PRESENTING TEXT-BASED EVIDENCE: THE MAGIC FORMULA THE MAGIC FORMULA A formula for presenting evidence from two or more different sources. …Or for presenting two related quotes from the same source. THE MAGIC FORMULA Claim Introduction & Summary Quote1 Explain Transition Quote2 Connect THE MAGIC FORMULA: CLAIM One sentence stating specifically what you are trying to prove in the paragraph. It is the topic sentence of the paragraph. Polar bears are not white. THE MAGIC FORMULA: INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY One sentence that summarizes or paraphrases the quote you are about to present. It may or may not include an attributive tag i.e. Bill Caruthers states… In the book, They Ain’t White, Bill Caruthers states that polar bear hair is clear. THE MAGIC FORMULA: QUOTE 1 The actual first quote. This is the actual evidence word for word, exactly the way the original author presents it, placed within double quotation marks “…” and with a parenthetical, in-text citation at the end. “The shaft of the follicle is transparent and serves to funnel light to the skin” (24). THE MAGIC FORMULA: EXPLAIN Link the quote to the claim of the paragraph by providing an analysis of exactly how it supports the claim. So scientific research shows the hair is transparent or clear. THE MAGIC FORMULA: TRANSITION Transition to the next author. Summarize or paraphrase the quote you are about to present. It may or may not include an attributive tag i.e. Treasure Russell of the National Institute of Polar Bears… Similarly, Treasure Russell of the National Institute of Polar Bears has discovered an interesting fact about polar bear skin. THE MAGIC FORMULA: QUOTE 2 The actual second quote. This is the actual evidence word for word, exactly the way the original author presents it, placed within double quotation marks “…” and with a parenthetical, in-text citation at the end. “Polar bears have black skin” (28). THE MAGIC FORMULA: CONNECT Explain and analyze how both quotes are related. Link this explanation back to your thesis. The reflective nature of the polar bear’s clear hair follicles lends to the idea that they are white, but upon closer observation, such as that done by Russell, it is revealed that polar bears are actually black. THE MAGIC FORMULA PARAGRAPH Polar bears are not white. In the book, They Ain’t White, Bill Caruthers states that polar bear hair is clear. “The shaft of the follicle is transparent and serves to funnel light to the skin” (24). So scientific researchSimilarly, Treasure Russell of the National Institute of Polar Bears has discovered an interesting fact about polar bear skin. shows the hair is transparent or clear. “Polar bears have black skin” (28). The reflective nature of the polar bear’s clear hair follicles lends to the idea that they are white, but upon closer observation, such as that done by Russell, it is revealed that polar bears are actually black. Questions? Comments? GROUPWORK ACTIVITY #3 1. Break up into your groups. 2. Expand your quote sandwich into a magic formula paragraph using a quote from any of our readings including this week’s 3. You will present to the class via the document camera, so write legibly. Questions? Comments? FINISHING UP LAST WEEK… 1. Grab the quote sandwich from last week. 2. Use the magic formula to relate it to another work or to strengthen the argument. 3. You will present the answers to the class. LOGIC An Introduction to Inductive and Deductive Logic ARISTOTLE (384-322 BCE) IS THE FATHER OF LOGIC. Taught Logic as a part of the Trivium. Trivium included: • Rhetoric • Grammar • Logic KEY TERMS • Logic • Inductive • Deductive • Premise • Consequent LOGIC • Definition: The use of valid reasoning. • It is a formal field of philosophy. • Relates to composition in the structure of arguments. • Two types: Inductive and Deductive. (There’s actually a third called “Abductive,” but we won’t discuss it here.) PREMISE A statement supporting or helping to support a consequent. CONSEQUENT What the premises prove to be true. Also called a “conclusion.” INDUCTIVE LOGIC Deals with probability and odds. Takes evidence or data and draws out a less than certain consequent. The truth of premises does not necessarily lead to truth of the consequent with certainty but rather gives some degree of support for the consequent. EXAMPLE OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT Premise: Some people that are exposed to tuberculosis will develop the disease. John has been exposed to tuberculosis. 