syllaweb
course policies
assignments
course links
research links
writing guides
web searching
thoughts on grading

English 216
PROJECT #2: Evaluation
Assignment and Heuristics

The Assignment

Composing Schedule:
Heuristics: 10/2, 10/4, 10/9
First Draft: 10/11
Second Draft: 10/16
Polished Draft Due: 10/18


The Assignment:
In the first assignment for this class, you chose an issue, you described all the parties who have a stake in the issue, and you explained how each party conjectures (depicts) that issue. You then examined the underlying values inherent in each conjecture. Therefore, you have laid out the groundwork that you need before you take a position on the issue. You know how each group depicts the issue (conjectures), and you know what drives them to make that depiction (values).

Now you have been asked to become a spokesperson for one of the parties in the debate with whom you agree. You are going to write an editorial or letter (2-4 pages) in which you try to persuade one opposing party that you identified in the first paper to agree with your conjectures about the issue.

Therefore, you will be arguing as a spokesperson for your party, and will use all the lines of argument that we have discussed this semester. You must use at least one claim based on values as well as claims based on facts and reason, claims based on the heart, and claims based on character. It will be helpful to review chapters 1-5 and 13-15 in Good Reasons before you begin this work.

To argue effectively, you need to not only generate claims for your conjectures, you will also have to address those claims made by the opposing party you have identified. Then you will have to show the opposing party why their claims are faulty, based on less noble values, lack of evidence, and so on. This is called refutation, and it is an essential part of a persuasive argument.

Goals:

  1. To persuade the audience to accept that your conjectures about the issue are reasonable
  2. To persuade the audience (without insulting them) that their conjectures are less reasonable
  3. To convince the audience to agree with you

Audience or Readers

Direct your response to this assignment to one of the other parties involved in the issue whose thinking you want to influence. Your credibility will be very important in persuading this audience to adopt your view, so you should take care to present yourself as someone who is reasonably well informed about the issue you are discussing. To establish your credibility, you might want to invent a fictional character for yourself. For example, if you were writing about the issue of online classes, and you were arguing for a group who believes that online classes are not the best way to educate young college students, you might choose to portray yourself as a teacher rather than a student because a teacher might have more credibility on the issue. Remember that because your audience may be skeptical or even hostile, you may have to concede some points rather than just openly attack.

In your introduction, you will need to convey who this audience is and what has made you write this article directed to them. In other words, you will invent a rhetorical situation that explains why you are writing this article. You may be responding to a real event that has occurred in the news, or you may create an event that causes you to respond in writing. In either case, you should make that occasion (reason why you are writing) clear in your introduction.

Arrangement

  1. Because you are trying to persuade others to adopt your position, you will probably need to explain the issue and state your conjectures, then examine the conjectures and claims made by the opposing party and refute them before you give reasons (claims) to support your own view. Why? This pattern of examining the position of others and showing why they are wrong before you give reasons for your view works better with a hostile audience.

  2. Likewise, because you are trying to persuade a hostile audience, you may have to concede some claims. Another tactic you might employ is to point out what you and the opposing party have in common. This tactic works especially well with values, and as you have seen, many times groups share values.

  3. Since you are presenting to a hostile audience, you will have to consider how you open your paper to catch the attention of your readers. This may be where you experiment with different lines of arguments based on character or arguments based on the heart. But don’t get sloppy and overly emotional. No Hallmark cards please!

At minimum

The completed project ought to state unequivocally your conjectures about the issue and clearly state the competing conjectures of the other party to whom you are writing. Therefore, you will use some of the material you wrote for Assignment

  1. Remember to revise that material when you reuse it please.

  2. The paper should explain the values that are at stake in each party’s conjectures and in one of your claims, you will argue that your conjectures are based on values that are more noble, more honorable, better, more expedient, and so on.

  3. To do an effective job of refutation, you will need to anticipate and examine the claims the opposing party would use to persuade an audience to accept their conjectures. To refute the opposing party’s claims, consider the types of claims and the quality of evidence they use. Is the evidence based on fact and reason, or does it appeal to emotions, appeal to character, or appeal to values? Are these appeals sufficient? You may have to do additional research to find developed supporting evidence for your claims and refutation.

  4. You must use at least one claim based on values to support your position and one refutation argument that is also based on values.

This assignment developed by Dr. S. Crowley, Dr, K. Heenan, & Dr. P. Webb

Heuristics: Paper #2
 
  1. Reread your draft of Assignment 1 and all the sources you gathered for that assignment. The virtues most valued by ancient teachers of rhetoric were honor, justice, goodness, and expediency, In addition, we know that other virtues are historically important in America, including honesty, sincerity, democracy, freedom, and equality. We also know that some values have become more important. We discussed individualism, material comfort, self-fulfillment, and so on. With these values in mind, answer the following questions:
  1. Ancient teachers of rhetoric detested injustice, actions that dishonored individuals, families, or communities, and evil acts; and they were impatient with people who wasted resources.
  1. Now in a series of "because" sentences, write out a claim based on each of the four lines of argument that your party would make. Explain what evidence you would use (from your sources) to support that claim. Then do the same for the opposing party. To remind yourself of these lines of argument, look back at Chapters 1-5 and 13-15 in Good Reasons.

  2. It is time to consider the rhetorical situation. You know who your audience is, but you must now consider why at this point in time you are writing an article to try and persuade them to accept your conjectures. Consider whether there are any real events that have occurred that might make you want to write this article. If no real event has occurred, imagine a fictitious but possible realistic event that might make you write this article. Then answer the following questions:
  1. Take the claims you imagined that the opposing party would make. Write them out on a sheet of paper, and under each claim, explain how you would refute that claim. Oftentimes, it is useful to figure out the assumptions inherent in each claim. In other words, what must we accept as true if we are to believe this claim?