Argument Review in Context

Claims, Reasons, Evidence, Warrants, Acknowledgements/Responses

To date weve covered quite a bit of information on the structure of argument in the context of news media. There are a number of points that weve covered under each topic, and this packet should help to organize those points. First, before writing your introduction with, of course, a status quo, destabilizing condition and consequences!, there are a few questions that should be asked "you could write these questions down for each paper you write and try to answer them, because theyll provide the focus for your paper# $.! %hat do you think& ' ()*+, -.! %hy do you think that& ' ./*0120 3.! 4ow do you know thats true& ' /5+6/2(/ 7.! %hy do the reasons8evidence support the claim& ' %*..*2T0 9.! %hat about alternative views or contrary evidence& ' *(:21%)/6;/,/2T8./0<120/ * QUAL ! CA" #$% * For (laims# ' +s the claim contestable ' 6oes the claim declare something "i.e. to quote ;ertrude 0tein! is there any there there& ' +s the claim supportable with evidence& ' 6oes it pass the reversal test, i.e. can you re=state the claim as its own opposite and does it still make sense& ' +s the claim laid out as a well=structured problem statement in your introduction, with a status quo, a destabilizing condition that shakes up that status quo, and consequences that answer so what& ' Four kinds of claims# $.! <olicy (laims# 0omething should be done or avoided We should considered films more deeply; we should not consider current political rock and roll as honestly political; we should/should not invade Iraq. -.! (laims of 5alue# /valuate or >udge something The C C is a !etter model of !roadcastin" than # $ or %#&; %i"htline does a !etter/worse 'o! of e(aminin" a su!'ect than %)W; $esame $treet teaches people how to watch T*+ not their , C-s. 3.! (laims of Fact# %hat was, is and shall be $addam .ussein has terrori/ed his nei"h!ors and his own populace and will do so a"ain; people respond to film simply as if they were eavis 0 utthead+ and as a result we "et simple1minded films; political rock used to consider the relation of the musician to the

music+ !ut now does nothin" of the sort. 7.! (laims of 6efinition# *rgue how something should be defined or categorized #olitical rock should consider the relation of the musician to the music; $esame $treet should !e considered as educational in the traditional sense; news media in the 2$ tends to fall either into pu!lic or commercial cate"ories+ each with its own pros and cons. For .easons# ' 6o your reasons explain why you think the audience should accept your claim& ' 6o they represent >udgments not shared by your audience i.e. are you already preaching to the converted& +f so, wheres the argument&! ' 6o your reasons rest on evidence& .emember, reasons exist in our heads, while what the reasons are based on evidence! is out there in the world. ' .ecall the reasons we saw in %hatever, 6ude and8or 2evermind# first they both presented a kind of status quo with the kind of films8music we get today and our responses to them, made a claim about that status quo the destabilizing condition!, and then went on to show how something either could be or was once different, and T4/2 showed evidence through either the analysis of 1ne=/yed ?acks or .age *gainst the ,achine and ;ang of Four. For /vidence# ' (ould it be looked up& ' +s the evidence not contestable at least for the time being!& ' +s it comprised of representations of states of affairs that are treated as facts& .emember, reasons rest on evidence, while evidence rests on itself. ' 4ow closely do you need to match your readers expectations& ' 4ow strongly will your readers resist your claim "will your evidence need to be stronger if they will be more resistant& *long with that, how fully do you expect your readers to accept your claim& ' .ecall <ostmans arguments about educational television and how it taught people to learn@ or the evidence presented in the lyrics of .age *gainst the ,achine as not actually political@ or our own and a few 0enators questions about the evidence presented in <resident Aushs speech advocating an invasion of +raq. ' The four maxims of quality evidence $.! +s it accurate& -.! +s your reportage of evidence accurate enough& 3.! +s your evidence representative& 7.! *re you using reliable sources& For %arrants# ' 6oes is assert a logical connection between your reason8evidence and your claim& ' 6oes the warrant include both your reason and your evidence& ' (an it be assumed, or does it need stating& ' .emember, warrants can be thought of as if8then statements that name a general circumstance and state a general inference based on that circumstance like a proverb!@ warrants tend to fail when they are re>ected as untrue or they dont apply to

the reason and8or claim. ' Think of a warrant as that thing at the end of your reasons8evidence that links those things back to your claim "if its not obvious from the paragraph itself, a simple statement asserting this is necessary. ' .ecall 2ightline and how we were looking for some warrants to tie all the loose BevidenceC back to some claim@ or <resident Aushs speech where we considered if the reasons and evidence presented actually supported the claim being made. ' %arrants (hecklist# $.! %hat is your warrant& -.! +s it true& 3.! *re your specific reasons8claims legit examples of your warrant& i.e. does your reason match your warrant, and does your claim match your warrant. For *cknowledgement8.esponse# ' *cknowledgements# .aise alternative views, reasons, claims, warrants 0how how an argument can be located amongst a field of other arguments ;ive a nod to possible concerns you think your audience may have with the argument .ecall how <ostman did go into how what 0esame 0treet did do, it did well "it was >ust something other than what it claimed to do. ' .esponses# *ccept or re>ect an acknowledged alternative or explain problems within your own argument. Think of <resident Aushs speech and some of the responses he had to engaging in more D2 inspections. Quali&ications can' ' )imit the range of a claim ' <rovide a limit for the quality of evidence being used ' 0tate conditions needed for a claim to apply.