Some concepts are a bit difficult to learn, like the Toulmin and Rogerian Arguments.
To that end, let's play a game.
It will explore several of the major points in Chapters 6 and 7, as well as show you how the concepts of those chapters can be applied to essays (including the one that you have to write for this class).
Directions:
1. Break into 3 teams and come up with team names.
2. Determine who will be team leader. (After discussion of answers, only the team leader will be allowed to answer the question.)
3. Each question is worth 1 point. The goal of the game is to be the group with the most points.
4. Winning team gets bragging rights!
5. Use this game to apply Toulmin and/or Rogerian arguments to your essays. Who knows, these concepts might pop up again!
Okay. [["Let's Play!"]]
//Moana// is a wonderful Disney movie that shows diversity as far as race and gender.
It features a non-white, female protaganist who doesn't want, or need, a male presence.
Other Disney films either have white protagonists or, when the protagonist is a female or person of color, they still need a male presence in order to push the plot along. (I.e. //Aladdin//, //The Princess and the Frog//, //Snow White//, //The Little Mermaid//, etc.)
//Moana// is now one of the most beloved Disney films out there.
//Zootopia//, //Frozen//, and //The Lion King// made more money.
Is this [[1. Toulmin]] or [[2. Rogerian]]?Toulmin is Correct!
[[Question 2]]Wrong!
Try again.
[["Let's Play!"]] If I state a problem, the opposing view, validate the opposition, state my position, validate my postion, and then list the benefits of my position, what am I?
[[3. Toulmin]] or [[4.Rogerian]]?I'm sorry. You're answer is incorrect.
Try again.
[[Question 2]] Correct. The Rogerian method is meant to be a kinder method.
[[Question 3]] is next!Students work hard in other classes to learn complicated systems.
Every academic field has terminology and a taxonomy that take time to learn, but the effort is rapid many times over.
If students ork hard to learn in any other classes, then they can expect to work hard to learn in a writing class, too.
What is the last statement: [[5.Toulmin]], [[6.Rogerian]], [[7.An Enthymeme]], or [[8.Toulmin and Enthymeme]]?I'm sorry. This answer was incorrect.
Try again!
[[Question 3]] Not exactly.
Try again.
[[Question 3]] I know that you thought this was a trick question, but this answer is incorrect.
Try again.
[[Question 3]] Correct! You all definitely studied your vocabulary!
[[Question 4]]If I introduce my issue, give it context, state my position on it, and then tell my opponents the benefits of the position, what am I?
[[9. Toulmin]] or [[10. Rogerian]]?Nope. I'm sorry.
Try again.
[[Question 4]] Correct! This is how you formulate a Rogerian argument.
[[Question 5]]I am an invitational argument.
[[11. Toulmin]] or [[12.Rogerian]]?You tried hard. But, alas, your answer is incorrect.
Try again.
[[Question 5]] Yes! Rogerian arguments "invite" the opponent to listen.
Great work!
Next question: [[Question 6]]Our campus needs a center that allows students to nap during exam week. Why? Because every year I end up sleeping in my car, at lunch tables, or in the computer labs during this most hectic of times. It's unreal!
This is an example of which of the following:
[[13.Authority]]
[[14.Anecdote]]
[[15. Personal experience]]
[[16. Facts]]If only this were the case.
Sorry.
Try again.
[[Question 6]] It could have been, if someone else were telling the story.
Try again.
[[Question 6]] Correct! This is where analyzing a text and knowing that personal pronouns indicate a personal experience is helpful!
See, we teach you this stuff for a reason!
[[Question 7]]There's just no way to prove that this is the truth...unless you took a survey.
Try again.
[[Question 6]] Which of the following is "NOT" a qualifier?
[[17.if it were so]]
[[18.never]]
[[19.perhaps]]
[[20.one might argue]]This is definitely a qualifier.
Try again.
[[Question 7]] Correct! Never say never when you need a qualifying statement. It has negative connotations, and turns off your reader.
[[Question 8]]I'm sure that you use this whenever making arguments at home or with friends.
I'm sorry, try again.
[[Question 7]] This was in several Essays that I read this semester and last.
Sorry. Try again.
[[Question 7]] The federal government should ban e-cigarettes, but it would be limited to public spaces.
After all, they aren't harmless and people might smoke more because of them. And, the Constitution definitely states that it wants to "promote general welfare." The U.S. is supposed to uphold that and serve its people.
I mean, these ads directly appeal to childen and there's also research that links e-cigs to people returning to traditional smoking practices.
Is this the beginning of a [[21.Toulmin]] or [[22.Rogerian]] argument?Yes, it's the beginning of a Toulmin argument.
