Satire Project - Weebly



Video Argumentation Essay

You will be working with a small group to produce a convincing argument over a controversial issue. The issue may be local, national or even of international concern. In addition to a well-written effective paper of approximately 600-1000 words, you will produce a creative product. The creative product should persuade your audience to accept your stand on the issue, acting in a positive way to make change. Typically the medium of the project will be a documentary video of approximately 3-10 minutes in length; however, your project could take the form of a lecture with a persuasive, informative brochure for the audience and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. One of the first choices you must make is/are the topic of your assignment. Your controversial issue should be an important concern, an issue with consequences for our community, country or planet. In your class, no other group will be able to select the identical topic, so you should choose carefully and yet quickly, as the first group to get a topic approved with the instructor will be able to use it.

Once you have determined the controversial issue of your focus as well as the form of the creative product, you will begin the research process. You must have at least four but no more than six sources for your argument. You are searching for data to support your point of view. Sources may include statistics, expert testimony or scholarly publications, interviews, or current events. A works cited list is expected, and after our extensive research unit, it should be perfect. Remember your pamphlet or video must include the works cited, or in the case of the video verbal accreditation of the source.

Before writing and production, you will need to then look to the accompanying list of argumentative and rhetorical elements that must be included in your product. This assignment will require precise use of classical argumentative structure and persuasive devices. Accompanying your work, you will turn in a typed transcript, noting the inclusion of each of these rhetorical elements in your argument. If you prepare a lecture, then a transcript of the lecture must accompany the live presentation.

As your group prepares this assignment, consider how each member of the group can be involved in various responsibilities in such a way that it is clear to your teacher that an equal sharing of responsibilities has taken place. Your group will need to include a detailed explanation of how each member contributed to the final products you prepare.

Controversial Issue ____________________________________________

Position on the Issue ___________________________________________

Product Medium _____________________________________________

Group Members and Jobs

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

The Classical Approach

[pic]

| |The classical approach to argument is a model of argumentation invented by the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. It is best used |

| |when the purpose of your argument is to persuade your audience to agree with your point of view, take your side on an issue, or make a|

| |decision in your favor. The classical approach/Aristotelian model relies heavily on the use of ethos, pathos, and logos appeals. |

| |The following is the typical organization pattern for this approach: |

| |Introduction (exordium)—introduces the reader or view to the subject under discussion. The introduction draws the readers in by |

| |piquing their interest, challenging them, or otherwise getting their attention. Often the introduction is where the writer establish |

| |ethos. |

| |Narration (narratio)—provides factual information and background material on the subject, or establishes why the subject is a problem |

| |that needs addressing. Although classical rhetoric describes narration as appealing to logos, in actuality it often appeals to pathos |

| |because the writer attempts to evoke an emotional response about the importance of the issue. |

| |Confirmation (confirmation)—the major part of the text, includes the development or the proof needed to make the writer’s case, |

| |containing the most specific and concrete detail in the text. Strongest appeal to logos. |

| |Refutation (refutation)—analyzes the opposition's argument and summarizes it; refutes or addresses the points; points out faulty |

| |reasoning and inappropriate appeals. |

| |Conclusion (peroration)—brings presentation to a satisfying close. Appealing to pathos, reminds the reader of the ethos established |

| |earlier. The conclusion brings all the writer’s ideas together and answers the question, so what? Remember the classical rhetoricians’|

| |advice that the last words and ideas of a text are those the audience is most likely to remember. |

The Toulmin Approach

[pic]

| |This model of argument was developed by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin. The Toulmin Model is especially helpful when you try |

| |to make a case on controversial issues that do not have an absolute truth as the Toulmin Model seeks to establish probabilities rather|

| |than truth. |

| |The following is a typical organization for the Toulmin Model: |

| |Claims—there are several different types of claims: claims of fact, claims of definition, claims of cause, claims of value, and claims|

| |of policy. You can use any one or more of these claims to introduce your issue and to establish your case. |

| |Data—information you use to support your claims. |

| |Warrant—the assumption made by a writer in order for the claim to be true. |

| |Backing—what you use to support the warrant. |

| |Rebuttal—this is where you consider the opposing viewpoint and refute it. |

| |Qualifier—use language that seeks to qualify the claims you make in order to bring your argument to a close. |

