cryptography,” failing to consider other
options.
What’s important in this exercise is that students try to identify examples
of faulty logic and argue why the statement is weak by classifying the type of
error in logic. More important than getting the right answer is students’
abilities to argue why they have identified a certain classification.
READINGS
“The Penalty of Death,” H. L. Mencken
You might want to ask students to role-play different sides of the question to focus
on the types of arguments Mencken uses in his essay. In addition, you might want
students to research other articles on the death penalty that may have appeared
around the same time Mencken’s essay was published so they can read the essay
within its social context.
Discussion questions (p. 154). How carefully does Mencken present “Their Side”
of the argument? In what ways does Mencken use emotional, ethical, or logical
appeals? Identify specific places where he oversimplifies or distorts evidence.
Mencken tries to refute two common arguments against capital punishment.
The first argument—that capital punishment is degrading to all concerned—
Mencken simply brushes aside, claiming it “is plainly too weak to need serious
refutation.” It is weak because it begs the question, and Mencken might have
suggested this rather than taking on an air of superiority, which alienates the reader.
He does grant that “the work of the hangman is unpleasant,” but his tone does not
indicate respect for the point of view. He asks what evidence there is “that any
actual hangman complains of his work” and states that “on the contrary, I have
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
10
Teaching with a Purpose
known many who delighted in their ancient art, and practiced it proudly.” He does
not supply names or statistics to support this assertion.
Mencken’s examples of “other jobs that are unpleasant” distort the argument
because the work performed by plumbers, garbage men, and priests is not parallel to
that of hangmen. Perhaps the job of the soldier during wartime—killing the
enemy—could be considered parallel. Most offensive to the “other side” in this
argument, however, is Mencken’s total lack of accommodation.
As Mencken examines the second argument—that capital punishment does not
serve as a deterrent—he attacks what he views as its assumption that deterrence is
the only reason for punishment. “On the contrary,” he tells us, “there are at least
half a dozen” other reasons capital punishment should be used. The irony is that
while Mencken claims that the deterrence argument confuses a part with the whole,
he confuses the argument by introducing a red herring—that the issue is not
deterrence but catharsis. In drawing on Aristotle as an authority, Mencken tries to
underscore the sense of infallibility in his argument because Aristotle is almost
godlike in his influence over Western thought.
Mencken then oversimplifies by claiming that victims are concerned primarily
with “seeing the criminal actually before them suffer as he made them suffer.” He
uses an emotional appeal later in the same paragraph with the example of the
shopkeeper who becomes the victim of a theft committed by his own bookkeeper.
Although Mencken appears to supply substantiated evidence, the facts cannot be
borne out because the case appears to be hypothetical. From this hypothetical case,
Mencken moves inductively to a general statement about “every” law-abiding
citizen who cares more about getting even than about deterring crime. By
introducing the larger community, Mencken tries to invoke an ethical argument,
establishing his concern for the effects of crime on society.
Mencken then introduces a logical argument: The real reason for the objection
to capital punishment is the lengthy process of adjudicating criminal activity. But
the logical appeal of this argument is hidden through distortion because Mencken
judges the American system as “irrational,” the activities of lawyers as “idiotic
buffoonery,” and the sentencing by judges as “imbecility.” Although Mencken
agrees with the opposition that the wait for sentencing is “horribly cruel,” the effect
of his argument is to alienate the reader by his ad hominem presentation. At the end
of his article, Mencken uses logical, emotional, and ethical arguments, but he brings
in God as an expert witness, claiming that God can “forgive a whole herd of
murderers in a millionth of a second.”
“Execution,” Anna Quindlen
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
11
Discussion questions (p. 156). How does Quindlen present the evidence for the
contending positions? How does she introduce and support her own opinions?
Which argument on this issue is more effective—Mencken’s dismissal of the
opposition or Quindlen’s attempt to accommodate the opposing positions?
Quindlen’s comments on her organizational style could be used to draw up an
outline of her essay on capital punishment. She begins with an anecdote about her
experiences as a reporter following the “Ted murders,” then states her opposition to
the death penalty. After this, she presents the issues (what she calls her “nut
paragraph”), introducing the complication of the emotional angle: “whenever my
response to an important subject is rational and completely cerebral, I know there is
something wrong with it.” Quindlen shows the many levels of the debate
(emotional, ethical, social) in her essay as she acknowledges her own wavering
attitude toward the issue of capital punishment. However, despite a switching back
and forth, she does not remain in the middle, but ultimately maintains a position
against the death penalty. The death penalty is wrong, she states, “not only because
it consists of stooping to the level of the killers, but because it is not what it seems.”
