Cebu Technological University-Main Campus

LingM 225: Argumentation and Debate

Topic: THE CORE OF AN ARGUMENT

I. THE RHETORICAL TRIANGLE

1.1 This explains briefly the social context, which can be visualized as a triangle with
interrelated points labeled MESSAGE, WRITER/SPEAKER, and AUDIENCE.
1.2 Each point on the triangle corresponds to one of three kinds of persuasive appeals that
ancient rhetoricians named logos, ethos, and pathos.
o Logos (Greek for “word”)
– refers primarily to the internal consistency and clarity of the message and to
the logic of its reasons and support
– the impact of logos on an audience is called “LOGICAL APPEAL”

o Ethos (Greek for “character”)

– refers to the credibility of the writer/speaker
– often conveyed through the tone and style of the message (through the care
that the writer considers alternative views and investment in his/her claim;
sometimes his/her reputation of honesty & expertise independent of the
message)
– impact of ethos to an audience is called “ETHICAL APPEAL” or “APPEAL
FROM CREDIBILITY”
o Pathos (Greek for “suffering” or “experience”)
– Often associated with emotional appeal
– Appeals more specifically to an audience‟s imaginative sympathies
(capacity to feel and see what the writer feels and sees)
– Turning abstractions of logical discourse into a tangible and immediate story
– you are making a “PATHETIC APPEAL”
1.3 Appeals to LOGOS & ETHOS can further the audience‟s intellectual assent to the
claim; appeals to PATHOS engage the imagination and feelings – moving the
audience to deeper appreciation of the argument’s significance
1.4 EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS CONSIDER ALL THREE POINTS ON THIS
RHETORICAL TRIANGLE. Note that when you alter one point of the triangle (e.g.
changing the audience whom you‟re writing for), you often need to alter the other
points – either by reconstructing the message itself and perhaps changing the
tone/image you‟re projecting as a writer/speaker. In argument, you are a writer and a
speaker.

II. ISSUE QUESTIONS AS THE ORIGINS OF ARGUMENT

1. AT THE HEART OF ANY ARGUMENT IS AN ISSUE which can be defined as a

controversial topic area. (e.g. “the labeling of biotech foods” or “racial profiling”)
WHICH GIVES RISE TO DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW & CONFLICTING
CLAIMS
2. A writer can usually focus an issue by asking an issue question that invites at least two
alternative answers. Example: abortion –should abortions be legal? When does a fetus
become a human being? What are the effects of legalizing abortion? One person might
stress that legalized abortion leads to greater freedom for women. Another might respond
that it lessens a society‟s respect for human life.

III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ISSUE QUESTION AND AN INFORMATION

QUESTION

1. NOT ALL QUESTIONS ARE ISSUE QUESTIONS that can be answered reasonably in
two or more differing ways; thus NOT ALL QUESTIONS CAN LEAD TO EFFECTIVE
ARGUMENT ESSAYS. Rhetoricians have traditionally distinguished between
explication and argumentation.
2. EXPLICATION & ARGUMENTATION
 2.1 Explication – writing setting out to inform/explain
2.2 Argumentation – writing setting out to change a reader‟s mind
2.3 If readers is interested in a writer‟s question mainly to gain new knowledge about a
subject, then the writer‟s essay could be considered explication rather than argument.
3. EXAMINE YOUR PURPOSE IN RELATION TO YOUR AUDIENCE.
3.1 You can really tell whether a question is an issue question or an information question
by examining your purpose in relation to your audience.
3.2 Example: INFORMATION QUESTION – if your relationship to your audience is
that of teacher to learner in order for the audience to gain new knowledge,
understanding that you possess.
3.3 Example: ISSUE QUESTION – if your relationship to your audience is of advocate
decision maker or jury so your audience needs to make up its mind on something,
weighing out different points of view.

