LM-1362 - Course Reader

Universidad de Costa Rica Facultad de Letras Escuela de Lenguas Modernas LM-1362 English Rhetoric II Course packet: Selected readings and exercises

Universidad de Costa Rica Escuela de Lenguas Modernas LM-1362 English Rhetoric II English Composition Profile1 % Grade Description C O N T E N T 25% 10-9.0 Superior development of the topic and writing task as dictated by the course objectives; valuable topic sentence or thesis statement (TS) supported by sound ideas and substantial, specific relevant details; rich content that is original, perceptive and/or persuasive; sources when required, reliable and correctly acknowledged; strong reader interest. 8.9-8.0 Accurate development of topic and writing task; clear topic sentence or thesis; mostly relevant to topic but lacks detail; minor problems with sources; considerable reader interest. 7.9-6.0 Superficial development of topic and writing task; clear topic sentence or thesis unclear or with little substance; appropriate but predictable content that is somewhat vague or overly general; occasional repetitive or irrelevant material; some problems with sources; average to minimum reader interest. 5.9 or less Little or incorrect development of the topic or writing task; poor analysis, topic sentence or thesis not apparent or weak; insufficient supporting details; evidence lacking or deficient; irrelevant material; weak logic of ideas; sources, when required, poorly acknowledged. % Grade Description O R G A N I Z A T I O N 20% 10-9.0 Clear effective plan connected to topic sentence and/or thesis as dictated by course objectives; logical order or ideas; paragraphs(s) coherent, unified, and effectively developed; correct use of transitions within; smooth transitions between paragraphs; excellent tittle, introduction, and conclusion; clear, well-construed outline. 8.9-8.0 Clear plan related to the topic sentence or thesis, minor problems with logical order of ideas; paragraph(s) generally unified and effectively developed; some problems with transitions within and /or between paragraph(s); effective tittle, introduction, and conclusion; outline generally, well-construed. 7.9-6.0 Some evidence of plan; choppy flow of ideas; loosely organized but main ideas clear, routine tittle, introduction and/or conclusion; transitions apparent but abrupt, monotonous, or misused at times; incorrect outline parts. 5.9 or less Little or no evidence of plan; ideas confused, disconnected, undeveloped, or developed with irrelevance; weak or ineffective tittle, introduction, and/or conclusion; deficient use of transitions; outline poor or nonexistent. 1Adapted from Jacobs, H.L., Zingraf., S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981) Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House by CUCOL 2019

% Grade Description G R A M M A R 20% 10-9.0 Effective control of major structural aspects: sentence well-constructed, coherent, and effectively varied; effective coordination and subordination; isolated errors of agreement, verb tense, word order, word form, articles, pronouns, prepositions; parallelism; no fragments, run-ons, or comma splices, meaning always clear. 8.9-8.0 Control of major structural aspects but lacks sentence variety; simple but effective sentence construction; minor errors of agreement, verb tense, word order, word form, articles, pronouns, preposition, parallelism; minimum problems with sentence fragments, run-ons, or comma splices; but meaning mostly clear. 7.9-6.0 Several problems with structural aspects, problems with simple and complex constructions, frequent errors of agreement, verb tense, word order, word form, articles, pronouns, prepositions, parallelism, occasional problems with sentence fragments, run-ons, or comma splices, meaning unclear at times. 5.9 or less Little or no mastery of sentence construction rules; dominated by errors on various structural aspects; meaning unclear, negative effect on the reader. % Grade Description V O C A B U L A R Y 20% 10-9.0 Effective vocabulary range and usage for the course level: precise word choice, wood collocation or word partners (ideas phrased idiomatically), consistent and appropriate level of formality (awareness of register), concise expression, (no wordiness), and appropriate variety of sentence structure; clear meaning. 8.9-8.0 Generally appropriate range and usage of the course level: a few misused word/expressions minor problems with collocations (ideas not always phrased idiomatically), fluent expression but inconsistent or inappropriate level of formality, fairly concise, (little wordiness), generally good variety of sentence structure, meaning mostly clear. 7.9-6.0 Limited vocabulary range and usage for the course level: frequent errors of word choice and usage, several problems with collocations, attempt at sentence structure variety, lacks awareness of formality levels, some wordiness; meaning unclear at times. 5.9 or less Poor vocabulary for the course level: confusing ideas, topic-related words misused, considerable transitions, very little sentence structure variety, littler awareness of formality levels, meaning unclear, negative effect on the reader.

% Grade Description M E C H A N I C S 15% 10-9.0 Correct application of the conventions regarding: APA, outline format, title page, margins, running head, spacing, indentation, heading, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and when pertinent, neat and legible; isolated errors. 8.9-8.0 Generally correct application of the conventions stated above; neat and legible; some errors. 7.9-6.0 Several errors in the application of the conventions stated above; minor problems with neatness and/or legibility (e.g. handwritten corrections or typed paper). 5.9 or less Little control of the above conventions; errors seriously diminish the papers quality; poor handwriting affects communication, messy.

Table of contents Material Page ARGUMENTATION FUNDAMENTALS Introduction to argumentative appeals 2 Persuasive writing and argument 7 Activity One – emotional appeals 21 Activity Two – emotional appeals 22 Activity Three – fallacies 23 Activity Four – fallacies 24 Activity Five – logos, pathos, ethos 25 Love is a fallacy 26 Fact versus Opinion 34 EDITORIAL WRITING Writing an editorial letter 41 Sample student letters 4 5 Costa Rica Belongs to Costa Ricans 46 Killing The Killers 46 No More Cell Phone Scams From Jail! 47 The Mountain Is Going To Your Sandals 47 Activity One – Editorial analysis 48 Activity Two – Brainstorming 49 ESSAY WRITING Arguing in context 52 Writing persuasive compositions 54 Constructing reasonable arguments 68 Evaluating arguments 86 “In Other Words”: The art of metacommentary 95 Sample student essay 97 Golden Rings: The Old and Deadly Enemies 98 Activity – Essay analysis 103 OUTLINING Develop a five paragraph essay 105 Sample – Topic outline 110 Sample – Sentence outline 111 ACADEMIC WRITING FUNDAMENTALS Prefer active verbs 113 Balance parallel ideas 117 Add needed words 120 Untangled mixed constructions 124 Repair misplaced and dangling modifiers 128 Eliminate distracting shifts 136 Emphasize key ideas 142 Provide some variety 153 Tighten wordy sentences 157 Choose appropriate language 162

Argumentation fundamentals 1

Introduction to Argumentative Appeals Reason, Ethics, Emotion While there's no infallible formula for winning over every reader in every circumstance, you should learn how and when to use three fundamental argumentative appeals. According to Aristotle, a person who wants to convince another may appeal to that person's reason (logos), ethics (ethos), or emotion (pathos). If we think of these three appeals as independent and of the writer as choosing just one, however, we miss the point. The writer's job is to weave the various appeals into a single convincing argument. As you continue to expand and develop your ideas, look for ways of combining the three appeals to create a sound, balanced argument. REASON Much of the clear thinking that we do in our everyday lives follows logical principles, but in a less formal and systematic way than the thinking of a research scientist. And for most occasions this informal reasoning is adequate. Aristotle points out that it would be just as much a mistake to expect certain proofs in argument as to expect only probable proofs in mathematics. That's not to say your argument can be illogical, only that you shouldn't confuse formal logic with clear thinking or good sense, the essential qualities your argument should display. Briefly, informal reasoning requires clearly linking your general claims with concrete, specific data. When our thinking begins with specifics and moves toward a generalization, we are moving inductively. That is, if you were to taste several hard, green apples and then draw the general conclusion that all hard, green apples are sour, you would be using inductive reasoning. And, of course, the more apples tasted and the greater the variation in the times and conditions of tasting, the greater the likelihood that your general conclusion would be valid. In your writing, then, when you reason inductively, ask whether you've examined the evidence carefully, whether it justifies your general conclusion, and whether you've given readers enough specific evidence to persuade them that your thinking is sound and your general conclusion is true. Reasoning that moves in the opposite direction (from general to specific) is called deductive reasoning. Here, you take a general principle that you know to be true and use it to understand a specific situation. For instance, you may know from experience that as a general rule bad weather reduces business at the golf course. You may also learn that today's weather will be cold and rainy. From these two pieces of knowledge, you can produce a third, more specific piece: Business at the 2

