Weekly Writing #2 (1-2 pages): summarizing arguments and positions
Choose one article for this paper (opinion piece, journal article, blogs, documentary, news coverage):
1) Write a 100-word summary of the author’s argument, using as neutral language as possible. 2) Write a 100-word analysis, reading as a believer; suspend your skepticism, try to see things from the author’s point of view, attribute good faith to his/her motives, and try to hear what he/she is saying. 3) Write a 100-word analysis, reading as a doubter; bring all your natural skepticism to bear, questioning his/her values, assumptions, motives, and evidence (the common places/topics are helpful, here). 4) Finally, write a 100-word analysis of the rhetorical situation. Who is the author? What needs prompted the author to write the article/essay? To what conversations is he/she responding? What constraints does he/she write under? How does your knowledge of the author and the publication affect your reading of the essay?
Please post your paper to your blog and send me a copy by January 15.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Notes for January 7
What and Where is Argument?
I. Rhetorical argument for Wayne Booth in his book Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent: “the art of discovering warrantable beliefs and improving those beliefs in shared discourse” (xiii).
II. For Thomas Hollihan and Kevin Baaske in Arguments and Arguing Booth’s definition creates two “senses” or objectives of argument:
1. Argument is about effective decision making, and
2. Argument is about the achievement of social harmony.
III. So what makes “good argument”?
A. According to Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell in their book Aims of Argument: “argument is mature reasoning”—(1) defending not the first position you might take on an issue but the best position, determined through open-minded inquiry, and (2) providing reasons for holding that position that can earn the respect of an opposing audience.
B. Wayne Brockreide’s six principles regarding the scope and function of argument in “Where is Argument?”
1. One: Brockreide states that argument involves “an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or to the reinforcement of an old one” (10).
2. Two: Argument involves a perceived rationale to support that leap (10).
3. Three: Argument involves a choice among two or more competing claims (10-11).
4. Four: Argument is a regulation of uncertainty (11).
5. Five: Argument involves a willingness to risk confrontation of a claim with peers, and Six: is a frame of reference shared optimally (11).
IV. There are different ways to put together arguments, designed around particular goals (Roen, Glau, and Maid, The Brief McGraw-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life).
A. Writing to Convince:
B. Writing to Evaluate:
C. Writing about a Creative Work:
D. Writing to Explain Causes and Effects:
E. Writing to Solve Problems:
I. Rhetorical argument for Wayne Booth in his book Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent: “the art of discovering warrantable beliefs and improving those beliefs in shared discourse” (xiii).
II. For Thomas Hollihan and Kevin Baaske in Arguments and Arguing Booth’s definition creates two “senses” or objectives of argument:
1. Argument is about effective decision making, and
2. Argument is about the achievement of social harmony.
III. So what makes “good argument”?
A. According to Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell in their book Aims of Argument: “argument is mature reasoning”—(1) defending not the first position you might take on an issue but the best position, determined through open-minded inquiry, and (2) providing reasons for holding that position that can earn the respect of an opposing audience.
B. Wayne Brockreide’s six principles regarding the scope and function of argument in “Where is Argument?”
1. One: Brockreide states that argument involves “an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or to the reinforcement of an old one” (10).
2. Two: Argument involves a perceived rationale to support that leap (10).
3. Three: Argument involves a choice among two or more competing claims (10-11).
4. Four: Argument is a regulation of uncertainty (11).
5. Five: Argument involves a willingness to risk confrontation of a claim with peers, and Six: is a frame of reference shared optimally (11).
IV. There are different ways to put together arguments, designed around particular goals (Roen, Glau, and Maid, The Brief McGraw-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life).
A. Writing to Convince:
B. Writing to Evaluate:
C. Writing about a Creative Work:
D. Writing to Explain Causes and Effects:
E. Writing to Solve Problems:
First Exercise
In a single paragraph, first summarize briefly (in a couple of sentences) what argument authors Graff and Birkenstein make about academic writing in the introduction of their text, They Say/I Say; then summarize very briefly (again, in a couple of sentences) what you take my argument to be about rhetoric in my Course Description of CMJR 320; and finally, in a few sentences, discuss what overlap might exist between their argument about academic writing and my argument about rhetoric.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Weekly Writing One
For this first essay, in one to three pages apply the four rhetorical tenets to Michelle Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention Address. What is her advice to her audience? What kinds of stylistic choices does she make, and what is the impact of these choices? Who is her audience and what are their concerns? What are the needs of the audience that bring her speech "into being?" This first writing is due Friday, January 8 by 6 p.m., posted to your blog.
