Unit I- Language and Thought: What is Language



ENG 1213: Unit 1 Essay (Argument Analysis)

Kelli McBride

REVISED Fall 2007

READINGS

• Adolph Hitler, “Nation and Race” from Mein Kampf (Power of Language, 2nd, p. 445-49)

• Richard Nixon, “Senator Nixon’s Checkers Speech” (Power of Language, 2nd ed., p. 229-236)

• Donna Woolfolk Cross, “Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled” (Power of Language, 2nd, p. 39-48)

• L. Kip Wheeler, “Logical Fallacies Handlist” (Class Handout or available at )

GUIDELINES

In order to fulfill the assignment, compose an argumentative essay according to the lecture on writing an argument and handouts I’ve provided. You must use and analyze “Senator Nixon’s Checkers Speech” in your essay discussion, applying Cross’s and/or Wheeler’s discussion of propaganda and logical fallacies. These will provide examples of what may happen if the audience does not stop and think about what the speaker is saying or does not stop to question the validity of, practicality of, or intent behind the arguments a writer presents. Your discussion must incorporate your own ideas and opinions regarding this subject, but may also make use of ideas presented in assigned readings and class discussion. Students must follow M.L.A. documentation rules when citing from outside sources, which the QA Compact addresses. If you have any further questions, please consult with me.

The analysis essay should have a minimum of 3 body paragraphs according to the outline given below and discussed in class. In your essay, you must convince your audience of the need to critically examine all forms of argument. In order to accomplish this task, you must support your position with three well-developed and well-supported claims. These three main discussion points will become the topics of your three body paragraphs and may include the benefits gained from argument analysis and/or the negative results of failure to analyze. In your thesis statement, you must make your position clear, and list your three points of discussion.

Following a strict, academic format, your essay would outline like this (though a lot of variations exist):

• Introduction: open with an attention getter, provide context for this discussion, and state thesis. A context might be a current issue your audience would recognize that uses propaganda or logical fallacies.

• Body Paragraph 1: Present first logical fallacy pattern; define it using Cross and/or Wheeler; explain the problems with this type of thinking according to your source(s); quote from Nixon’s speech where he uses such fallacy; explain why it is a logical error.

• Body Paragraph 2: Present second supporting evidence, etc.

• Body Paragraph 3: Present third supporting evidence, etc.

• Conclusion: Restatement of thesis, provide big picture comments – why it is important not to be bamboozled, as Cross calls it.

In addition, you must:

• use proper tone and voice for a formal essay (use formal, not conversational or casual, language)

• use strong verbs and specific words to convey your meaning.

• employ correct punctuation and grammar.

• follow page format guidelines as described in your syllabus.

• Include an essay checklist with each draft you submit for a grade.

You may assume that your audience for this assignment consists of intelligent, college-level readers.

Your paper must be at least 2 pages in length (@600 words).

ADDITIONAL

You may make an appointment with me (or email me) at any phase of your assignment to discuss any ideas or problems you may be having. I am more than willing to look at drafts at any stage of development. Please consult the information in your syllabus about scheduling appointments in order to do so. You may also schedule an appointment in SSC’s Student Success Center with a writing tutor to gain valuable feedback on your draft. THIS ASSIGNMENT IS WORTH 100 POINTS.

Sample analysis of Hitler: introduction, a body paragraph, and a conclusion

Sophistry happens when people argue through deceit to gain their audience’s support.  Sophists believe that any means justifies their ends.  Adolph Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf, is perhaps one of the best examples of sophistry.  Page after page, Hitler subjects his readers to slights of hand, innuendo, scare tactics, and generalizations.  For those who raise a skeptical eyebrow to his arguments, Hitler expounds that most of us are blind to the obvious truths residing beneath our noses (445). Cleverly, he tries to make us believe that those who do not agree with him are at fault and deluded. Hitler’s arguments rely solely on the readers’ gullibility and acceptance of his points at face value.  However, he was able to sway millions of people to his cause.  Not all of them were evil or insane.  Probability suggests that most of the men and women who helped Hitler murder and torture millions of people were just as sane the average person.  At best, these people were dupes, totally taken in by Hitler’s theory of race and nation.  Critical readers of Mein Kampf, though, will see the patterns of logical errors that should have made people at least ask for more evidence.