[[Question 9]]I'm sorry. That's incorrect.
Try again.What are the steps left to complete the argument on [[Question 8]] ?
[[23. Claim, Qualifier, Good Reasons]]
[[24. Evidence, Authority, Responses]]
[[25. Warrants, Evidence, Conditions of Rebuttal]]
[[26.Authority, Conditions of Rebuttal, Responses]]Good guess, but this is incorrect. These are the first three steps to outlining a Toulmin argument.
Try again.
[[Question 9]]While these are steps to outlining the Toulmin argument, these aren't necessarily the remaining steps from the previous question.
Try again.
[[Question 9]] Unfortunately, this answer is wrong. Question 8 already has two of these components.
Try again.
[[Question 9]] Correct. These are the last three steps to outlining a Toulmin argument.
The steps are: make your claim, give a qualifier, give good reasons that support the qualifier, give warrants for those reasons, back up your warrants, cite your evidence, produce why that citation is an authority on that subject, give a rebuttal to your argument, and respond why that rebuttal doesn't work.
(Don't worry, I'm leaving this on D2L for you to read later.)
Next Question: [[Question 10]]If you're trying to win the atention and goodwill of an audience while introducing a topic or problem, you're following which form of Classical Oration?
[[27.Partitio]]
[[28.Exordium]]
[[29.Refutatio]]
[[30.Kairos]]Pardon me, this answer is incorrect.
Try again.
[[Question 10]] No bad jokes here! Exordium is the answer to this question. You may exit to the next one. (Okay, I had to have one other bad joke.)
[[Question 11]]I refute thee! (I know, really bad joke.)
Please, try again.
[[Question 10]] Unfortunately, you missed this opportunity (I know, bad joke).
Try again.
[[Question 10]] To compose a rhetorical analysis you need to know which of the following?
[[31.The Definition of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos]]
[[32.The 8 Components of Analyzing a Text]]
[[33.The answer to life]]
[[34.Numbers 31 and 32]]This is something that you need to know for a rhetorical analysis, but is it the only thing that you need to know?
Try again.
[[Question 11]] Yes, this is definitely an important part to rhetorical analysis. But, aren't you forgetting something?
Try again.
[[Question 11]] The answer to life is 42...at least according to //The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy//.
Unfortunately, it's not the answer here.
Try again.
[[Question 11]] Yes! You need to know how to use ethos, logos, and pathos in conjunction with the 8 components of analyzing a text in order to compose a rhetorical analysis.
Great job!
[[Question 12]]Which of the following is an effective means of building crediblity with an audience?
[[35.Tell them that their opinions are wrong.]]
[[36.Show respect for your readers or viewers, even when they don't agree with you.]]
[[37.Agree with your audience no matter what.]]
[[38.Speak to an audience that has no knowledge on the topic that you are presenting on.]]Telling someone that their opinion is wrong will likely result in them tuning you out.
Try again.
[[Question 12]] Correct!
We should always be respectful of others opinions, even when we disagree with them. If you do your job well, which is to argue your viewpoint and back it up with evidence, then you might end up changing their mind.
[[Question 13]]If you agreed with your audience no matter what, then what would they learn? What would you learn?
Try again.
[[Question 12]] You could do this, but then you're just taking advantage of the situation. Besides, there will generally be one person that knows a little bit about your topic of choice.
Try again.
[[Question 12]] Which set of words evoke pathos?
[[39.savory, statistically speaking,tall]]
[[40.swoons, insensate delight, superbly satisfying]]
[[41.hello,goodbye,beautiful]]
[[42.logically, the data states, credibility]]I wouldn't say that the phrase "statistically speaking" makes me feel anything. What about you?
Try again.
[[Question 13]] Correct!
This set of phrases can be found on page 107 of your textbook and is used o explain how you can examine arguments based on emotion:pathos.
[[Question 14]]Which of the following would NOT provide you with a good source for an essay?
[[43.JSTOR database]]
[[44.Wikipedia]]
[[45.Google Scholar]]
[[46.EBSCOhost Database]]Double-click this passage to edit it.Double-click this passage to edit it.This is an acceptable source for essays. You can check out the Writing Center or the Library if you need help navigating it.
Which means, this is not the correct answer.
Try again.
[[Question 14]] You should never cite Wikipedia as a source.
This doesn't mean that you can't use it to search for a good source. If you find an interesting article, scroll to the bottom where all of the sources are cited.
Vet those sources to ensure that they are acceptable and then cite them instead.
For examples of what I mean, you can check D2L on 2.22.19.
