In this piece of writing, I ask you to present – in first person – your
process of exploring possible answers to a specific issue question: Was Hamas
in the right? This assignment
asks you to work with TWO (2) distinct arguments ( 2 sources) in response
to the issue question.
Throughout your paper, I
ask you to accomplish the following:
·
Use our material on types of issue questions and
claims to make sure that you have two arguments that directly address
the same issue question in different/distinct ways.
·
Conduct a full “Toulmin analysis” of both
arguments. Please use all the terms to identify the core argument of each
piece: claims (both primary and secondary [reasons]), warrants, backing, grounds, conditions
of rebuttal, and qualifiers.
·
Use your Toulmin analysis to discuss audience in
relation to both pieces: What would an audience need to value, believe, and/or
accept in order to agree with the core argument in each piece? Where and how
might the audience reasonably disagree with each argument?
·
Use the concept of logical fallacies to
identify any problematic reasoning, if any, that you locate in each argument.
How could any faulty or otherwise weak reasoning be repaired or avoided in one
or both of these arguments?
·
Identify the actual or most likely bases of
disagreement between the two distinct arguments: Where and why do
these perspectives diverge in addressing the same question?
·
Discuss what you understand to be the stakes of
the issue question that these arguments address: Why do the arguments’ authors
seem to care about the arguments they make? Who do they explicitly identify as
caring or needing to care — or seem to imply cares or should care — about
their argument? What are their relationships to their topics and to their own
arguments? What are their relationships to other possible answers to their
issue question?
·
Explore the relationship between these two
arguments. Do you see them as being in direct competition with each other
or in some other relationship? Can they peaceably coexist? Would those who
align and agree with either of the arguments have to shift their thinking in
any way(s) in order also to agree with a different answer to the question
(including the other argument you discussed throughout your paper)?
