Reference no: EM133732053
Assignment: Make and support a factual claim of your choosing.While the topic (content) for this essay is wide open (you can make a factual claim about nearly any topic or issue), of importance will be how you structure and organize your argument as well as how well/thoroughly you support it (not just in the sense of providing ample evidence and making your reasoning explicit, but also in the way that you tailor it to your audience).
This is still a rather short essay (at least 1200 words, so about 4 pages) so it will also be important that your language is clear, straightforward, and free of redundancy.
Audience: You are welcome to use a default audience of "college students" or "my professor," or even "our class" in particular, but you are also welcome to consider a more unusual, or specific audience. Is there a publication or other forum in which you can imagine your argument finding a home? If you do choose a particular intended audience, please make note of it somewhere on your draft so that I (and your peer reviewers) can consider the choices you've made in that context.S
Structure of Argument -
Classical Oration
The classical structure comes to us from Cicero (106BC-43BC), a Roman statesman/philosopher/orator. This structure is still widely used all these centuries later so he must've been onto something! But the drawback or limitation of Cicero's structure is that is very much a one-way street. Cicero used his structure in the context of arguing like a lawyer or a legislator. His goal was to "win" cases. So, while he does include an acknowledgment and treatment of counterarguments in his structure, the overall thrust of the oration is "HERE'S WHAT I THINK AND HERE'S WHY." The "point" of the classical structure is to convince someone.
Toulmin Schema
The Toulmin Schema (I call it a "schema" rather than an "argument" as the textbook does in order to highlight the fact that it is like an empty diagram, a picture of the logical structure of an argument to be filled with the parts of an actual argument, rather than a chronological ordering of parts from beginning to end like the Classical Structure) is probably the most confusing part of this chapter. The part that seems most often to confuse folks is the "warrant". The warrant is the idea that has to be accepted in order for the logical connection between the "reasons/evidence" and the "claim" (or the conclusion you've come to based on those reasons and that evidence) to make sense.