golf course will be slow today. In writing, deductive reasoning most often appears in a shortened version (called an enthymeme) that may be hard to recognize. That's because one or more links in the chain of reason have not been stated directly but only implied. Consider the following example: • Bill never turns in his assignments, so he'll fail the course. What is not directly stated but only implied is the general principle that students who don't turn in their assignments will fail the course. Such shortened forms are perfectly acceptable, but only if the underlying links and claims are sound. An opponent may want to refute you by challenging some underlying assumptions in your thinking; likewise, you'll want to look for faulty reasoning when you refute your opposition. Activity Read the following statements and comment on their use of informal reasoning. What details would you need to see to be convinced? Can you find any unstated assumptions that need to be examined? a. Coach Ratcliffe should be fired because a coach's job is to win ballgames. b. I know he's popular because he drives a Corvette. c. The president hasn't done anything about welfare reform, so he has no sympathy for the poor. d. The Sun Belt continues to be the fastest-growing part of the country. e. Too much smoking ruins a person's health, so you know Louisa's in bad shape. f. Today's prisons are practically like country clubs. g. Because several new schools have been built in the past few years, Chicago has an outstanding school system. h. Imported cars are higher in quality than American cars. i. Mr. Price got the contract, so you know he paid a few people off. j. Arthur Jensen should be elected to the city council because he is a successful real estate developer. 3

ETHICS No matter how solid your reasoning, readers may not accept your argument unless they're also convinced that you're a person of wisdom, honesty, and good will. If you misrepresent the evidence, misunderstand the implications of your own value structure, or seek to hurt some individual or group, you can expect to alienate your readers. The appeal to character is often subtle, affecting readers almost unconsciously, yet often decisively. "Ah, I see. This writer pretends to be a friend of Mexican-Americans, but her word choice shows that she understands almost nothing of our culture. And her proposal would undermine our whole way of life. Of course, she'd get to build her apartments, and it's obvious that's all she really cares about." If you realize that readers are likely to analyze your character and intentions this way, you'll see that the best way to put ethical appeal in your writing is to build a strong, healthy relationship with your readers. Convince them that they can trust you to be fair, honest, well-informed, and well-intentioned. Then, having established that trust, don't betray it. Activity Letting 10 represent the highest and 1 the lowest, rate the following public figures for their appeal to character. Of course, you'll be considering more than just writing, but the activity should still give you some insight into what ethos is and how it affects credibility. When you've finished, compare your ratings with those of a partner. Discuss the reasons for your scoring. a. Abraham Lincoln b. Adolf Hitler c. Michael Jackson d. Madonna e. George W. Bush f. Bill Gates g. Ann Landers h. Jay Leno 4

i. Sandra Day O'Connor j. William J. Clinton EMOTION Many people believe that emotional appeals by their very nature subvert reason and are therefore better left to TV hucksters than to writers who want their ideas taken seriously. Because this common view has some validity, emotional appeals must be used with restraint and discretion, or they may prove counterproductive. Nevertheless, while an argument founded mostly on feelings and emotions may be superficial and biased, an argument that is carefully reasoned and honestly presented probably won't be hurt by a bit of pathos. In fact, it may be helped. One way to build pathos is to illustrate or dramatize an idea. This may involve little more than folding short descriptive and narrative examples into the argument. Are you arguing that your city needs to take stiffer measures against drunk drivers? Why not find a place to include a description of the face of a child who was injured in an accident caused by drinking? Or you might want to tell the story of a driver who caused several accidents because the individual's license was never revoked. Including such narrative and descriptive passages can help readers feel the urgency of your proposition so that it gets beyond the level of abstract intellectual speculation and becomes a matter of immediate human concern. Careful word choice also influences an argument's emotional appeal. With this in mind, you might review the discussion of The Best Word in Revising Your Writing. The point here is that the overall emotional texture of your argument is the result of many individual choices about which word to use. • Should I speak of "drunk" or "intoxicated" drivers? • Should I call them a "menace" or a "concern"? • Should they be "thrown into jail" or "incarcerated"? • Do we need to "teach them a lesson" or "make them aware of the consequences of their actions"? Such choices, even though they must be made one at a time, can't be seen as independent of each other. Their force is cumulative. They communicate how you feel--and by implication think the reader ought to feel--about your subject. If you want the reader to identify with you emotionally, you'll choose words carefully, making sure they're appropriate for you as a writer, for your readers, and for your overall purpose in writing. 5

Activity Read the following speech by Mark Anthony from William Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar. Do you think Mark Anthony is appealing to the emotions of his audience? If so, what is his purpose in doing so? What parts of the speech seem especially designed to appeal to the audience's feelings? Does the speech contain any appeal to reason? To character? Are the various appeals balanced and harmonious or unbalanced and contradictory? Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious; If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest-- For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men-- Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me. Material adapted for pedagogical purposes from paradigm Online Writing Assistant (by Bonilla, M.) 6

Persuasive Writing and Argument Much of the formal and informal writing and speaking you do—from literature papers to business memos and presentations—falls into the category of "persuasive" communication, in that you try to convince your reader or listener of the validity of what you are saying. The cornerstone of persuasive writing is having a clear argument. There are two main things to know about argument. 1) An argument is a proposition or assertion. "You should drink Pepsi" or "Coke is better than Pepsi." It is probably an assertion if an appropriate response is "I agree with you" or "I disagree." 2) An argument must involve at least two propositions—the central claim and the back-up claim, or evidence. "You should drink Pepsi because . . ." or "The fact that most people prefer Coke to Pepsi shows that Coke is better than Pepsi." Every paper you write in this class should be persuasive—you will try to convince your readers of something (i.e. that your interpretation of an advertisement is valid, or that your stand on a public issue is correct). The statement of your argument should always appear in the first portion of your paper, usually in your thesis sentence(s). Rhetorical Appeals in Persuasive Writing Though these rhetorical appeals have their roots in the ancient Greek educational curriculum that prepared young orators to influence their fellow citizens, the three categories characterize much of our persuasive writing and advertising today. Ethical (ethos) This rhetorical technique can appeal to a sense of ethics in two ways. 1) A speaker might emphasize his/her trustworthiness to boost the validity of his/her argument. In the 1992 presidential campaign, for example, George Bush presented himself as a highly moral grandfather figure. Advertisers often highlight their community activities (Big Brother programs, etc.) to win the trust of consumers. 2) The speaker might also try to appeal to the audience's ethics; that is, he or she will try to convince the audience that it is making the "good" or "right" choice. For example, an insurance agency asks, "Don't you owe your family protection?" 7

Logical (logos) The rhetorician employing a logical appeal relies on reason. Logical appeals often include lots of "facts"—statistics, percentages, and studies. Remember the TV advertisement phrase, "Studies show that more kids prefer…," or "Three out of four dentists surveyed recommend…"? Logical appeals may also present what seems to be the only sensible choice. In persuasive academic writing, the logical appeal is common. Very few speeches, articles, or advertisements utilize only one appeal. Many examples of persuasive writing employ all three. In your own writing, you should rely mainly on logical appeal (requests for more evidence, concrete facts/data, and sources to support your stance relate to this approach). As your craft your own persuasive papers, however, you should not forget emotional and ethical strategies—they are often quite effective in backing up the logical point you are arguing. However, beware of logical fallacies, which are errors and manipulation of rhetoric and logical thinking. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim and invalidate your arguments as a result. Avoid these common fallacies (i.e., faulty reasoning appealing to the mind) in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others. Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example: If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers. In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing. Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example: Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course. In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one 8

but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example: I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick. In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: This is the conclusion that assumes that because two events occur together, there is a cause-and-effect relationship (i.e., mistaking correlation for causation). Example: Teenagers in gangs listen to rap music with violent themes. Rap music inspires violence in teenagers. President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office! The problem in these examples is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence. To illustrate, the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing). Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example: The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army. In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related. Begging the question (petito principii): The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example: Filthy and polluting coal should be banned. 9