10% of people who are infected with Tuberculosis develop the disease. Consequent: John has a 10% chance of getting TB. Inductive Logic deals with probability and odds. DEDUCTIVE LOGIC The use of statements or premises to reach a consequent. Example of a Deductive Argument: Premise 1. - All men are mortal. Premise 2. - Socrates is a man. Consequent – Therefore, Socrates is mortal. VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS Deductive arguments are examined to determine their validity and soundness. Valid – If the consequent must be true if the premises are true, the argument is valid. Sound – If the argument is valid and the premises are true the argument is sound. VALID BUT NOT SOUND Example: Premise 1. - All people who eat brains are zombies. Premise 2. - I eat brains. Consequent – I am a zombie. If premise one and two were true then the consequent would logically follow, so this argument is valid. It is possible, however, for someone to eat a brain and not be a zombie. This means that premise one is false and this argument is therefore unsound. THE ADVENTURES OF FALLACY MAN! FALLACY A false statement or belief based on an unsound argument. Formal Fallacy – error of argument is found in its form. Informal Fallacy – error of argument lies in the arguments content rather than its form. *The rest of this lecture will deal mostly with informal fallacies COMMON INFORMAL FALLACIES What follows is a list of very, very common errors in reasoning. Keep in mind that these were first catalogued by Plato and Aristotle over 2000 years ago. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY Accepting someone’s argument because of his or her authority in a field unrelated to the argument, rather than evaluating the person’s argument on its own merits. (Also called Argumentum ad Verecundiam, or “argument from modesty.”) EXAMPLE: My dentist says she’s voting for the conservative candidate, so I will too. APPEAL TO EMOTION You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. EXAMPLE: Luke’s didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any food at all. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE Basing a conclusion solely on the absence of knowledge. (Also called Argumentum ad Ignoratiam.) EXAMPLE: I’ve never seen an alien, so they must not exist. APPEAL TO POPULAR OPINION Claiming that a position is true because most people believe it is. (Also called Argumentum ad Populum.) EXAMPLE: Everyone cheats on their income taxes, so it must be alright. ATTACKING THE PERSON Discrediting an argument by attacking the person who makes it, rather than the argument itself. (Also called Poisoning the Well or Argumentum ad Hominem—literally, “argument against the man.”) EXAMPLE: Don’t listen to Becky’s opinion on welfare; she just opposes it because she’s a bitch. BEGGING THE QUESTION Using a premise to prove a conclusion when the premise itself assumes the conclusion is true. (Also called Circular Argument, Circulus in Probando, and Petitio Principii.) EXAMPLE: I know I can trust Janine because she says that I can. If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law. COMPLEX QUESTION Combining two questions or issues as if they were one, when really they should be answered or discussed separately. Often involves one question that assumes the answer to another. EXAMPLE: Why did you steal the CD? (Assumes you did steal the CD.) COMPOSITION Assuming that because parts have certain properties, the whole does as well. (The reverse of Division.) EXAMPLE: All the parts of the engine were lightweight, so the engine should have been lightweight. CORRELATION IMPLIES CAUSATION Concluding that because two things occur at the same time, one has caused the other. (Also called Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc—literally “with this, therefore because of this.”) EXAMPLE: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax. DIVISION Assuming that because a large body has certain properties, its parts do as well. (The reverse of Composition.) EXAMPLE: Europe has great museums, so every country in Europe must have great museums. EQUIVOCATION Applying the same term but using differing meanings. EXAMPLE: The sign by the pond said, “Fine for Swimming,” so I dove right in. FALSE CAUSE AND EFFECT Claiming that because one event occurred before a second, it caused the second. (Also called Coincidental Correlation and Post-Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc—literally “after this, therefore because of this.”) EXAMPLE: Yesterday I ate broccoli and then failed my test. I’m never eating broccoli before a test again. FALSE DILEMMA Suggesting only two solutions to a problem when other options are also available. (Also called Bifurcation.) EXAMPLE: America—love it or leave it! HASTY GENERALIZATIONS When a writer arrives at a conclusion based on inadequate evidence or a sample that is too small. EXAMPLE: I liked the last Chinese restaurant I went to, so I will like every Chinese restaurant in the world. IGNORING THE ISSUE Shifting the reader’s attention from the real issue to a different argument that might