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?