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved (i.e., that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use) is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting." Here is a similar example where the claim itself is already assumed in the premise: God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God. Circular Argument/Circular reasoning (circulus in probando): This restates the argument rather than actually proving it; a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Example: George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively. In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence. Either/or (false dilemma; false dichotomy): This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example: We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth. In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, carsharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving. Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example: Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies. In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group. Ad populum (also Bandwagon Appeal): This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal. Example: If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want. 10

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two. Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example: The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families? In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals. Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument. Example: People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor. In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position. Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral. Example: That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler. In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate. Appeal to Authority: This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways. We can cite only authorities — steering conveniently away from other testable and concrete evidence as if expert opinion is always correct. Or we can cite irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false authorities. A typical example is using a generalized group (like 'scientists') to claim something is true. Example: "They say that it takes 7 years to digest chewing gum." 11

Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow.”): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion. Example: It was a spring day, the sort that gives people hope: all soft winds and delicate smells of warm earth. Suicide weather. - Girl, Interrupted, Susanna Kaysen "You should learn not to make personal remarks," Alice said with some severity. "It's very rude." The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, "Why is a raven like a writing-desk?" - Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll In the examples above it is evident that the line of logic does not follow. Nonliterary examples would be “My refrigerator is acting up. I’d better finish that book by Friday” or “It's time to take my car in for service. I wonder if my stylist is available this Saturday.” Emotional (pathos) Emotional appeals seek to rouse the emotions of the audience. Some emotional appeals will make the audience feel good; picture those sentimental "Kodak moment" or Hallmark commercials teeming with cute children, family reunions, and fuzzy pets. On the other end of the spectrum, some emotional appeals play on fears and insecurities; consider the assertion that maximum strength Clearasil will save you from the embarrassment of pimples on a first date. Below is a list of some emotional appeals (i.e., faulty reasoning that appeals to the heart): Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam) Description: The argument attempts to persuade by provoking feelings of sympathy. Comments: The phrase "ad misericordiam" is a Latin phrase meaning "(appeal) to sympathy (or compassion)." Examples: "You should not find the defendant guilty of murder, since it would break his poor mother's heart to see him sent to jail." "Is it not better to be unjust than just, when the just man, while obeying the law not to resist arrest, may be beaten, kicked, clubbed, insulted and abused, by those arresting him?" Discussion: Logicians have a reputation for being cold, heartless and unemotional. No character has captured this stereotype better than Mr. Spock, as played by 12

Leonard Nimoy on the television series Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy makes logicians seem almost alien and inhuman. Probably the Ad Misericordiam fallacy has more to do with this stereotype than anything else. It is an ancient fallacy, recognized even by Plato. Hence, the idea that feelings of human sympathy are "illogical" (as Mr. Spock would say) has had a long time to become entrenched. There are, of course, cases in which appealing to human suffering is fallacious, namely those in which the appeal is used to distract attention away from the issue at hand. In deciding the guilt or innocence of a person on trial, the question is "Did he do it?" His feelings, our feelings, and the feelings of his mother are irrelevant to the issue. But the Ad Misericordiam fallacy is able to masquerade as good reasoning precisely because in most cases considerations of human suffering are the issue at hand. Should we take steps to reduce poverty? Should we permit doctor-assisted suicide for suffering, terminally ill patients? Should our foreign policy support dictators who abuse human rights? If we were not concerned with human suffering, there would be no motive to be rational. The most important thing we reason about is the alleviation of suffering. We want to reason well precisely because this will improve our chances of success. Logicians are not heartless and unemotional. Just the reverse: the more compassion and sympathy one feels, the more one understands the importance of doing something effective to help. We must reason well in order to know what to do. Appeal to Utility Description: The argument attempts to persuade by invoking a sentiment favoring practicality and reason (without, however, actually engaging in reasoning), and professing to despise sentimentality. Examples: "Despite the overwrought emotionalism of the abolitionists, slavery cannot be immoral, since it would destroy the southern way of life if we were to free our slaves." "Arguments that we have an obligation to provide tax money to feed the poor are based on sentimental mush." Discussion: This fallacy exploits the long-held prejudice that logic must be cold and unemotional. It is able to masquerade as good reasoning because, of course, emotions can be used to distract attention away from the issue at hand. In fact - as this entire category of fallacies shows - there are many ways to use irrelevant emotional appeals to distract attention away from relevant concerns. However, it is important to remember that concern for human suffering is relevant more often than it is irrelevant. It is our emotions, including our compassion for others, that provide us with our chief motive to think rationally. In cases involving questions of human suffering, the plea to be "practical," or even "logical," (i.e. unemotional), may itself be a distraction from the issue at hand. Curiously, the Appeal to Utility fallacy qualifies as an emotional appeal, even though the sentiment of practicality is often invoked by claiming to despise 13

"emotionalism" or "sentimentality." Lack of compassion is just as much a "sentiment" as compassion, and just as prone to be fallacious. Appeal to Fear (Scare Tactics) Description: The argument attempts to persuade by invoking feelings of insecurity and fear. Comments: Appeal to Fear is sometimes confused with Appeal to Force. The distinction is this: Appeal to Fear is only a warning. The speaker is foretelling that something bad will happen to the listener but is not threatening to be the cause of that harm. Appeal to Force is a threat. The speaker will personally do something to punish the listener. Examples: "Goodyear. Because a lot is riding on your tires." "Listerine: kills the germs that can cause bad breath." Discussion: It is a good idea to be prepared. It is even a good idea to be prepared for some things that are not very likely to happen (depending on the severity of the consequences). There are mathematically precise formulas for determining rational risks when playing games of chance. Believe it or not, these same formulas (based on laws of probability) can be applied to risks in daily life. Indeed, that is just how insurance companies operate. How much should you spend to be prepared for a flood? How much for a fire? The answer depends upon two factors: (1) what are the chances that the disaster might occur, and (2) how much would you loose if it did? Unfortunately, in most cases we can only estimate both probabilities and costs, but this often doesn't matter. We can make instinctive guesses, and our instincts are usually not far off base. Probabilities are not exact numbers in any case. The object is to be close enough. The fallacy of Appeal to Fear imitates rational risk analysis, but exploits natural fear, and the inherent inaccuracy of guessing, to inflate our estimate of the costs and/or our estimate of the risks. By getting disasters to seem more likely to occur or making them seem more devastating if they do occur, the fallacy tries to get us to spend more on preparing for a disaster than is genuinely rational. Appeal to Hope (Wishful Thinking) Description: The argument attempts to persuade by invoking hopes and desires. Comments: This fallacy includes appeals to sex since being sexier, or meeting sexy people, is something that most people hope for. Examples: "Using Ultra-Brite will give you sex appeal." "These people all won a million dollars by playing the state lottery. Some day it might happen to you. Play to win!" Discussion: Obviously certain actions will make a desirable outcome more likely. You are more likely to get an A on a test if you actually study, for example. We frequently reason (and reason well) about how to achieve desirable results. This 14