The Rogerian Approach

[pic]

| |This is a model of argument named after the psychologist Carl Rogers, who believed that people could only resolve an issue or solve a |

| |problem once they found the "common ground." A group of rhetoricians, Young, Becker, and Pike, then developed a model of argument |

| |named the Rogerian argument, which advocates a way of argument that is less confrontational, less one-sided, and more compromising and|

| |deliberately consensus-building. The following are the usual elements of the Rogerian approach: |

| |An introduction that briefly and objectively defines the issue or problem |

| |A neutral, non-judgmental statement of the opponent's position, presented within valid contexts, that demonstrates the writer clearly |

| |understands it |

| |A neutral statement and explanation of your position and the contexts in which it is valid |

| |An analysis of what the two positions have in common and what goals and values they share. This is where your data would logically |

| |contribute the most. |

| |A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the interests of both parties, or a statement of how the opponent's |

| |position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position |

See Patterns for College Writing Ch. 10 for more information on organizational approaches.

Five Categories of Claims

Argumentative essays are based on a claim, which almost always falls into one of the five following categories.

1. Claims of fact. Is it real? Is it a fact? Did it really happen? Is it true? Does it exist?

Examples: Global warming is occurring. Women are just as effective as men in combat. Affirmative action undermines individual achievement. Immigrants are taking away jobs from Americans who need work.

2. Claims of definition. What is it? What is it like? How should it be classified? How can it be defined? How do we interpret it? Does its meaning shift in particular contexts?

Examples: Alcoholism is a disease, not a vice. We need to define the term family before we can talk about family values. Date rape is a violent crime.  The death penalty constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

3. Claims of cause. How did this happen? What caused it? What led up to this? What are its effects? What will this produce?

Examples: The introduction of the computer into university writing classes has enhanced student writing ability.  The popularity of the Internet has led to a rise in plagiarism amongst students.  The economic boom of the 1990s was due in large part to the skillful leadership of the executive branch. 

4. Claims of value. Is it good or bad? Beneficial or harmful? Moral or immoral? Who says so? What do these people value? What value system will be used to judge?

Examples: Doctor-assisted suicide is immoral. Violent computer games are detrimental to children’s social development. The Simpsons is not a bad show for young people to watch. Dancing is good, clean fun.

5. Claims of policy. What should we do? How are we to act? What policy should we take? What course of action should we take to solve this problem?

Examples: We should spend less on the prison systems and more on early intervention programs. Welfare programs should not be dismantled. The state of Oklahoma ought to begin to issue vouchers for parents to use to fund their children’s education. Every person in the United States should have access to federally-funded health insurance.

Adapted from Nancy Wood’s Perspectives on Argument, 2nd ed. (pp.161-72)

-----------------------

Required Products

Creative Product (choose one):

• Documentary (4-7 minutes)

• Lecture (including question and answer period, PowerPoint presentation, and brochures for the class)

Written Products (both required):

• Written transcript of documentary or lecture with highlighted rhetorical elements

• Paper – 600-1000 word argument with Works Cited

Required Argumentative and Rhetorical Elements to Include

Suggested (possible) Structure (Classical, Toulmin, or Rogerian):

• Introduction (exordium)

• Narration (narration)

• Confirmation (confirmation)

• Refutation (refutation)

• Conclusion (peroration)

Each at Least ONCE:

• Thesis

• Personal Interview

• Expert Testimony

• Chart Presenting Data

• Current Event

• Compare and Contrast

• Syllogism or Enthymeme

• Example of Inductive Reasoning

• Ethos

• Pathos

• Logos

• Analogy

• Anecdote

• Parallel Structure

• Rhetorical Question

• Rhetorical Fragment

• Extended Metaphor

• Call to Action

Required in Documentary:

• Juxtaposition

• Visual Irony

• Musical Component

At Least One of the Following:

• Hasty or Sweeping Generalization

• Either/Or Fallacy

• You Also (Tu Quoque)

• Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

• Non Sequitur

• Appeal to Doubtful Authority

• Slipper Slope

• Red Herring

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download