This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Argumentation Terms


undefined, object
copy deck
an appeal in order to compel some action
forming reasons, drawing conclusions, and applying them to a case (in debate)
Purposes of Argumentation
1. Support a cause 2. Promote a change 3. Refute a theory 4. Arouse sympathy 5. Increase interest 6. Win an argument 7. Provoke anger
Audience Types
1. No opinion and don’t care 2. No opinion, but interested in learning more 3. People who have formed opinions and hold them tightly 4. those who have formed opinions but are open to other points of view
something asserted or maintained, the main point or position of your argument
a subordinate point
support or evidence used to help strengthen your argument
to prove to be false
conceding, acknowledging or admitting an opponent’s point
an actual occurrence
a collection of data
taken to be representative of general pattern
a judgment, view formed in the mind
a comparison to a directly parallel case
support from an authority on the subject
shared beliefs
when a writer argues that if something is widely believed or valued, then readers should accept it
causal relationship
a writer asserts that one thing results from another
emotional appeal
appeal based on emotion
logical appeal
appeal based on logic or reason
ethical appeal
appeal based on character of the speaker
sentimental appeal
evoking sorrow or pity
the most common tool for developing an argument is the syllogism: major proposition, minor proposition followed by conclusion
rogerian arrangement
solve a problem by compromise not to win an argument
deductive reasoning
reasoning in the form of if A, then B
inductive reasoning
organization which starts specific, and then goes general. If B then A.
ad hominem
attacks the personality of the individual
ad populum
a proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true
ad vericundium
to wisdom or belief that something said by a great person is true
it does not follow
false analogy
when two cases are not sufficiently parallel
post hoc
circular reasoning which attempts to prove something by showing that because a second event followed a first event, the second event is a result of the first event
over generalization
too few examples needed to reach a valid conclusion
oversimplified conception that one is regarded as embodying a set type
begging the question
assumes something to be true that needs proof
false authority
fallacy committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority
slippery slope
fallacy in which one asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question
use of expressions susceptible of a double signification
a writer obscures or denies the complexity of the issues
double standard
set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one
either/or reasoning
does not allow for any shades of meaning
smoke screen
similar to a “straw man”/ an opponent creates a weakened, incompleted often distorted version of an argument, then destroys it
red herring
a distraction
purple patch
a passage that stands out from the prose because of its overuse of lit. devices

Deck Info


joe bloggs