But, rule of thumb, just don't use Wikipedia if you can find a better source on Ebsco, JSTOR, etc.
[[Question 15]]Google Scholar is an acceptable database to use to locate sources for essays. However, be mindful of which sources you choose as, occassionally, they have not so savory sources.
Try again.
[[Question 14]] Ebscohost is my absolute FAVORITE database to use for research. It's easy to navigate and includes options for citing sources correctly. (It's been my go-to since I was a freshman at AU!)
Try again.
[[Question 14]] Aristotle carved the structure of logical arguments to have the bare bones of what two parts?
[[47.Statements and Proof]]
[[48.an opposing view and an opinion]]
[[49.formulas and patterns]]
[[50.ethos, logos, and pathos]]Correct!
You can find this answer at the bottom of page 112 in your textbook
If you think about it, even as a child, your instinct for arguments has -- most likely -- been to utter the phrase "prove it!"
We're taught from a young age that anything that we say needs proof. Ere go, they are the two main components that one needs to construct a useful argument.
I guess Aristotle really knew his stuff!
[[Question 16]]You may want to read over page 112 in your textbook.
Try again.
[[Question 15]] Some arguments may include this, but it's not the answer to the question.
Try again.
[[Question 15]] You may find arguments that use these three forms of rhetorical analysis, but this is not the answer that I was looking for.
Try again.
[[Question 15]] What is the So What? factor for the article "Fleeing to the Mountains"?
[[51. The loss of public lands means that we've lost something important as a society forever.]]
[[52.Love the wilderness.]]
[[53.The wilderness nourishes our souls if we let it.]]
[[54.Both 51 and 53 could be So-What factors.]]Yes, but I feel like there's more...
Try again.
[[Question 16]] While this is certainly a theme, I don't think that it could constitute as the So-What factor. Read the last two paragraphs on page 120 again.
[[Question 16]] This is a wonderful point, but is it the only one that we should think about when discussing a So-What factor?
Try again.
[[Question 16]] Right!
Both 51 and 53 could be So-What factors. I would even argue -- there's that word again ;-) -- that the author combines the two ideas so that we will consider the following: if the wilderness nourishes our soul, then losing access to it would rob us of having a link to one of the many things that makes us human.
Great job!
[[Question 17]]Who is the author of "Fleeing to the Mountains"?
[[55.Nic Stone]]
[[56.Nicholas Haur]]
[[57.Nicholas Kristof]]
[[58.Cameron Kristof]]While Nic is a short hand version of Nicholas, the author Nic Stone is actually a woman and the author of //Dear Martin// (one of my favorite YA novels of last year).
Try again.
[[Question 17]] Did you analyze this text properly? If so, you know that Haur is not the last name of the author for this article.
Try again.
[[Question 17]] Yes!
Nicholas Kristof is the author of this text.
[[Question 18]]While Kristof is the last name of the author, Cameron is the first name ofthe author for our second aricle "Appeal, Audience, and Narrative in Kristof's Wilderness."
Try again.
[[Question 17]] Does Kristof use a Toulmin or Rogerian argument for his essay?
[[59.Toulmin]]
[[60.Rogerian]]Correct!
Kristof's essay is a Toulmin article.
[[Question 19]]You may want to read the article again.
[[Question 18]] Why is Kristoff's article a Toulmin argument?
[[61.It follows the problem, opposing view, validation of opposition, your position, validation of your postion, benefits of your position model.]]
[[62.It's structure is introduction, personal experience, data, challengesa and risks, conclusion/so-what factor.]]
[[63.It uses the fact, warrant and backing, conclusion and rebuttal format of an essay.]]
[[64.Is it really a Toulmin argument?]]This is the format for a Rogerian argument.
Try again.
[[Question 19]] This is the structure/organization of the essay, but it doesn't tell me if the essay is a Toulmin or Rogerian argument.
Try again.
[[Question 19]] Right!
This format is used for Toulmin arguments, and is definitely used in this argument.
Wonderful work you witty wonders! (See my alliteration there?)
[[Question 20]]Yes, it's really a Toulmin argument.
[[Question 19]] Part of an argument is offering evidence and good reasons. Which of the following does Kristof use MOST in his essay?
[[65.Personal Experience]]
[[66.Anecdotes]]
[[67.Facts]]
[[68.Authorities]]Correct!
The use of personal pronouns makes this essay based on personal expereince. I'm glad to see that you all know how to connect the practical chapters in the text with the essays, articles, and stories presented in the book and in class.
[[Question 21]]This essay could be an anecddote; however, Kristof doesn't use any phrases that indicate that he heard these stories of travel from someone else. Instead, he uses first person pronouns.