reasoning (when it is done well) is based on genuine causal connections between what we desire and how we behave. Furthermore, hope is not a bad state of mind to be in. While some recommend that it is better to be pessimistic, and then be pleasantly surprised, it makes just as much sense to be "cautiously optimistic," on the grounds that there is no reason to suffer until something bad actually happens. The fallacy of Appeal to Hope imitates reasoning about achieving desirable outcomes, but it tries to get us to do something that doesn't significantly increase the likelihood of the outcome we desire. By getting us to focus on the desire itself, rather than on the genuine causal connections, the fallacy may even distract us away from performing actions that would more effectively achieve what we desire. Appeal to Flattery Description: The argument attempts to persuade by flattering the person to be persuaded, implying that the flattery is deserved because he or she accepts the position being supported. Examples: "An intelligent and discerning person like you naturally sees the force of my argument." "I use Love Soap. I'm worth it, and so are you!" Discussion: In any conversation we must try to understand what the other person is saying. Perhaps the other person is offering reasons for holding an opinion, and perhaps his reasons are complex, requiring some effort to understand. (Not all good reasoning is easy to follow.) Supposing you do understand his reasoning, he may be inclined to praise your ability to follow the argument. He is not wrong to offer such praise, and you are not wrong to feel pleased with yourself. You can even take such praise as evidence that you are understanding his point correctly, and this, in turn, may indicate that, since you can understand his reasoning, his reasoning is sound. The fallacy of Appeal to Flattery mimics this situation in which a reasoner praises his listener for correctly following and agreeing with a complex logical argument. However, in the fallacy of Appeal to Flattery, only the praise is still present. This creates the mere illusion that the complex logical argument, and the agreement that would come from following it, are present as well. In fact, no argument was given except the praise, and the agreement was implied rather than real. Appeal to Guilt Description: The argument attempts to persuade by making the person to be persuaded feel guilty for not accepting the position. Examples: "Aren't you ashamed of yourself for not buying this car, after I've gone to all the work to fill out the credit application?" "It would break your mother's heart to hear you defend those immoral Harry Potter books in that way." 15

Discussion: It is sometimes difficult to understand what someone else is saying, especially when that person is trying to give a complex argument in support of an opinion. Naturally, we tend to interpret what we are hearing in light of our own experience. Words and phrases can carry different meanings for different people. As a result, we may fail to follow an argument that is perfectly sound. When this occurs, it is to be expected that the other person - the person making the argument - will criticize our inability to understand. Being permitted to point out that a misunderstanding has occurred is necessary in a conversation in which misunderstandings might occur. Hence, it is only good reasoning to permit criticism. Moreover, if my own understanding of an argument turns out to be deficient in some way, it is even natural for me to feel a degree of shame or guilt. The fallacy of Appeal to Guilt mimics this situation in which a reasoner criticizes his listener for failing to correctly follow the offered reasoning. However, in this case, the reasoner has not actually offered any reasoning for the listener to follow. The criticism and accompanying guilt create an illusion that a complex logical argument has been offered, implying that anyone who fails to be persuaded by it has simply failed to understand. Appeal to Humor Description: The argument attempts to persuade by invoking feelings of good humor and laughter. To laugh with someone seems to imply agreement with his position. Often the argument takes the form of a cleverly worded or humorous slogan. Comments: Calling a position "absurd" or "laughable" without actually telling a joke should probably be considered an Ad Hominem - Abusive rather than an Appeal to Humor. Sometimes a good comedian can make us laugh merely by saying that something is funny, but generally this is more abusive than humorous. Be careful not to confuse Appeal to Humor with other fallacies (notably Amphiboly) that tend to be funny. The fallacy of Appeal to Humor uses humor to persuade. The speaker is aware of the joke. Some other fallacies are funny because we see through them. In those cases, the speaker is not aware that he is the butt of a joke. Examples: "I notice that everyone in favor of abortion has already been born." --Ronald Reagan "Keep Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld in office! After all, why change horsemen in mid-apocalypse?" Discussion: Any stand-up comic will tell you that the secret to humor is: tell the truth. A good comic tells us things about ourselves that we normally wouldn't want to hear since they are too embarrassing or sensitive. But by getting us to laugh at the truth about ourselves, we learn to recognize our own foibles, and we learn to forgive the foibles of others. Humor is the ultimate defense mechanism. We laugh at human foibles because this allows us to live with them. Laughter is a natural and healthy 16

way to respond when we recognize that someone has offered us a bravely-spoken, but possibly uncomfortable, truth. Of course, we laugh for other reasons as well. The fallacy of Appeal to Humor exploits our natural response to bravely-spoken truth. The fallacy presumes that any view that can be expressed in a way that elicits laughter must be true. However, we actually laugh for many reasons, only one of which is the recognition of the truth of the sentiment expressed. We may also laugh at a slogan because it is cleverly worded. We may laugh only because everyone around us is laughing. We laugh at slap-stick humor. An argument mimics our response to bravelyspoken truth when it gets us to laugh for a reason that is unrelated to our recognition of truth, yet seems to imply that laughter entails assent. Appeal to Gravity Description: The argument attempts to persuade by invoking a wish to be serious. Comments: Some characteristic ways to express this fallacy may be to defend a position as "responsible" and "mature," or to attack an opposing position by calling it "frivolous" or "disrespectful." Examples: "The President's tax cut proposal lacks detail. Clearly it does not come to grips with genuine problems in a serious manner. "John Kerry is a serious man for a serious job in a serious time in our country's history." --Hillary Rodham Clinton (at the 2004 Democratic Convention) Discussion: Naturally, we wish to reason carefully and well when we are reasoning about especially serious and important subjects. As far as that goes, reasoning well about frivolous subjects may also be difficult, and require serious concentration. Hence careful reasoning often has an air of seriousness and intensity about it. People who are thinking hard tend to frown. The fallacy of Appeal to Gravity imitates this air of seriousness and intensity, without, however, actually being serious and intense. Saying that something is so doesn't make it so. Just because an arguer tells us that he is being serious, it does not follow that he is actually being serious; and just because a person is frowning, it does not follow that he is thinking hard. He may just have a headache. Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum) Description: The "argument" is actually an explicit or veiled threat. In effect the argument says, "Accept my position, or I'll punish you." 17

Comments: The phrase "ad baculum" is a Latin phrase meaning "(appeal) to the stick." A baculum or baculus (both forms were used) was a walking-stick or cane. Naturally, such sticks were sometimes used to give an opponent a good drubbing. Appeal to Force is sometimes confused with Appeal to Fear. The distinction is this: Appeal to Force is a threat. The speaker will personally do something to punish the listener. Appeal to Fear is only a warning. The speaker is foretelling that something bad will happen to the listener, but is not threatening to be the cause of that harm. Examples: "It's bedtime. Give me any sass about it, and you'll get a spanking!" "The Grand Inquisitor might be very interested in your views denying the dual nature of Christ." Discussion: Of all the fallacies, the Ad Baculum fallacy may be the most difficult to reconcile with some form of legitimate reasoning. The Ad Baculum fallacy does not so much imitate good reasoning as announce that every effort at reasoning has come to an end. Now violence will be used instead. Persuasion is not the point, only compliance. For this reason, I have doubts that Ad Baculum should be considered a "fallacy" at all. However, while it is hard to imagine that anyone could actually be persuaded by an Ad Baculum argument, the Ad Baculum argument may be able to create the illusion that someone has been persuaded. If I can get my opponent to shut up, then he is at least no longer arguing with me. This may create the false impression that I have won. More seriously, a well-regulated society does need to have the power to enforce its laws, even on people who do not accept those laws. On matters of behavior, we cannot always take the time to reason with people. A thief must be stopped, whether he agrees with our moral views on thievery or not. The appropriate governing authority simply makes a pronouncement - and the discussion is over. The Ad Baculum fallacy may mimic those situations in which a legitimate governing authority simply declares the discussion to be at an end in order to preserve order. However, the Ad Baculum fallacy only mimics this situation. Generally, it is guilty of at least one significant error. While one can enforce appropriate behavior, one cannot enforce opinions. Compliance does not entail assent. The fallacy may be guilty of a second error as well: in a discussion aimed at arriving at the truth on some question, neither party to the discussion counts as a "legitimate governing authority" over the other, so neither has the right to decide the outcome of the discussion through force. Appeal to Bribery Description: The "argument" is actually an explicit or veiled bribe. In effect the argument says, "If you accept my position, I'll reward you." 18