Quindlen identifies her humanness to her audience by sharing her personal
viewpoint in its many manifestations: as reporter, as mother, as young woman who
herself could have been killed by Ted Bundy. She openly acknowledges the
emotional dimension of her decision making, even shocks the audience by
admitting a certain fascination with Ted Bundy’s victims whose photos revealed
faces much like her own. Quindlen relies heavily on expert testimony from her
experiences as a reporter. She cites facts from the Ted Bundy case and from a
television show about lethal injection. She makes judgments about what most
proponents want from the death penalty (not deterrence but revenge, as Mencken
also states). By introducing the emotional complications of the desire for “justice,”
Quindlen shows that “truth” lies somewhere in the middle of the opposing positions,
even though she comes out against capital punishment. Sympathetically
acknowledging the opposition, she establishes a strong connection with her
audience, which makes her argument far more effective than Mencken’s dismissal
of the opposing positions. Although her reasoning is logical, Quindlen shows that
logic in itself does not offer the ultimate proof. Part of what makes her argument
compelling is the way in which she acknowledges her own emotional response. Her
essay illustrates how the various appeals (emotional, logical, and ethical) interact
with one another. Although she begins and ends with a stand against the death
penalty, her writing shows that she has considered “Their Side,” taking the
arguments in favor of the death penalty seriously.
“Fighting for Our Lives,” Deborah Tannen
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
12
Teaching with a Purpose
Discussion questions (p. 158). Why does Tannen distinguish between making an
argument and having an argument? Why does she prefer dialogue to criticism? Why
does she object to the assertion that there are “two sides to every story”?
Tannen is sensitive to our cultural etiquette about civility. Arguments in the
era of Jerry Springer and the Capitol Hill Gang are ugly “food fights.” To have an
argument, then, suggests anger, shouting, and physical abuse. To make an argument
suggests a more civil, reasoned process in which the author tries to carefully
identify the issue, outline the evidence, and draw conclusions that make sense to
everyone.
Tannen objects to the “two sides” problem because it forces the argument to
be framed as a fallacy: either A, or B. In fact there may be only one side to the story
or, more likely, many sides to the story. As Quindlen points out, nothing is simply
one way or the other. Tannen’s example of the Holocaust denial shows how the
media in trying to be fair end up being ridiculous.
WRITING ASSIGNMENTS
1. Narrate: Most students have experienced instances when they felt unfairly
treated. This assignment enables them to focus on a particular event and
construct logical and ethical as well as emotional arguments. If students have
had limited experience in the workplace, they might identify an incident that
occurred at school, on a sports team, during a volunteer activity, or at home
with their parents. They should clearly state the policy or rule that was in use
and outline how the policy abused civil rights. Students should also define
civil rights as they understand the concept and research the legal definition.
2. Observe: Essentially an ethnographic study in which students are “in the field”
observing the reactions of real people, the assignment also gives students
practice in mediation. Stress that although they are not choosing sides, they are
improving communication in order to bring the two sides together. Students
will argue for a solution rather than for or against Bennett or Katz.
3. Investigate: Students might be interested in studying the role of argument in
the particular profession to which they aspire. Because everyone sees value in
“getting my way,” students might cast this assignment in terms of a manual to
help prospective engineers, for example, present themselves in various
situations, particularly if they are competing for an engineering contract. What
about police officers who must listen to reports of disturbances from the
different players? In what ways can they persuade victims of crime to give
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
13
“just the facts”? Urge students to examine the whole person as they conduct
their investigations. Personality does count and can contribute to the
persuasiveness of an argument. Logic is not all.
4. Collaborate: Students should first be clear about their individual stand on the
issue; then they should concentrate on active listening within their groups.
You might first ask students to freewrite in their journals on the issue and then
write a statement that describes their individual point of view. Next, each
student should be given a specific amount of time (two minutes) in which to
state her or his point of view without interruption from group members. From
here, they can discuss the issue and outline a common ground. Students may
be surprised to discover the level of agreement they will find as they discuss
why they hold their views.
5. Read: Headlines have always been controversial and confrontational, filled
with outrageous language. This assignment asks students to evaluate the
metaphors of war in all sorts of stories posted in online newspapers. An
interesting research study would ask students to pick a particular topic—sports
(baseball)—and see if the metaphors have changed during the twentieth
century. Reading old newspapers and new online newspapers would help place
these metaphors in a historical/cultural context.
6. Respond: This is a particularly good assignment for use in a journal, which
would allow students to conduct a personal case study on their own reading
processes and responses. You might later ask students to use their journal
entries as the basis for a discussion on the effects of word choice and
argument. Students might also use the journal entries as planning notes as they
begin a longer essay on Mencken’s argument. You might also ask students to
compare the kind of arguments Mencken uses, keeping in mind the context
when he wrote the piece, to the article written by Quindlen. When did
Mencken write the essay? What else was being debated during that time? How
does Quindlen’s essay reflect the thinking of the 1990s?