Try again.
[[Question 20]]As far as I can tell, Kristof never cites any sources.
[[Question 20]] As far as I can tell, there are no authorities mentioned in this text besides Trump; but, even so, it's not as though it was a direct conversation with him nor is Trump the one supporting or making the argument.
Try again.
[[Question 20]] Earlier this semester we discussed the 4 types of arguments. Keeping that in mind, What is the purpose of Hauer's essay?
[[69.To Convince and Inform]]
[[70.To Persuade]]
[[71.To Make Decisions]]
[[72.To Understand and Explore]]Hauer does try to convince you of his point of view, but I wouldn't say that the main purpose of his essay is to convince and inform.
Try again.
[[Question 21]]Yes!
Hauer wants to persuade us that Kristof is biased on the issue that he presents.
Great job!
[[Question 22]]You do have to make the decision as to whether or not you believe Kristof or Hauer, but it's not the main purpose of Hauer's essay.
Try again.
[[Question 21]]Are you sure?
[[Question 21]]Does Hauer's essay utilize the Toulmin or Rogerian argument?
[[73.Toulmin]]
[[74.Rogerian]]Did you observe the structure/organization of the essay?
Try again.
[[Question 22]]Correct!
This essay utilizes the format of a Rogerian argument.
[[Question 23]]Why is this essay considered a Rogerian argument?
[[75.It utilizes some, if not all, of the 8 components for analyzing a text.]]
[[76.It follows the fact, warrant and backing, conclusion and rebuttal format.]]
[[77.Are you sure this is a Rogerian argument?]]
[[78. It follows the problem, opposing view, validation of opposition, your position, validation of your position, benefits of your position model.]]
Hauer does analyze Kristof's text, but it's not what makes his argument Rogerian.
[[Question 23]]This is the format for a Toulmin argument.
Try again.
[[Question 23]]Yes, it's a Rogerian argument.
[[Question 23]]Yes!
This is the correct format for a Rogerian argument because it invites the reader to listen to both sides of the argument critically before deciding whether or not the authors opinion is valid.
[[Question 24]]What are Hauer's critiques of Kristof's essay?
[[79.It's nonsensical, he has no evidence to back up his claims, and he has no credibility.]]
[[80.Kristof's comments about Trump and he has a disconnect between his views on private and public lands, especially in his characterization of the land and who can afford what.]]
[[81.He doesn't critique Kristof.]]Although Kristof has little to no evidence in his essay, his essay makes sense to his audience and his credibility is established through his personal experience.
Try again.
[[Question 24]]Yes!
Hauer speaks of the "telling ellisions" in Kristof's essay and, if you look on ppage 123, there is a not that shows the reader where Hauer offers a critique of Kristof's position.
Great job!
Last question! [[Question 25]]Read pages 122-124 again.
[[Question 24]]What concepts from chapter 6 does Hauer use in his essay?
[[81. He connects the article to personal experience to create an ethical appeal.]]
[[82. He provides a brief overview of Kristof's argument and major claim, as well as identifies and provides examples from it.]]
[[83. He discusses style and uses evidence, puts Kristof's article in rhetorical context, and uses transition sentences to shift the argument.]]
[[84.He analyzes Kristof's text and offers a critique on Kristof's position.]]
[[85.He does all of the above.]]Yes, and...
[[Question 25]]Yes, but he also...
[[Question 25]]Of course! But, he is also excellent at...
[[Question 25]]Okay, but you're forgetting that he...
[[Question 25]]Yes! Hauer does all of the following:
He connects the article to personal experience to create an ethical appeal.
He provides a brief overview of Kristof's argument and major claim, as well as identifies and provides examples from it.
He discusses style and uses evidence, puts Kristof's article in rhetorical context, and uses transition sentences to shift the argument.
He analyzes Kristof's text and offers a critique on Kristof's position.
[[BONUS QUESTION]]For FIVE (5) points, what does the word epideictic mean?
[[A)cruel or oppressive government rule]]
[[B)an omission of a passage in a book, speech, or film]]
[[C)characterized by or designed to display rhetorical or oratorical skill]]
[[D)None of the above]]This is the definition of the word tyranny.
Try again.
[[BONUS QUESTION]] I'm sorry. This is the definition for elision.
Try again.
[[BONUS QUESTION]] Correct!
The word epidiectic (which I had to look up myself) means to be characterized or designed to display rhetorical or oratorical skill.
I hope you had fun.
If you enjoyed it, [["Let's Play!"]] again sometime!
Otherwise, let's tally those points.Nope. The answer is definitely A,B, or C
[[BONUS QUESTION]]