Here is the link for Michelle Obama's speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/michelleobama2008dnc.htm.
Here is the link for Michelle Obama's speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/michelleobama2008dnc.htm.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sample Questions for Persuasion/CMJR 350
Sample Questions
1. In Woodward and Denton’s chapter on the “The Advocate in an Open Society” they discuss the importance of public opinion.
Many Sophists believed that some questions of public dispute were not solvable by application of rigorous reasoning; they were better determined by appeals to public opinion. For instance, the question of who would be most qualified to lead a government could not be settled by reference to one single standard. There is a range of acceptable options based on the specific interests and priorities of different people. One leader may be better for one group but not another. On policy issues, “good” solutions may change as public attitudes change. (31)
Think about the above quote in light of the recent town hall meetings held on health care reform. Most meetings have been peaceful, but many have not. Take a look at the following article regarding New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone: http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_reform_town_hall_n.html. What do you think about the health care reform debate? Should there be room for public opinion on this debate or should policy decisions be left to our political leaders?
2. In chapter one of the course text Woodward and Denton note characteristics of the persuasive process (pp. 14-18). Woodward and Denton suggest that “Persuasion is Difficult,” “Persuasion Outcomes are not very Predictable,” and “Even Minimal Effects Can be Important.” In light of the recent world track championships where Caster Semenya, a South African female runner, was subjected to “gender” testing after winning the gold in the 800 meters, what is important about gender distinctions in sports competition? Take a look at the following article on Semenya and comment on her performance of femininity: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Embattled-track-star-Caster-Semenya-gets-new-coa?urn=oly,187999. What are the minimal effects of her appearance on the cover of You magazine? How might some resist Semenya’s gender performance?
3. Over the last few years there has been a steady increase of interest in food: cooking shows, food magazines, food blogs, recipe books, and food movies (e.g., Julie & Julia; noting Julia Child’s influence). If we are to consider Barthes claim that the rhetoric of the image is a “re-presentation, which is to say ultimately resurrection” (33) of meaning related to lived experience, then what is it that fascination with food imagery “re-presents” and “resurrects” in our lives? Think about this question in light of your own individual response to food imagery as well as what food might illuminate about communal and national identity. Here is the website to food network to give you an idea of the imagery: http://www.foodnetwork.com/.
1. In Woodward and Denton’s chapter on the “The Advocate in an Open Society” they discuss the importance of public opinion.
Many Sophists believed that some questions of public dispute were not solvable by application of rigorous reasoning; they were better determined by appeals to public opinion. For instance, the question of who would be most qualified to lead a government could not be settled by reference to one single standard. There is a range of acceptable options based on the specific interests and priorities of different people. One leader may be better for one group but not another. On policy issues, “good” solutions may change as public attitudes change. (31)
Think about the above quote in light of the recent town hall meetings held on health care reform. Most meetings have been peaceful, but many have not. Take a look at the following article regarding New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone: http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_reform_town_hall_n.html. What do you think about the health care reform debate? Should there be room for public opinion on this debate or should policy decisions be left to our political leaders?
2. In chapter one of the course text Woodward and Denton note characteristics of the persuasive process (pp. 14-18). Woodward and Denton suggest that “Persuasion is Difficult,” “Persuasion Outcomes are not very Predictable,” and “Even Minimal Effects Can be Important.” In light of the recent world track championships where Caster Semenya, a South African female runner, was subjected to “gender” testing after winning the gold in the 800 meters, what is important about gender distinctions in sports competition? Take a look at the following article on Semenya and comment on her performance of femininity: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Embattled-track-star-Caster-Semenya-gets-new-coa?urn=oly,187999. What are the minimal effects of her appearance on the cover of You magazine? How might some resist Semenya’s gender performance?
