Glossary of Elements of Aruguments - Writing for Lawyers
Other Decks By This User
- emphasizes likenesses
- emphasizes differences
- ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGY
- used to defend, refute claims
- COMPARISON - device for claims of value
- - argue 1 thing better/worse than other
- Comparison/Contrast Essays
- Compares two things belonging to the same general class (significant characteristics ->same magnitude
- Length ->methods for developing definition
- (personal narrative, examples, stipulation, comparison, contrast, cause-and-effect analysis, cultural context, personal history, values, behavior)
- what term is NOT (negative definition) - then must define what term is
- METHODS FOR DEFINING TERMS (pg 116-120)
- (CAN USE ALL IN AN ESSAY)
(DSNEE) Dictionary Definition. Stipulation, Negation, Examples, Extended Definition
- Dictionary Definition
- simplest (pg 116)
May be too narrow, too broad
- Stipulation (pg 116)
- accept definition different from conventional
- limits or control argument
- most effective (method for defining terms)real/hypothetical
- Extended Definition
- Length ->methods for developing definition (personal narrative, examples, stipulation, comparison, contrast, cause-and-effect analysis, cultural context, personal history, values, behavior)
- Defining Vague and Ambiguous Terms (pg 114)
Arguments of value and policy
- -> abstract terms require clarification (freedom, justice, patriotism, equality, free speech, family, success)
- DEFINING THE TERMS IN YOUR ARGUMENT
ARGUMENTS (CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS)
- ->TURN TO ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEFINITION OF TERMS
- 2 PURPOSES OF DEFINITION
- Clarify -> vague/ambiguous terms, Method ->develop whole essay
- create Definitions
- influence Judgments
->change nature of event or a “fact”
***most important element in arguer’s ability is....
- ->to persuade audience
- How do you provide credibility?
- 1) submit good evidence
2) thoughtful/judicious tone ->fair in conclusion
3) clean, literate, well-organized paper àevidence of care in writing/proofreading
- The Audience (pg 13)
- * All arguments ->audience in mind
- The Warrant (pg 11) does what?
- (**underlie all claims!!)
MORE GENERAL STATEMENT THAN THE CLAIM!
- Warrant -> what kind of assumption?
- inference/assumption, belief or principle ->taken for granted
->guarantee of reliability, soundness (relationship/claim)
- If second speaker accepts evidence they also have to accept what?
- Also has to accept warrant - evidence cannot support claim if authors not credible
- give example of claim, support and warrant
- CLAIM: marijuana law illegal repeal it
SUPPORT: people right to choose
WARRANT: no law should prevent rights
- The Support (pg 11)
Materials Materials -> (EA), Evidence, Motivational appeals
- ->by arguer ->convince audience ->claim sound
- Evidence (data) -> (FST)
- facts, statistics, testimony
- Motivational appeals ->
- to values/attitudes of audience ->win support -> claim
(hint: offer stats, appeal to individual generosity)
- CLAIM (proposition) - What are you trying to prove? (page 10)
- What are Claims of Fact?
- (support by data (true, inference, educated guess))
Condition -> existed, exists, will exist
- What are Facts or data?
- -> audience will accept -> objectively verifiable
Ex - epidemic not unique, racing dangerous support, weather getting colder
Claims of Value (approve/disapprove)
Attempt to prove -> things more desirable than others
Ex - opera good listening, football dehumanizing, ending a patients life
- What are Claims of Policy?
- (***analysis ->both fact/value)
Policies ->solutions to problems
**** (expression should, must, ought in statement)
Ex - prisons should be abolished because…, establish policies to bring…., women should appear…
- What are the ARGUMENT parts
- -> (CSW) Claim, Support, Warrant
- What are? The Terms of Argument (pg 9)
- Argument ->importance to logical appeals
Persuasion -> element of ethical, emotional appeals
Acceptance ->based on logical, emotional appeals
- What is the (BASIS OF DEMOCRATIC ORDER)!!!!!!
- Argument à Civilizing Influence
- Why Study Argument?
- __>define terms, evaluate evidence, Arrive Conclusions cross disciplinary lines
Provides Tools àDistinguish (true/false, Valid, invalid, claims)
- Chapter 1 - Understanding Argument
Nature of Argument
Argumentation (IRA), what are the reasons to argue?
- Influence others w/Reasoned discourse àmake them Act as we wish (pg 4)
- What is Language responsible -> shaping attitudes & feelings ?
- -> emotive language
- meanings we attach to a word apart from its explicit definition
- polite substitute word for an item
- -> interpreting or presenting in line with a special interest (almost always negative)
- ->qualities apart from particular things and events (beauty in the eye of the beholder) (honesty)
WRITING A STORY (enhance by details, examples and anecdotes)(tell what conclusions we have arrived at; details tell us how we got there)
)(common problem is omision of details)
- - real objects & experiences (beautiful roses)(returning money to owner)
- - use concrete and extensive abstractions
- Abstractions ->arguments of value & policy are important why?
- 1) represent qualities, characteristics, and values that the writer is explaining, defending or attacking
2) enable writer to make generalizations about his or her data
- SHORT CUTS
- ->arguments ->depend on readers’ responses to words
-often mistaken for valid argument
- ->expression/idea stale->overused
- Cliches of thought -
- conventional rule or method for doing something (applied or repeated without thought) )Ex- GENERATION X
- Mass language - ready -made answers, stereotyped solutions response reader expected without giving him a reason for response
- ready -made answers, stereotyped solutions response reader expected without giving him a reason for response
- Shortcomings of slogans (3)
- 1) brevity ->disadvantages (ignores exception/negative instance) in absolute terms without describing circumstances
2) conceal unexamined warrants. (made in America -> warrants unconvincing - better economy, better goods, jobs)
3) how to achieve objectives
- 3 types of legal reasoning
- deductive, inductive, reasoning by analogy
- term that describes a particular logical relationship between two arguments (basic form is deductive)
- Syllogism consists of what 3 parts
- major premise (broad), minor premise (narrower), conclusion
- Deductive brings conclusion how?
- Major premise & minor premise worded so naturally bring conclusion
- Deductive is also called what and how does it work?
- transitivity (If 2 different things equal to same thing then also equal to each other)
- legal syllogisms(deductive) and inductive are not based on what?
- Not based on absolute truths
- Inductive works to conclusion how?
- by asserting a series of minor premises to support the conclusion, a major premise (underlies much of case analysis)
You must Login or Register to add cards