Examples: "Children who know how to behave themselves just might get an ice cream cone." "I am the best candidate for the office, and I promise to give working families like yours a big tax cut." Discussion: It is very typical in human interactions to reward others for doing what we want. Parents frequently reward children for good behavior, and it is right that they should do so. What incentive would any of us have to behave well if we got nothing out of it? Indeed, human interactions can be seen as a complex web of mutual rewards as we promote our own interests by serving the interests of others. The system of work for pay is part of this web. Political promises, diplomatic agreements, contracts, etc. are also part of the network of mutual rewards. It is not necessarily fallacious to think that I should do something because someone else has promised to reward me for doing it. The fallacy of Appeal to Bribery tries to mimic this legitimate exchange of rewards for desirable behavior. However, truth operates under different rules of exchange than goods and services do. One cannot agree to believe a falsehood in exchange for a reward. It is a mistake to think that belief is a commodity or behavior, like work, that can be bought and paid for. Jingoism (Appeal to Patriotism) Description: The argument attempts to persuade by calling on ones community spirit, specifically on ones love of country. Alternatively, the argument may attempt to refute a position by calling it treasonous or unpatriotic. Examples: "The war in Iraq is clearly justified. Support our troops!" "Questioning the president's tax cut is tantamount to treason." Discussion: The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson once remarked, "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels." Indeed, appeals to patriotic pride were used during the 20th century to legitimize some of the most unspeakable crimes in human history. Flag waving and the use of other symbols of national pride in place of reasoning is an old tradition in America as well, and we should not imagine that we are immune to the evil that the appeal to such strong emotions can cause. Patriotic pride is a powerful and ennobling emotion. Like any emotion rooted fundamentally in love, it takes us outside of ourselves. When moved by such emotions we transcend our narrow personal interests and become part of something large and meaningful. We realize that there are some things worth dying for. What things? Well, perhaps different patriots are moved by different ideals, but modern democracies have in common this ideal (from John Locke), that the legitimate basis of government resides in the consent of the governed. That idea, replacing the old notion of the divine right of kings, is one that American patriots died for in 1776. French patriots died for it a few years later, and around the world that idea has toppled dictators and broken the chains of injustice. No ideal has 19

more profoundly shaped the course of history and made the world a better place to live. When an idea is that important, there is no illogic in asking for some sacrifice - even the ultimate sacrifice - on its behalf. Ideas matter, and the ideas that define our civic identity matter more than most. But, of course, this creates an opportunity for bad reasoning. An argument commits the fallacy of Jingoism when it makes reference to the noble ideals that define our civic identity, but does so only symbolically, making no real connection between the ideals and the actual actions or opinions defended by appeal to them. For example, the so-called "Patriot Act" is named specifically to evoke feelings of patriotism, which for most Americans is associated with such ideals as "freedom" and "equal protection under the law," yet the content of the act actually increases the power of law enforcement agents to spy on citizens without their knowledge or consent and to engage in discriminatory practices in the treatment of suspects. Some such strengthening of the powers of law enforcement agents may be justified - a debate that must be conducted elsewhere - but should more properly be called the Investigative Powers Act in any case. The disconnect between the name of the law and its actual content is darkly ironic, but it perfectly illustrates the lack of relevant connection that distinguishes genuine patriotic appeals (calling for sacrifice on behalf of noble ideals) from mere jingoism. Material adapted for pedagogical purposes from www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ and Purdue Online Writing Lab (for fallacies) (by Bonilla, M.) 20

Activities. ONE. Write down the fallacy that occurs in each passage. These will all be deductive irrelevancies in the Emotional Appeals family: Appeal to Pity, Utility, Fear, Hope, Flattery, Guilt, Humor, Gravity, Force, and Bribery. 1. ______________You can never tell when bad breath might strike. Be prepared with Flirts Breath Mints 2. ______________There must be something wrong with your sense of compassion if you can't see how important it is to prevent children from bringing guns to school. 3. ______________You may already be a winner! Yes, you are a finalist in our drawing for A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS! And if you buy a subscription to one of our magazines, we will mark your entry for priority treatment. 4. ______________I'm sure you'll agree with me. It's always nice to argue with someone who is rational and willing to keep an open mind. 5. ______________I realize you are concerned about human rights violations in my country. But a leader who gave in to such tender-hearted sentiments would never be able to maintain control in our country. 6. ______________Perhaps a visit to the principal's office will convince you that students shouldn't talk in class. 7. ______________We need to raise salaries for teachers. Our country can no longer afford the wasted lives and grinding despair that results from illiteracy. 8. ______________Teacher: Chances are that you'd get an 'A' in this class, if you would just admit that I am right. 9. ______________My opponent's light-hearted approach to the problem of post-gustatory flatulence does a disservice to this important topic. 10.______________How many Scientific Creationists does it take to change a light bulb? They don't know how to change a light bulb: they still use oil lanterns! Material adapted for pedagogical purposes from www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ (by Bonilla, M.) 21

Two. Write down the emotional appeal that occurs in each passage. Consult the theory on Pathos if necessary. 1.__________ “Don’t let others decide for you. It’s your country. It’s your vote. Costa Rica needs you.” 2._________ “Yes, your honor, I’m guilty of shoplifting, but I’m the only support of my family. My sick mother and five children need me.” 3.__________ “Indeed, that Nicaraguan guy died in a horrible way, but that isn’t as important as knowing what he was doing there. That should be the focus of the investigation.” 4._________ “You voted for that man four years ago and look at where we are now. I hope you think it over next time since you contributed to this crisis.” 5.__________ “Those dogs ought to be killed. Today, it was that Nicaraguan guy; tomorrow, it could be any of us.” 6.___________ “I have always known of the good judgment and capacity of the African American community in Costa Rica. That is why, it’s my commitment to continue fighting in my presidency.” 7.___________ “CAFTA isn’t an issue to be discussed lightly. It’s three months before the elections; we simply can’t come to an agreement in such short time.” 8.__________ “More job opportunities, cheaper prices, and more technological development…vote for me.” Created by Bonilla, M. 22

THREE. Identify the fallacies of reasoning in the following statements. Explain what, if anything, may be wrong or illogical in each statement. 1. __________ If we don't do something about the problem of overpopulation soon, the planet simply will be unable to accommodate this spiraling increase in people with sufficient food or adequate living space. 2. __________Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. 3. __________ He is the best senatorial candidate: he is tall and good looking; he is an eloquent speaker, and he gets along well with his colleagues. 4. __________ Something horrible must have happened to them. They would have called if they were going to be this late. 5. __________ Joanne's intelligence is her outstanding quality. Even though she is attractive and socially graceful, it is her mental ability that is her strongest asset. 6. __________ People are not really free. They only think they are. Their lives are actually determined by forces that control them without their being aware of it. No one can prove that he or she is impervious to the multitude of influences that bombard us through our lives. 7. __________ Astrologers must know what they're doing. My horoscope for the past week has been right on target. 8. __________ Students should grade themselves in their courses. After all, no one knows better than they do how hard they have worked and how much they have learned. Material taken from Hacker, D. (2009). Rules for writers (6th edition). 23

FOUR. Write the fallacy or emotional appeal that is illustrated in the statements below. Only one option is possible. Ad Hominen Bandwagon appeal False dichotomy Red herring Post hoc Non sequitur Appeal to fear Appeal to pity Appeal to patriotism (Jingoism) Appeal to authority 1. Seven out of ten dentists recommend Trident gum for their patients who chew gum. ____________________________ 2. It´s important that every family be protected by a whole life-insurance plan. After all, what would happen if you died? Your family would be destitute and would probably end up on welfare. __________________________ 3. This was a commonly heard argument after the September 11 terrorist attacks: Everybody, with one exception, in the U.S. Congress voted to support the administration’s decision to bomb Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The lone dissenter was Barbara lee, who represents Berkeley. It’s outrageous that she had the temerity to vote against her colleagues. She’s completely out of step with the rest of the country since the nation is 100% behind the campaign. _________________________ 4. When Oliver North and John Poindexter admitted that they were committing illegal acts when they plotted to sell arms to Iran and divert money to the Contras during the Irangate scandal, they defended their actions out of love for their country. _____________________ 5. How could an employer be so cruel as to fire a worker like Robert Gonzalez? Of course, his absenteeism has been significant, and he has difficulty getting to work on time. And it’s true that customers have complained about his rudeness. But he has seven children to support, house payments to make, and college loans to repay. _____________________ 6. During the Republican presidential primaries, Trump pointed to the “horse face” of rival candidate Carly Fiorina: “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?” _________________ 7. Trump on a televised event: North Korea could choose denuclearization or face “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” __________________ 8. Two days after Attorney General Sessions recused himself from Justice Department investigations of Russian meddling in the election of 2016, Trump tweeted, “Terrible. Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.” ________________________ 9. “It was a spring day, the sort that gives people hope: all soft winds and delicate smells of warm earth.” Suicide weather. - Girl, Interrupted, Susanna Kaysen __________________ 10. The temperature has dropped this morning, and I also have a headache. The cold weather must be causing my headache. __________________________ Created by Bonilla, M. 24