7. Analyze: Anna Quindlen begins her essay with eyewitness testimony about
Ted Bundy from the point of view of a young female reporter who followed
the story from Washington State to Utah, Colorado, and, finally, Florida.
Quindlen merges facts about the case with her own fascination and sense of
identity with Bundy’s victims. Separating her feelings about the Ted Bundy
case in particular from the death penalty generally, Quindlen makes a
judgment about the death penalty, stating that, rationally, “the killing of one
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
14
Teaching with a Purpose
human being as punishment for the killing of another makes no sense and is
inherently immoral.” However, she acknowledges an emotional dimension to
the issue, which complicates making a judgment on purely logical grounds.
She cites facts about other cases. She makes the judgment that “The only
reason for a death penalty is to exact retribution.” As stated, this appears as
fact. However, it is arguable that the only reason is retribution. She dismisses
the idea of deterrence, citing expert testimony of criminals she has known and
their attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Quindlen agrees with
Mencken on the issue of retribution, but her argument is more convincing than
Mencken’s since she acknowledges “their side” as well as her own difficulty
in taking a stand. In the end, she still maintains that the death penalty is wrong.
She now adds another reason besides morality: The death penalty is not what it
appears, since exact retribution is never possible. She also acknowledges the
emotional and ethical responses that go into making such a complex decision.
8. Evaluate: This exercise requires students to set up specific criteria for what
makes good writing. They will come to understand not only what they value in
writing, but how to articulate their criteria. Their letter to Jamie must be
persuasive and tactful; this is a good assignment to use in helping students
understand audience, tone, and persuasion.
9. Argue: Who decides, particularly in a democracy, which issues get attention?
Who decides which opinions are most weighty? As students research a
particular issue, they might want to look especially at who backs the issue—
individuals or groups? If individuals back the issue, who are these individuals?
What lends credibility to their opinions? If groups back the issue, what is the
history of their argument—how has it been shaped, or revised, through public
forums? What about “voiceless” citizens? Who speaks for those who cannot
speak for themselves on such issues as prisoner rights, mental health reform,
and affordable housing? Are red herrings introduced that trivialize issues or
send them to the sidelines? You might encourage students to work together on
particular issues about which they feel passionately and to see if their research
can lead to an actual hearing in front of a local government representative.
10. Argue: This is an excellent assignment to help students assess their
educational experience. A simple way to begin is to ask which style is most
effective—teaching by intimidation or negotiation. Most academic arguments
are staged as battles in which students have to destroy those who have written
about a subject before they can advance their own hypothesis. Does this sound
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
15
like a civilized education? Why are those who seem ready to negotiate
perceived as weak and unprepared?
USING THE WRITING CENTER
Tutors can be very helpful in responding to the logic and organization of student
essays. If the thesis and point of view are not clear, tutors can help by asking
students to clarify what they mean. Students often think they have written clearly
stated arguments until someone else reads the essay and expresses confusion. Tutors
ask students to reconsider their evidence: “Are you sure about this fact? Are there
other ways to look at it? Who made this statement?”
Often, students have difficulty stating their opinion because they are not really
sure what their opinion is, and even if they do know what it is, they are not
convinced that their opinion matters. They are also so busy trying to figure out how
to unravel the assignment so they can successfully please the instructor and get a
good grade that they do not have the time to engage themselves in a thorough
examination of an issue. Looking at many different sides of a question can be
unsettling for students, particularly those who are what Karen Spear and William
Perry refer to as “dualistic thinkers,” those who couple Truth with Authority:
“Because of their crippling dependence on Authority as a source of truth, dualistic
thinkers fail as makers of meaning. . . . These students are unable to perceive
implicit connections among ideas or to supply those connections from their own
musings on a topic” (68). The role of the Writing Center tutor in working with such
students is to promote cognitive awareness through the use of questions and to
encourage the student to participate in the “conversation” that takes place among
the “authorities” that the student is interviewing and reading. The role of the
classroom is to provide an outlet for the flow of ideas from many sources, including
other students.
Students will often cite evidence and dutifully credit the quote but leave the
reader hanging by failing to explain what the quote means or why it is important to
the argument. Tutors can help students take a careful look at the evidence they are
using by responding “This seems like a good quote. What do you think it means?
Why did you use it in this particular paragraph?” In this way, students learn to “talk
back” appropriately to authority and participate in academic inquiry. Tutors can also
help students document the evidence by using an appropriate documentation style.