be valid, but is unrelated to the first. (Also called Arguing beside the Point and Ignoratio Elenchi.) EXAMPLE: No, the criminal won’t say where he was on the night of the crime, but he does remember being abused repeatedly as an innocent child. NON SEQUITUR Using a premise to prove an unrelated point. Two common non sequitur fallacies include Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent. NON SEQUITUR: AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT Non sequitur fallacy that takes the following pattern: If A is true, then B is true. A is false. Therefore, B is false. EXAMPLE: If I am a Texan, then I am an American. I am not a Texan. Therefore, I am not an American. NON SEQUITUR: DENYING THE ANTECEDENT Non sequitur fallacy that takes the following pattern: If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. EXAMPLE: Dogs are animals. Fluffy is an animal. Therefore, Fluffy is a dog. RED HERRING Introducing an unrelated or invalid point to distract the reader from the actual argument. Appeal to Emotion, Attacking the Person, Ignoring the Issue, and Straw Man are a few examples of Red Herring fallacies. SLIPPERY SLOPE Assuming a chain of cause-effect relationships with very suspect connections. EXAMPLE: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and Bonobo monkeys. STACKING THE DECK When a writer tries to prove a point by focusing on only one side of the argument while ignoring the other. EXAMPLE: Obviously the United States and China should have a free trade agreement, since it would reduce prices, increase efficiency, and pave the way to greater cultural exchange. STRAWMAN Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. EXAMPLE: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending. QUESTIONS? GROUPWORK ACTIVITY #2 1. 2. 3. Get in groups. Go on your Facebook and find one logical fallacy. This can be a post, meme, article, etc. You will present to the class using the quote sandwich. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT “FAITH AND DIPLOMACY” PAIRWORK ACTIVITY #1 1. 2. Turn to your partner. Try to discern the central argument of this essay. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT 1937Born in Prague, Czechoslovakia First woman Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. Earned a PhD from Columbia University Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University MADELEINE ALBRIGHT “I’m not a theologian and I haven’t turned into a religious mystic. I’m a problem solver.” “It’s one thing to be religious; it’s another thing to make religion your policy.” “Religion is like a knife. You can either use it to slice bread or stick [sic] it in somebody’s back” Madeleine Albright, Dole Institute of Politics Interview, October 2013 “FAITH AND DIPLOMACY” KEY TERMS Diplomacy Faith Kinship Mediation Religion International relations Secularism Separation of church and state PAIRWORK ACTIVITY #2 1. Discuss the following questions with your partner. Based on the this essay, is Albright pro-religion or antireligion? Is it possible to reduce her message to such a simple binary message? “FAITH AND DIPLOMACY” Persuasive Essay: What point does Albright want you to agree with? Diplomatic relations must not be conducted without consideration of religion. “FAITH AND DIPLOMACY” STRUCTURE Introduction Starts with the Counterargument Concession: Dealing with religion is unavoidable. Thesis: [Religion is extremely important in shaping governments of the world, so diplomats need to consider religion in foreign policy and teach aspiring diplomats how to use it when dealing with other countries.] “FAITH AND DIPLOMACY” STRUCTURE Body (Two Parts) 1. Rhetorical Device: Three stories 2. Examples & Discussion Conclusion: Restates thesis and adds additional information. BODY: THE THREE STORIES First Story: Pope John Paul II reunites Poland. Message: Polish Communists underestimate the influence of religion on the people and lose power . BODY: THE THREE STORIES Second Story: Lebanese woman who is shot and paralyzed by a religious soldier later forgives him. Message: Religion is the cause of horrible atrocities in war, but it also has the inherent power to heal and help victims recover. BODY: THE THREE STORIES Third Story: A religiously motivated rebellion in Uganda spawns orphans saved by a Christian Mission. Message: Religion can change the political landscape of a country in an instant. Religion is the cause of horrible atrocities in war, but it also has the inherent power to heal and help victims recover. BODY: EXAMPLES & DISCUSSION Argument: Religion creates kinship. Example: It will allow mediators to focus on similarities of opposing parties. BODY: EXAMPLES & DISCUSSION Argument: Faith-Based Diplomacy works. Example: Jimmy Carter used it in Egypt. Questions?
© Copyright 2021 Paperzz