IV. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GENUINE ARGUMENT AND PSEUDO-

ARGUMENT

1. While every argument features an issue question with alternative answers, not every
dispute over answers is a rational argument.
2. WHAT MAKES A RATIONAL ARGUMENT? – THE 2 FACTORS
2.1 First: Reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of reasonable
behavior
2.2 Second: Potentially sharable assumptions which serve as a starting place for an
argument
2.3 Note: Lacking one or two of these conditions stalls the disagreement at the level of
pseudo-argument
3. REASONABLE ARGUMENT: ASSUMES POSSIBILITY OF GROWTH & CHANGE.
Disputants may modify their views as they acknowledge strengths in an alternative view
or weaknesses in their own. However, such growth becomes impossible when disputants
are fanatically committed to their positions (the argument degenerates to a pseudo-
argument.

4. PSEUDO-ARGUMENT: lacks a reasonable argument, which doesn‟t allow the

possibility of growth and change or the evidence to back up claims made.
4.1 Each person involved in the argument is fanatically committed to his or her positions.
4.2 Doesn‟t have the 2 conditions of a reasonable argument
4.3 FANATICAL BELIEVERS believe their claims are true because they say so, period.
Even if they cite some authoritative text (e.g. the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, or
the Road Less Traveled) in the end it‟s their narrow & quirky reading of the text or
faith in the author that underlies their argument.
4.4 Disagreeing with a fanatical believer is like ordering the surf to quiet down – the only
response is a crashing wave.
4.5 FANATICAL SKEPTICS on the other hand, dismisses the possibility of proving
anything. Example: So what if the sun has risen everyday of recorded history, there‟s
no proof that it will rise tomorrow) So being short of the absolute proof, which never
exists –FANATICAL SKEPTICS ACCEPT NOTHING.
4.6 They demand an ironclad, logical demonstration of a claim‟s rightness.
4.7 IN THE PRESENCE OF FANATICAL BELIEVERS OR SKEPTICS – GENUINE
ARGUMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
4.8 Another Source of Pseudo-Arguments: Lack of Shared Assumptions

5. PARTICIPANTS SHARING A COMMON ASSUMPTION WHERE THE

ARGUMENT CAN BE GROUNDED (A reasonable argument is difficult to conduct
without this.)
5.1.1 CALLING ASSUMPTIONS INTO QUESTION is a legitimate way of
deepening and complicating an understanding of an issue
5.1.2 UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT ANY ASSUMPTION MAKES
ARGUMENT IMPOSSIBLE. Example: PIZZA IS TASTIER THAN
 NACHOS – a nutritionist could help establish the assumption by arguing that
pizza is better than nachos because it provides a better balance of nutrients per
calorie. This argument can succeed if the disputant accept the criterion for
“better” is a “balance of nutrients per calorie”.
5.1.3 BUT IF one of the disputants respond that “Nachos is better because it tastes
better”–then he makes a different assumption – “My sense of taste is better
than your sense of taste”. This is a whole personal standard which others are
unable to share.)

V. FRAME OF AN ARGUMENT: A CLAIM SUPPORTED BY REASONS

1. When you write an argument, your task is to take a position on the issue and to support it
with reasons and evidence.
2. THE CLAIM OF YOUR ESSAY IS THE POSITION YOU WANT YOUR AUDIENCE
TO ACCEPT: The frame of an argument consists of a claim which is supported by one or
more reasons which in turn are supported by evidence or sequences of further reasons.
3. Your task is then to make a claim and support it with reasons.
4. What Is A Reason?
4.1 Reason (also called a premise) – a claim used to support another claim.
4.2 In speaking or writing – A REASON IS USUALLY LINKED TO THE CLAIM with
connecting words such as because, since, for, so, thus, consequently, and therefore
which indicates that the claim follows logically from the reason.
4.3 You may formulate a list in a way that it breaks the argumentative task into a series of
subtasks. This will then give you a frame for building your argument into parts. You
can then select two or three reasons which would persuade the intended audience –
each line of reasoning would be developed in its own separate section of the
argument.
4.3.1 Open with a clear statement of the reason to be developed
4.3.2 Support each reason with evidence or chains of other reasons; and if needed
for the intended audience, support the underlying assumptions on which the
reason depends.