3. Over the last few years there has been a steady increase of interest in food: cooking shows, food magazines, food blogs, recipe books, and food movies (e.g., Julie & Julia; noting Julia Child’s influence). If we are to consider Barthes claim that the rhetoric of the image is a “re-presentation, which is to say ultimately resurrection” (33) of meaning related to lived experience, then what is it that fascination with food imagery “re-presents” and “resurrects” in our lives? Think about this question in light of your own individual response to food imagery as well as what food might illuminate about communal and national identity. Here is the website to food network to give you an idea of the imagery: http://www.foodnetwork.com/.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Sample Questions for Communication Rights and Law
1. Alexander Meiklejohn argues that political speech is what maintains an open and free society, but we as a “people” must be determined to preserve not only the right to speak, but also actively engage in all that the “speaking” forum demands. In Meiklejohn’s words:
But a more important point—which we Americans do not so readily recognize—is that of the intellectual difficulties which are inherent in the making and administering of this political program of ours. We do not see how baffling, even to the point of desperation, is the task of using our minds, to which we are summoned by our plan of government. That plan is not intellectually simple. Its victories are chiefly won, not by the carnage of battle, but by sweat and agony of the mind” (10).
If there is general agreement that people pursue pleasure instead of political debate (and the two may not be separate spheres, such as with The Daily Show), where do we find the “agony of the mind” in our society today?
2.Martin Redish argues that freedom of speech has both an intrinsic value: helping individuals engage the process of self-actualization, and an instrumental value: freedom of speech produces marketplaces for ideas, political dialogue, and human creation and innovation. Ultimately, under Redish’s theory any form of pornographic or violent speech must be afforded First Amendment protection because this speech may help an individual in the process of “self-actualization.” Do you agree with what seems like an absolutist individualistic stance?
3. In chapter three of our text there are two landmark court decisions establishing precedence around “danger” in relation to political speech: Schenck v. U.S. and Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Schenck case establishes the “clear-and-present danger” test, which requires that one “must wait until a real danger can be identified” (Tedford and Herbeck 50) before punishing speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio requires that speech actually incite “illegal conduct which is both imminent and likely to occur” (50). In other words there must be direct links between the words spoken and the “harm” produced. What do we do with speech that is not directly linked to action, but creates an environment that perhaps promotes harm? We can take for example the many horror films proliferating in our theaters glorifying violence. For example, the recent film The Last House on the Left, displays an egregious amount of violence, specifically against young women. Whether or not people like or even see this movie is not the point, it is the fact that this kind of movie is produced and expected to make money that speaks more broadly about “harm” in today’s society. What is your take?
But a more important point—which we Americans do not so readily recognize—is that of the intellectual difficulties which are inherent in the making and administering of this political program of ours. We do not see how baffling, even to the point of desperation, is the task of using our minds, to which we are summoned by our plan of government. That plan is not intellectually simple. Its victories are chiefly won, not by the carnage of battle, but by sweat and agony of the mind” (10).
If there is general agreement that people pursue pleasure instead of political debate (and the two may not be separate spheres, such as with The Daily Show), where do we find the “agony of the mind” in our society today?
2.Martin Redish argues that freedom of speech has both an intrinsic value: helping individuals engage the process of self-actualization, and an instrumental value: freedom of speech produces marketplaces for ideas, political dialogue, and human creation and innovation. Ultimately, under Redish’s theory any form of pornographic or violent speech must be afforded First Amendment protection because this speech may help an individual in the process of “self-actualization.” Do you agree with what seems like an absolutist individualistic stance?
3. In chapter three of our text there are two landmark court decisions establishing precedence around “danger” in relation to political speech: Schenck v. U.S. and Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Schenck case establishes the “clear-and-present danger” test, which requires that one “must wait until a real danger can be identified” (Tedford and Herbeck 50) before punishing speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio requires that speech actually incite “illegal conduct which is both imminent and likely to occur” (50). In other words there must be direct links between the words spoken and the “harm” produced. What do we do with speech that is not directly linked to action, but creates an environment that perhaps promotes harm? We can take for example the many horror films proliferating in our theaters glorifying violence. For example, the recent film The Last House on the Left, displays an egregious amount of violence, specifically against young women. Whether or not people like or even see this movie is not the point, it is the fact that this kind of movie is produced and expected to make money that speaks more broadly about “harm” in today’s society. What is your take?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Peer Review Questions for MPP
1. The first section is face-to-face interaction: take the cover letter bullet points as a way to talk through what you want to accomplish in this project; what are your goals and how well do you think you accomplish these goals through your writing?