FIVE. Write down whether the sentences below use Logos, Pathos, or Ethos as a driver of persuasion. 1. ___________ There's no price that can be placed on peace of mind. Our advanced security systems will protect the well-being of your family so that you can sleep soundly at night. 2. ___________ As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results. 3. ___________ More than one hundred peer-reviewed studies have been conducted over the past decade, and none of them suggests that this is an effective treatment for hair loss. 4. ___________ If my years as a Marine taught me anything, that is that caution is the best policy in this sort of situation. 5. ___________ You'll make the right decision because you have something that not many people do: you have a heart. Adapted for pedagogical purposes from Quizlet (by Bonilla, M.) 25

Max Shulman: Love is a Fallacy Cool was I and logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo, precise as a chemist’s scales, as penetrating as a scalpel. And—think of it!—I only eighteen. It is not often that one so young has such a giant intellect. Take, for example, Petey Bellows, my roommate at the university. Same age, same background, but dumb as an ox. A nice enough fellow, you understand, but nothing upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable. Worst of all, a faddist. Fads, I submit, are the very negation of reason. To be swept up in every new craze that comes along, to surrender oneself to idiocy just because everybody else is doing it—this, to me, is the acme of mindlessness. Not, however, to Petey. One afternoon I found Petey lying on his bed with an expression of such distress on his face that I immediately diagnosed appendicitis. “Don’t move,” I said, “Don’t take a laxative. I’ll get a doctor.” “Raccoon,” he mumbled thickly. “Raccoon?” I said, pausing in my flight. “I want a raccoon coat,” he wailed. I perceived that his trouble was not physical, but mental. “Why do you want a raccoon coat?” “I should have known it,” he cried, pounding his temples. “I should have known they’d come back when the Charleston came back. Like a fool I spent all my money for textbooks, and now I can’t get a raccoon coat.” “Can you mean,” I said incredulously, “that people are actually wearing raccoon coats again?” “All the Big Men on Campus are wearing them. Where’ve you been?” “In the library,” I said, naming a place not frequented by Big Men on Campus. He leaped from the bed and paced the room. “I’ve got to have a raccoon coat,” he said passionately. “I’ve got to!” “Petey, why? Look at it rationally. Raccoon coats are unsanitary. They shed. They smell bad. They weigh too much. They’re unsightly. They—” “You don’t understand,” he interrupted impatiently. “It’s the thing to do. Don’t you want to be in the swim?” “No,” I said truthfully. “Well, I do,” he declared. “I’d give anything for a raccoon coat. Anything!” My brain, that precision instrument, slipped into high gear. “Anything?” I asked, looking at him narrowly. “Anything,” he affirmed in ringing tones. I stroked my chin thoughtfully. It so happened that I knew where to get my hands on a raccoon coat. My father had had one in his undergraduate days; it lay now in a trunk in the attic back home. It also happened that Petey had something I wanted. He didn’t have it exactly, but at least he had first rights on it. I refer to his girl, Polly Espy. I had long coveted Polly Espy. Let me emphasize that my desire for this young woman was not emotional in nature. She was, to be sure, a girl who excited the emotions, but I was not 26

one to let my heart rule my head. I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated, entirely cerebral reason. I was a freshman in law school. In a few years I would be out in practice. I was well aware of the importance of the right kind of wife in furthering a lawyer’s career. The successful lawyers I had observed were, almost without exception, married to beautiful, gracious, intelligent women. With one omission, Polly fitted these specifications perfectly. Beautiful she was. She was not yet of pin-up proportions, but I felt that time would supply the lack. She already had the makings. Gracious she was. By gracious I mean full of graces. She had an erectness of carriage, an ease of bearing, a poise that clearly indicated the best of breeding. At table her manners were exquisite. I had seen her at the Kozy Kampus Korner eating the specialty of the house—a sandwich that contained scraps of pot roast, gravy, chopped nuts, and a dipper of sauerkraut— without even getting her fingers moist. Intelligent she was not. In fact, she veered in the opposite direction. But I believed that under my guidance she would smarten up. At any rate, it was worth a try. It is, after all, easier to make a beautiful dumb girl smart than to make an ugly smart girl beautiful. “Petey,” I said, “are you in love with Polly Espy?” “I think she’s a keen kid,” he replied, “but I don’t know if you’d call it love. Why?” “Do you,” I asked, “have any kind of formal arrangement with her? I mean are you going steady or anything like that?” “No. We see each other quite a bit, but we both have other dates. Why?” “Is there,” I asked, “any other man for whom she has a particular fondness?” “Not that I know of. Why?” I nodded with satisfaction. “In other words, if you were out of the picture, the field would be open. Is that right?” “I guess so. What are you getting at?” “Nothing , nothing,” I said innocently, and took my suitcase out the closet. “Where are you going?” asked Petey. “Home for weekend.” I threw a few things into the bag. “Listen,” he said, clutching my arm eagerly, “while you’re home, you couldn’t get some money from your old man, could you, and lend it to me so I can buy a raccoon coat?” “I may do better than that,” I said with a mysterious wink and closed my bag and left. “Look,” I said to Petey when I got back Monday morning. I threw open the suitcase and revealed the huge, hairy, gamy object that my father had worn in his Stutz Bearcat in 1925. “Holy Toledo!” said Petey reverently. He plunged his hands into the raccoon coat and then his face. “Holy Toledo!” he repeated fifteen or twenty times. “Would you like it?” I asked. “Oh yes!” he cried, clutching the greasy pelt to him. Then a canny look came into his eyes. “What do you want for it?” “Your girl.” I said, mincing no words. 27

“Polly?” he said in a horrified whisper. “You want Polly?” “That’s right.” He flung the coat from him. “Never,” he said stoutly. I shrugged. “Okay. If you don’t want to be in the swim, I guess it’s your business.” I sat down in a chair and pretended to read a book, but out of the corner of my eye I kept watching Petey. He was a torn man. First he looked at the coat with the expression of a waif at a bakery window. Then he turned away and set his jaw resolutely. Then he looked back at the coat, with even more longing in his face. Then he turned away, but with not so much resolution this time. Back and forth his head swiveled, desire waxing, resolution waning. Finally he didn’t turn away at all; he just stood and stared with mad lust at the coat. “It isn’t as though I was in love with Polly,” he said thickly. “Or going steady or anything like that.” “That’s right,” I murmured. “What’s Polly to me, or me to Polly?” “Not a thing,” said I. “It’s just been a casual kick—just a few laughs, that’s all.” “Try on the coat,” said I. He complied. The coat bunched high over his ears and dropped all the way down to his shoe tops. He looked like a mound of dead raccoons. “Fits fine,” he said happily. I rose from my chair. “Is it a deal?” I asked, extending my hand. He swallowed. “It’s a deal,” he said and shook my hand. I had my first date with Polly the following evening. This was in the nature of a survey; I wanted to find out just how much work I had to do to get her mind up to the standard I required. I took her first to dinner. “Gee, that was a delish dinner,” she said as we left the restaurant. Then I took her to a movie. “Gee, that was a marvy movie,” she said as we left the theatre. And then I took her home. “Gee, I had a sensaysh time,” she said as she bade me good night. I went back to my room with a heavy heart. I had gravely underestimated the size of my task. This girl’s lack of information was terrifying. Nor would it be enough merely to supply her with information. First she had to be taught to think. This loomed as a project of no small dimensions, and at first I was tempted to give her back to Petey. But then I got to thinking about her abundant physical charms and about the way she entered a room and the way she handled a knife and fork, and I decided to make an effort. I went about it, as in all things, systematically. I gave her a course in logic. It happened that I, as a law student, was taking a course in logic myself, so I had all the facts at my fingertips. “Poll’,” I said to her when I picked her up on our next date, “tonight we are going over to the Knoll and talk.” “Oo, terrif,” she replied. One thing I will say for this girl: you would go far to find another so agreeable. We went to the Knoll, the campus trysting place, and we sat down under an old oak, and she looked at me expectantly. “What are we going to talk about?” she asked. “Logic.” 28