5. Advantages of Expressing Reasons in Because Clauses

5.1 „BECAUSE‟ introduces arguments and the reasons following it is what makes the
difference.
5.2 Even though logical relationships can be stated in various ways, writing out one or
more „because‟ clauses seems to be the most succinct (concise) and manageable way
to clarify an argument for oneself.
5.2.1 It is suggested that sometime in the writing process, you create a working
thesis statement which summarizes the main reasons as “because” clauses
attached to your claim.
5.2.2 Other writers plan out their whole argument from the start and often compose
the working thesis statements with “because clauses” before writing their
rough drafts
5.2.3 Others discover their arguments as they write
5.2.4 Others also have a combination of both
5.2.5 Although it is difficult to wrestle your ideas into the “because clause shape”,
NEVERTHELESS TRY TO SUMMARIZE YOUR ARGUMENT AS A
SINGLE CLAIM WITH REASONS– this will help you see more clearly what
you have to do
5.2.6 BECAUSE CLAUSES CAN BE A POWERFUL DISCOVERY TOOL which
causes you to think of many different kinds of arguments to support your
claim.

VI. APPLICATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER’S PRINCIPLES TO YOUR OWN

WRITING
1. An argument is easiest to summarize when
1.1 The writer places his/her thesis in the introduction
1.2 Uses explicit transitions to highlight the argument‟s reasons and structural frame
 2. These arguments have a SELF ANNOUNCING STRUCTURE because they announce
their thesis (and sometimes supporting reasons) and forecast their shape at the outset.
3. An argument with an UNFOLDING STRUCTURE is considerably harder to summarize.
3.1 Here, the thesis is delayed until the end or is unstated or left to be inferred with the
reader from a narrative that may be both complex and subtle.
3.2 This is especially effective for dealing with hostile audiences or with troubling or
tangled issues
3.3 Classical arguments are often more effective for neutral or undecided audiences
weighing alternative views on a clear-cut issue
4. Students are initially asked to write arguments with self-announcing structures which
force them to articulate their arguments clearly to themselves and help master the art of
organizing complex ideas. Later on, students will be asked to experiment with the
structures that unfold their meanings in subtler, more flexible ways. At this point, it is
clear that THE MORE YOU FORECAST, THE CLEARER YOUR ARGUMENT IS TO
YOUR READER. Whereas the less you forecast, the more surprising your argument will
be.
4.1 FORECAST ONLY WHAT IS NEEDED FOR CLARITY
5. In short arguments: readers often need only your claim.
6. In longer arguments, esp. complex ones, readers appreciate your forecasting the complete
structure of the argument.
7. The ONLY GENERAL RULE: Readers sometimes feel insulted by too much
forecasting.

VII. APPLICATION OF THIS CHAPTER’S PRINCIPLES TO READING OF

ARGUMENTS
1. When reading complex arguments that lack explicit forecasting, it‟s often hard to discern
its structural core. To identify its claim – sort out its reasons and evidence. The more
“unfolding” it is the harder it is to see exactly how the writer makes his/her case.
2. Extended arguments, often contain digressions and sub-arguments, thus it contains small
interlinked arguments going on inside a slowly unfolding main argument.
3. When you feel lost in an unfolding structure, try converting it into a self-announcing
structure. It might help to imagine that the argument‟s author must state the argument as a
claim with because clauses. What working thesis statement might the writer construct?)
4. IF SO..
4.1 Begin by identifying the writer‟s claim
4.2 Ask yourself: what are the one, two, three main lines of argument this writer puts
forward to support that claim? State using because clauses attached to the claim
4.3 Compare those disagreements with your classmates. (Yes you may experience
disagreements; however you should find considerable overlap in your responses)
4.4 Disagreements enrich your understanding of a text
4.5 Once converted the support of the claim to because clauses and reached consensus
with them, you will find it much easier to analyze the writer‟s reasoning, underlying
assumptions, and use of evidence.

Prepared by:
Marielle Marie Y. Alfante
Intern, Diploma in Professional Education
Cebu Technological University-Main Campus
February 19, 2019

Noted by:

Mr. Christian Ray C. Licen

Resident Faculty/Instructor
Department of Languages, Literature and Communication