Essay #1: Evaluating a Controversial Argument
Purpose: The objective of this assignment is to practice persuasive writing, which includes the elements of logos, pathos and ethos as well as practice writing an evaluation specifically in the form of a debate against an opponent.
Topic: Evaluations are everyday arguments that help individuals make decisions. Should I vaccinate my child? Should I become vegan? Am I spending too much time in front of the TV? These are topics that become loaded as soon as they are debated. If the topic is not debatable, then it is not a strong evaluation. Your first step is to find someone whose argument you wish to debate. Your next step is to prepare your counterpoints against this person’s argument. To help your audience reach a decision (which side of the debate they support), it is important to establish compelling criteria that weighs the evidence before leading to a judgment. A strong evaluation includes opinion based on observation and fact, not based on personal assumptions and biases.
Writing Task: Begin with research. What are some arguments individuals in the public eye have made that you find yourself disagreeing with? You will need to choose one and write a letter to that person disproving their argument. The argument you choose to debate can be a speech (maybe from a political figure like our current president, Joe Biden), a lecture (possibly from a professor, such as Jordan Peterson), a podcast (like Joe Rogan), a blog (choose someone credible), a tweet (like say Kanye West), and the list goes on. The reason why your argument should be written in the form of a letter is to raise your awareness of audience and purpose. You will need to find the original source (the argument you are debating against) and include it in your Works Cited page. Then, do the following:
Write a letter to a person whose argument you wish to evaluate and ultimately disprove.
Tips:
* Contextualize the argument. Background information will be needed, so make sure to provide it (i.e. who, what, when, where). Be very specific. For example, is the tweet you’re analyzing in response to a bigger issue? You will need to clearly identify the issue itself.
* Brainstorm the argument by creating specific criteria. For instance, you might want to begin by asking, “Does this argument violate any person’s rights?” Or you might want to ask, “Is this argument based on biased opinion?” Remember, a strong evaluation is not going to be based on your personal preferences or assumptions. For example, if you’re evaluating an argument against chocolate, you shouldn’t argue that the writer’s argument is weak because you love chocolate.
* Be persuasive by considering the logos, pathos and ethos of the argument you’re evaluating. You might want to ask yourself what evidence the argument provides, how the writer of the argument tries to build credibility, and how the writer tries to appeal to the emotions of the reader. Avoid aggressive, offensive language and work on your stylistic flow. The biggest risk when writing a letter is losing the attention and focus of your audience, so it’s important that you consistently try to engage with your audience throughout the letter.
* Since you’re critiquing your opponent’s argument, identify fallacies in the author’s line of reasoning.
* Do research. I would like you to use two credible sources: one source should be a credible media article (preferably from a newspaper or magazine) and one source should be a scholarly article (published in a scholarly journal). You must provide a Works Cited page that includes both outside sources as well as the original argument you’re analyzing.
Your evaluation should be 4-6 pages and should follow MLA rules. For more on the MLA structure, please visit the Purdue Owl link I posted on our Canvas page
These were the instructions and I got 66 out of 100 for the work I attacged below, I will also attach all the comments my professor made and what I need to work on. I will also copy paste some things that other students commented that need some work.
– Add logical fallacies that respond to the argument (choose from the list below)
LOGICAL FALLACIES
FALLACY
Misleading or flawed argument
SCARE TACTICS
Exploiting people’s fears in order to support an idea
FALSE DICHOTOMY
Also called either-or choices where only two choices/options are given as a possible action for an argument
SLIPPERY SLOPE
An argument implying that the first step will necessarily lead to the second, and so on down the slope to disaster, when in fact there is no necessary slide from the first to second
SENTIMENTAL APPEAL
Using excessive emotion to distract readers from facts and win an argument
BANDWAGON APPEAL
An attempt to urge people follow the same path that the majority is taking
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
Using someone (usually famous) as authority on something they are not
DOGMATISM
An argument that assumes that a particular position is the only acceptable one in a community (there is no other alternative)
AD HOMINEM
Attacking the character of a person rather than the claims he/she is making
HASTY GENERALIZATION
Reaching a false or doubtful assertion about all just because a few assertions about one or two instances are true
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC
Also called faulty causality which literally means “After this, therefore because of this.” It assumes that because one event/action follows another, then the first caused the second
BEGGING THE QUESTION
Giving a claim based on the grounds/premises that are in doubt or in dispute; it’s a circular logic
EQUIVOCATION
An argument where a lie is given the appearance of truth, or the truth is misrepresented in deceptive language
NON SEQUITUR
Literally means “does not follow,” meaning that one point doesn’t follow from another (there is no logical connection between the two points)
STRAW MAN
Attacking an argument that isn’t really there; misrepresenting an opponent’s position to be more extreme that it really is and then refuting it
FALSE ANALOGY
An inaccurate comparison between two unconnected ideas
AMBIGUITY
Trying to confuse the reader, making them doubtful or uncertain of writer’s meaning/intent.
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
Assuming an argument is true simply on the basis that it hasn’t been proven false or it’s false simply because it hasn’t been proven true.
OVERSIMPLIFICATION
Exaggerating and therefore oversimplifying the truth.
– Include Ethos, Logos, Pathos
– Add a lot evidence, make a strong and clear argument, DEBATING against Joe Biden