She thought this over for a minute and decided she liked it. “Magnif,” she said. “Logic,” I said, clearing my throat, “is the science of thinking. Before we can think correctly, we must first learn to recognize the common fallacies of logic. These we will take up tonight.” “Wow-dow!” she cried, clapping her hands delightedly. I winced, but went bravely on. “First let us examine the fallacy called Dicto Simpliciter.” “By all means,” she urged, batting her lashes eagerly. “Dicto Simpliciter means an argument based on an unqualified generalization. For example: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise.” “I agree,” said Polly earnestly. “I mean exercise is wonderful. I mean it builds the body and everything.” “Polly,” I said gently, “the argument is a fallacy. Exercise is good is an unqualified generalization. For instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is bad, not good. Many people are ordered by their doctors not to exercise. You must qualify the generalization. You must say exercise is usually good, or exercise is good for most people. Otherwise you have committed a Dicto Simpliciter. Do you see?” “No,” she confessed. “But this is marvy. Do more! Do more!” “It will be better if you stop tugging at my sleeve,” I told her, and when she desisted, I continued. “Next we take up a fallacy called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You can’t speak French. Petey Bellows can’t speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.” “Really?” said Polly, amazed. “Nobody?” I hid my exasperation. “Polly, it’s a fallacy. The generalization is reached too hastily. There are too few instances to support such a conclusion.” “Know any more fallacies?” she asked breathlessly. “This is more fun than dancing even.” I fought off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with this girl, absolutely nowhere. Still, I am nothing if not persistent. I continued. “Next comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Let’s not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.” “I know somebody just like that,” she exclaimed. “A girl back home—Eula Becker, her name is. It never fails. Every single time we take her on a picnic—” “Polly,” I said sharply, “it’s a fallacy. Eula Becker doesn’t cause the rain. She has no connection with the rain. You are guilty of Post Hoc if you blame Eula Becker.” “I’ll never do it again,” she promised contritely. “Are you mad at me?” I sighed. “No, Polly, I’m not mad.” “Then tell me some more fallacies.” “All right. Let’s try Contradictory Premises.” “Yes, let’s,” she chirped, blinking her eyes happily. I frowned, but plunged ahead. “Here’s an example of Contradictory Premises: If God can do anything, can He make a stone so heavy that He won’t be able to lift it?” “Of course,” she replied promptly. 29

“But if He can do anything, He can lift the stone,” I pointed out. “Yeah,” she said thoughtfully. “Well, then I guess He can’t make the stone.” “But He can do anything,” I reminded her. She scratched her pretty, empty head. “I’m all confused,” she admitted. “Of course you are. Because when the premises of an argument contradict each other, there can be no argument. If there is an irresistible force, there can be no immovable object. If there is an immovable object, there can be no irresistible force. Get it?” “Tell me more of this keen stuff,” she said eagerly. I consulted my watch. “I think we’d better call it a night. I’ll take you home now, and you go over all the things you’ve learned. We’ll have another session tomorrow night.” I deposited her at the girls’ dormitory, where she assured me that she had had a perfectly terrif evening, and I went glumly home to my room. Petey lay snoring in his bed, the raccoon coat huddled like a great hairy beast at his feet. For a moment I considered waking him and telling him that he could have his girl back. It seemed clear that my project was doomed to failure. The girl simply had a logic-proof head. But then I reconsidered. I had wasted one evening; I might as well waste another. Who knew? Maybe somewhere in the extinct crater of her mind a few members still smoldered. Maybe somehow I could fan them into flame. Admittedly it was not a prospect fraught with hope, but I decided to give it one more try. Seated under the oak the next evening I said, “Our first fallacy tonight is called Ad Misericordiam.” She quivered with delight. “Listen closely,” I said. “A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies that he has a wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming.” A tear rolled down each of Polly’s pink cheeks. “Oh, this is awful, awful,” she sobbed. “Yes, it’s awful,” I agreed, “but it’s no argument. The man never answered the boss’s question about his qualifications. Instead he appealed to the boss’s sympathy. He committed the fallacy of Ad Misericordiam. Do you understand?” “Have you got a handkerchief?” she blubbered. I handed her a handkerchief and tried to keep from screaming while she wiped her eyes. “Next,” I said in a carefully controlled tone, “we will discuss False Analogy. Here is an example: Students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during examinations. After all, surgeons have X-rays to guide them during an operation, lawyers have briefs to guide them during a trial, carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a house. Why, then, shouldn’t students be allowed to look at their textbooks during an examination?” “There now,” she said enthusiastically, “is the most marvy idea I’ve heard in years.” “Polly,” I said testily, “the argument is all wrong. Doctors, lawyers, and carpenters aren’t taking a test to see how much they have learned, but students are. The situations are altogether different, and you can’t make an analogy between them.” “I still think it’s a good idea,” said Polly. 30

“Nuts,” I muttered. Doggedly I pressed on. “Next we’ll try Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.” “Sounds yummy,” was Polly’s reaction. “Listen: If Madame Curie had not happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer with a chunk of pitchblende, the world today would not know about radium.” “True, true,” said Polly, nodding her head “Did you see the movie? Oh, it just knocked me out. That Walter Pidgeon is so dreamy. I mean he fractures me.” “If you can forget Mr. Pidgeon for a moment,” I said coldly, “I would like to point out that statement is a fallacy. Maybe Madame Curie would have discovered radium at some later date. Maybe somebody else would have discovered it. Maybe any number of things would have happened. You can’t start with a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it.” “They ought to put Walter Pidgeon in more pictures,” said Polly, “I hardly ever see him any more.” One more chance, I decided. But just one more. There is a limit to what flesh and blood can bear. “The next fallacy is called Poisoning the Well.” “How cute!” she gurgled. “Two men are having a debate. The first one gets up and says, ‘My opponent is a notorious liar. You can’t believe a word that he is going to say.’ … Now, Polly, think. Think hard. What’s wrong?” I watched her closely as she knit her creamy brow in concentration. Suddenly a glimmer of intelligence—the first I had seen—came into her eyes. “It’s not fair,” she said with indignation. “It’s not a bit fair. What chance has the second man got if the first man calls him a liar before he even begins talking?” “Right!” I cried exultantly. “One hundred per cent right. It’s not fair. The first man has poisoned the well before anybody could drink from it. He has hamstrung his opponent before he could even start … Polly, I’m proud of you.” “Pshaws,” she murmured, blushing with pleasure. “You see, my dear, these things aren’t so hard. All you have to do is concentrate. Think— examine—evaluate. Come now, let’s review everything we have learned.” “Fire away,” she said with an airy wave of her hand. Heartened by the knowledge that Polly was not altogether a cretin, I began a long, patient review of all I had told her. Over and over and over again I cited instances, pointed out flaws, kept hammering away without letup. It was like digging a tunnel. At first, everything was work, sweat, and darkness. I had no idea when I would reach the light, or even if I would. But I persisted. I pounded and clawed and scraped, and finally I was rewarded. I saw a chink of light. And then the chink got bigger and the sun came pouring in and all was bright. Five grueling nights with this took, but it was worth it. I had made a logician out of Polly; I had taught her to think. My job was done. She was worthy of me, at last. She was a fit wife for me, a proper hostess for my many mansions, a suitable mother for my well-heeled children. It must not be thought that I was without love for this girl. Quite the contrary. Just as Pygmalion loved the perfect woman he had fashioned, so I loved mine. I decided to acquaint 31