 

One of Hitler’s more glaring errors in logic is false analogy. Donna Woolfolk Cross defines this type of fallacy as a false analogy (45). According to Cross, a fair analogy involves comparing two things that have noteworthy similarities. A false analogy, in contrast, compares two things in trivial or shallow ways, ignoring important and significant differences. Cross suggests people ask two questions when faced with an analogy: "Are the things being compared truly alike in significant ways? Do the differences between them affect the comparison?" (45). The last question is perhaps the most important: how do the differences change the veracity of the arguer’s point? People using propaganda to win an argument will often compare themselves or their causes to things that the audience finds sympathetic, ethical, heroic, knowledgeable, or appealing in other ways. By associating themselves with something else with which the reader is familiar, the arguer hopes to gain the audience’s confidence and trust. A person’s use of a false analogy often involves other fallacies, such as glory by association, and appeals to patriotism, religion, etc. Because these appeals work, propagandists rely heavily on them. Perhaps Hitler’s strongest use of false analogy is when he compares himself indirectly to Christopher Columbus. He writes: “Columbus's eggs lie around by the hundreds of thousands, but Columbuses are met with less frequently” (445). This false analogy refers to a famous myth. James Baldwin’s version tells of an evening when Columbus was dining with several Spanish noblemen. One man claimed that Columbus’s discovery of the New World was not that difficult. In response, Columbus asked anyone at the table if he knew how to stand an egg on one end. Though they all tried, no one could accomplish the feat. Indeed, they all said it was impossible. Columbus picked up an egg, tapped the end gently on the table enough to flatten it, and stood it up. He then replied: “What is easier than to do this which you said was impossible? It is the simplest thing in the world. Anybody can do it,—after he has been shown how"(Baldwin). In referring to this story, Hitler is claiming that obvious truths are all around us, but only few people possess the ingenuity of Columbus to see them and bring these discoveries to the rest of the world. This analogy sets up his entire argument in “Nation and Race.” Hitler, like Columbus, must show us the truth of nature, of races, of world dominance for its own good, and we should listen to him because he is special like Columbus. However, the analogy is false. First, Columbus was out to discover land not truths about nature which are abstract and inconclusive unlike great bodies of dirt and water. However, Hitler is dealing in abstracts that he cannot verify. An example of this is when he claims: “To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator” (447). Though people of Columbus’s time could verify the truth of his claims by setting out on their own voyages to the New World (and in fact, people soon discovered that Columbus had not reached Asia like he thought he had), no one can validate Hitler’s claims because it is impossible to interview the eternal creator or even to prove that such a creator exists. Therefore, Hitler’s claims to be another Columbus are false because of the very significant difference in what the two men where trying to discover, and the very nature of their discoveries.

Any one of these errors should have made more people stop and question Hitler’s entire manifesto.  When we add to them the hundreds of other problems with Mein Kampf, we might find it difficult to understand how the Nazi party could have fooled so many people.  Of course, Hitler was not the only force at work in Germany at this time.  Economical and political concerns also contributed to his rise in power.  Still, we cannot deny the implausibility of his arguments.  Perhaps we will never stop asking ourselves how he gained such control over Germany, for the answer is salvation to us all.  We are all susceptible to this type of manipulation because we want people to tell us what we want to hear.  A candidate can say, “I won’t raise taxes,” and we want so much to believe that we will buy into it.  The lengths we will go to for that candidate depend on his/her persuasive abilities.  Someone with the charisma of Hitler can go far on the backs of unhappy and oppressed citizens.  Our only defense against such attacks is our analytical mind.  We must never take something at face value.  America today faces many challenges, and people bombard us with their arguments, trying to persuade us to believe them. No side is immune to using propaganda and logical fallacies to win. Once we realize that, we have a better chance at making decisions based on truth, not lies and manipulation.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download