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE COLLABORATIVE
CLASSROOM
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
16
Teaching with a Purpose
Most of the exercises and writing assignments may be recast as in-class
collaborative activities. Here are some additional suggestions:
•
Ask students to list all the “arguments” they have had with someone (or with
themselves, for that matter) in the past week. Then ask them to call out the
topics of some of the arguments. Make a collective list on the board. After the
board is filled, ask students to write a controversial statement about each
subject. How many are actually debatable? Remind them that a debatable
subject is one about which reasonable people disagree because they have
reached different conclusions based on the evidence or because they do not
share the same assumptions about the issue. Matters of faith, taste, fact, or
intuitive opinion are not debatable in logical terms. Students could take this
exercise further by writing brief statements for “my side,” “their side,” and
accommodation arguments.
•
Organize an informal classroom “debate.” Choose a controversial campus or
social topic, and write a debatable proposition on the board. Assign one group
to generate arguments in favor of the proposition, a second group to argue
against the proposition, and a third group to accommodate arguments. After
about twenty minutes, reconvene the class. Each group presents its arguments;
then each group has ten minutes to formulate a rebuttal. As groups 1 and 2 are
presenting their arguments, group 3 takes notes. During the ten-minute rebuttal
formulation, group 3 critiques the other two groups’ arguments in terms of
their own accommodating arguments. After groups 1 and 2 have presented
their rebuttals, group 3 convenes briefly to make any final changes in its
argument before presenting it to the class. This activity could prepare students
for the work of formulating their own arguments as they research their papers.
•
Ask students to role-play in groups on a controversial issue such as abortion.
Pass out to each student a small piece of paper on which is written a particular
role in a particular situation (unmarried pregnant teenager, unemployed father
of the child, the Catholic mother of the unmarried teenager, a school
counselor, a married woman with three children all older than twelve, a
husband who has learned that his wife is carrying yet another female child
when he had hoped for a male child). Each group member should quickly
decide how that person is likely to feel about abortion and brainstorm the
reasons for that point of view. Group members should then formulate a policy
together based on the individual stories they represent. The group should list
the arguments; assess whether the arguments are emotional, logical, or ethical;
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6 • Argument
17
and then try to classify each argument. The group should examine each
argument for fallacies and try to revise the argument into a convincing
statement of evidence. The group could then write a collaborative essay, with
each student contributing evidence from the particular point of view he or she
has adopted. This activity could be tailored as a once-only in-class exercise or
as an extended week-long activity in which students research their arguments
in more detail.
•
Although this exercise may be overused, it might be helpful in giving students
practice in analyzing arguments in their everyday life: Ask students to bring in
examples of advertisements from newspapers or magazines. In groups,
students could answer the following questions: What is being advertised? Who
is the potential audience? What is the point of view being offered? What types
of argument, both visual and verbal, are being employed?
Peer response sheets, such as the following sample, are enormously helpful to
the writer of an argument:
Argument
Peer respondent:
Writer:
1. What do you understand the writer’s proposition to be in this argument?
2. How is the argument structured? Inductively? Deductively? Both?
Accommodatively?
3. What points or reasons does the writer offer in support of his or her central
contention? Can you think of additional points that the writer could add?
4. What kinds of evidence does the writer use to back up these points? Is this
evidence pertinent, reliable, and verifiable? Can you think of additional
evidence that the writer could use?
5. What appeals does the writer use? How effective are they?
6. Do you find any logical fallacies?
7. Does the writer acknowledge opposing points of view? Where and how?
8. How can the writer revise this argument to make it more persuasive?
SOURCES AND ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
18
Teaching with a Purpose
For an in-depth discussion of formal argument, see Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor’s A
Rhetoric of Argument (New York: Random, 1982) or the chapter on logic in Maxine
Hairston’s A Contemporary Rhetoric (Boston: Houghton, 1986).
For a modern view of classical rhetoric, see Winifred Bryan Horner, Rhetoric in the
Classical Tradition (New York: St. Martin’s, 1988).
Lil Brannon and Cy Knoblauch provide a provocative analysis of the effects of rhetorical
traditions in the writing classroom in Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing
(Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton, 1984).
For an assessment of the effects of rhetoric on current writing theory and practical advice on
using rhetoric in the writing classroom, see Göran “George” Moberg, “The Revival of
Rhetoric: A Bibliographic Essay,” Journal of Basic Writing 9 (1990): 66–82.
Karen I. Spear discusses the role of authority in the search for truth among many basic
writers in “Promoting Cognitive Development in the Writing Center,” Writing Centers:
Theory and Administration, ed. Gary A. Olsen (Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1984): 62–76.
For more information on the topic of cryptography, which may interest your students, see
Aviel D. Rubin, Daniel Green, and Marcus J. Ranum’s Web Security Sourcebook: A
Complete Guide to Web Security Threats and Solutions (New York: Wiley, 1997).
Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.