2. The second section is written analysis of audience, genre, and publication.
a. Audience: (1) Who are potential audiences for this issue (consider the types on page 296); (2) Has my peer effectively addressed audience interests, needs, and understanding? (3) Who do you think would find these discussions most salient?
b. Genre and Publication: (1) Describe how you think the genre (e.g., brochure, speech, magazine article, grant proposal) and publication venue (e.g., Seattle Times, Ms. Magazine, New Yorker) chosen for the message will work or not work for the intended audience.
3.The third section works with the structure of your argument and use of appeals.
a.Definition of issue: Has my peer effectively defined and framed the issue? (2) Is the summary adequate to understand the issue, leading to your persuasive intent? Is the summary balanced in relation to the stated thesis—objectives for the paper?
b. Line of Reasoning and use of appeals: Has my peer effectively described and analyzed(1) his/her line of reasoning on the problem, (2) his/her line of reasoning on the solution, (3) his/her use of concessions and rebuttals (what arguments are anticipated), and (4) his/her appeals to certain values and emotions? (5) How does my peer establish credibility—situated and invented credibility--using “voice” through first, second, or third person narrative?
4. Section four: aesthetic impact and ethics
a. How is language used to provide vivid detail for an issue, form common ground with the audience, and guide understanding?
b. How are visual (and/or auditory) imagery used to evoke tone, set a mood, and create lived connections with issue? Is there balance between verbal and visual in overall message?
c. General - Analysis
Has my peer offered sufficient analysis throughout her/his essay? Are there places where my peer offers way too much summary or way too little analysis?
d. General - Clarity
Has my peer described the original argument effectively enough so that readers unfamiliar with the argument can understand it? If not, what seems missing or unclear?
e. General - Structure
Is my peer’s essay well structured? If not, how might it more clearly and logically be organized?
2. The second section is written analysis of audience, genre, and publication.
a. Audience: (1) Who are potential audiences for this issue (consider the types on page 296); (2) Has my peer effectively addressed audience interests, needs, and understanding? (3) Who do you think would find these discussions most salient?
b. Genre and Publication: (1) Describe how you think the genre (e.g., brochure, speech, magazine article, grant proposal) and publication venue (e.g., Seattle Times, Ms. Magazine, New Yorker) chosen for the message will work or not work for the intended audience.
3.The third section works with the structure of your argument and use of appeals.
a.Definition of issue: Has my peer effectively defined and framed the issue? (2) Is the summary adequate to understand the issue, leading to your persuasive intent? Is the summary balanced in relation to the stated thesis—objectives for the paper?
b. Line of Reasoning and use of appeals: Has my peer effectively described and analyzed(1) his/her line of reasoning on the problem, (2) his/her line of reasoning on the solution, (3) his/her use of concessions and rebuttals (what arguments are anticipated), and (4) his/her appeals to certain values and emotions? (5) How does my peer establish credibility—situated and invented credibility--using “voice” through first, second, or third person narrative?
4. Section four: aesthetic impact and ethics
a. How is language used to provide vivid detail for an issue, form common ground with the audience, and guide understanding?
b. How are visual (and/or auditory) imagery used to evoke tone, set a mood, and create lived connections with issue? Is there balance between verbal and visual in overall message?
c. General - Analysis
Has my peer offered sufficient analysis throughout her/his essay? Are there places where my peer offers way too much summary or way too little analysis?
d. General - Clarity
Has my peer described the original argument effectively enough so that readers unfamiliar with the argument can understand it? If not, what seems missing or unclear?
e. General - Structure
Is my peer’s essay well structured? If not, how might it more clearly and logically be organized?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