her with my feelings at our very next meeting. The time had come to change our relationship from academic to romantic. “Polly,” I said when next we sat beneath our oak, “tonight we will not discuss fallacies.” “Aw, gee,” she said, disappointed. “My dear,” I said, favoring her with a smile, “we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched.” “Hasty Generalization,” said Polly brightly. “I beg your pardon,” said I. “Hasty Generalization,” she repeated. “How can you say that we are well matched on the basis of only five dates?” I chuckled with amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons well. “My dear,” I said, patting her hand in a tolerant manner, “five dates is plenty. After all, you don’t have to eat a whole cake to know that it’s good.” “False Analogy,” said Polly promptly. “I’m not a cake. I’m a girl.” I chuckled with somewhat less amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons perhaps too well. I decided to change tactics. Obviously the best approach was a simple, strong, direct declaration of love. I paused for a moment while my massive brain chose the proper word. Then I began: “Polly, I love you. You are the whole world to me, the moon and the stars and the constellations of outer space. Please, my darling, say that you will go steady with me, for if you will not, life will be meaningless. I will languish. I will refuse my meals. I will wander the face of the earth, a shambling, hollow-eyed hulk.” There, I thought, folding my arms, that ought to do it. “Ad Misericordiam,” said Polly. I ground my teeth. I was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein, and my monster had me by the throat. Frantically I fought back the tide of panic surging through me; at all costs I had to keep cool. “Well, Polly,” I said, forcing a smile, “you certainly have learned your fallacies.” “You’re darn right,” she said with a vigorous nod. “And who taught them to you, Polly?” “You did.” “That’s right. So you do owe me something, don’t you, my dear? If I hadn’t come along you never would have learned about fallacies.” “Hypothesis Contrary to Fact,” she said instantly. I dashed perspiration from my brow. “Polly,” I croaked, “you mustn’t take all these things so literally. I mean this is just classroom stuff. You know that the things you learn in school don’t have anything to do with life.” “Dicto Simpliciter,” she said, wagging her finger at me playfully. That did it. I leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. “Will you or will you not go steady with me?” 32

“I will not,” she replied. “Why not?” I demanded. “Because this afternoon I promised Petey Bellows that I would go steady with him.” I reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. After he promised, after he made a deal, after he shook my hand! “The rat!” I shrieked, kicking up great chunks of turf. “You can’t go with him, Polly. He’s a liar. He’s a cheat. He’s a rat.” “Poisoning the Well ,” said Polly, “and stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy too.” With an immense effort of will, I modulated my voice. “All right,” I said. “You’re a logician. Let’s look at this thing logically. How could you choose Petey Bellows over me? Look at me—a brilliant student, a tremendous intellectual, a man with an assured future. Look at Petey—a knothead, a jitterbug, a guy who’ll never know where his next meal is coming from. Can you give me one logical reason why you should go steady with Petey Bellows?” “I certainly can,” declared Polly. “He’s got a raccoon coat.” 33

Entry 1 & 2 Factsheet bbc.co.uk/skillswise © BBC 2012 Is that a fact? A fact is something that you know is true. You can prove it. An opinion is something you think or believe to be true. You can’t prove it. Smoking is relaxing. Smoking is bad for your health. I can look outside and check this is true so it is a fact. I think it will rain, but I can’t be sure, so it is an opinion. There is a lot of medical evidence to prove this, so it is a fact. I might think this, but other people might disagree, so it is an opinion. It’s raining now. It’s going to rain later. 34

Distinguishing between fact and opinion Rt/E3.4 © BBC 2011 Michael Owen bemused by Newcastle United boos Manchester United striker Michael Owen says he was disappointed after being booed by Newcastle fans during Tuesday's 0-0 draw at St James's Park. The former Magpies man was jeered when he came on after 81 minutes. Owen said on Twitter: "Got a poor reception off the home fans which was disappointing. Was desperate to score!" He added: "Knew I would get booed as that's what a lot of fans do but if they knew the facts then they may have a different opinion." Michael Owen is clear that there is a difference between fact and opinion. He is disappointed by the fans’ opinion of him but believes that knowing the facts might change that opinion. A fact is something that can be proved to be correct. An opinion is what someone thinks or believes. It cannot be proved to be correct or incorrect. Here are some facts from the same article: Owen joined Newcastle from Real Madrid. The transfer cost £16 million. The transfer took place in 2005. He scored 30 goals in 79 appearances. He spent four years on Tyneside (another name for Newcastle) All these statements can be checked and proved by looking at the records. Here are some opinions from the same article: Newcastle or Liverpool fans respect what he has done. (Some probably do, but do all of them? How could it be proved?) One boo and the rest follow. (It may seem so, but how could it be proved?) Facts can be proved to be correct; opinions might also be correct but they can’t be proved. Owen joined Newcastle from Real Madrid for £16m in 2005 and scored 30 goals in 79 appearances in an injury-hit four years on Tyneside. Owen said: "When I meet Newcastle or Liverpool fans they all respect what I've done for their clubs. In stadiums it changes, one boo and the rest follow. 35

© BBC 2011 The language of fact and opinion Rt/L1.2 How do we distinguish between fact and opinion? One way to distinguish between fact and opinion is to look at the language used. Language helps us to decide whether a statement can be backed up with evidence and verified in some way. Or it can help to show whether the statement is someone’s point of view, judgement or belief. Examples of the language we use to express facts: This review has demonstrated… According to the results of the latest poll… The latest findings confirm… Researchers have recently discovered… Tip: look at the key words used to express facts - demonstrated, according, confirm, discovered. Examples of the language we use to express opinions: The company claims that… The research team argues that… In Professor Donald’s view… Most experts in this field suspect that… Tip: Look at the key words used to express opinion - claims, argues, view, suspect. NOTE: Facts and opinions can be manipulated. Opinions can be presented as facts, simply by using the language of facts to present them. For example: Recent statements made by the council confirm that most residents do not want a further expansion of the one-way system of streets. Although facts are expressed in the language in the above statement, there is very little evidence to back it up. The council may have made statements about increasing the number of one-way streets, but this doesn’t mean that local residents were surveyed and that their responses were recorded in any way. 36

Fact, opinion and news 1 Rt/L1.2 © BBC 2011 To follow is the first part of an article from the BBC’s news website. The facts are highlighted in bold and the opinions are underlined. The facts are taken from a survey that can be verified. The opinions are taken from comments made by various people such as journalists and writers. They express the viewpoint of that particular person. Look at the sentence that is not in bold (facts) or underlined (opinion). Is it fact or opinion? Correct answer: The sentence that is not in bold or underlined is an opinion. The comment is R. Sriram’s point of view and is not backed up by evidence. To substantiate this comment he would have had to ask a large sample of readers from India if they felt reading is a “fundamental part of their being”? Indians “world’s biggest readers” Indians are the world’s biggest bookworms, reading on average 10.7 hours a week, twice as long as Americans, according to a new survey. The NOP World Culture Score index surveyed 30,000 people in 30 countries from December 2004 to February 2005. Analysts said self-help and aspirational reading could explain India’s high figures. Britons and Americans scored 50% lower than the Indians’ hours and Japanese and Koreans were even lower at 4.1 and 3.1 hours respectively. R. Sriram, chief executive officer of Crosswords Bookstores, a chain of 26 book shops around India, says Indians are extremely entrepreneurial and reading “is a fundamental part of their being”. The NOP survey of 30,000 consumers aged over 13 saw China and the Philippines take second and third place respectively in average hours a week spent reading books, newspapers and magazines. Fact or opinion? 37

Where you live: fact Rt/L1.1 Rt/L1.2 © BBC 2011 Write a report about your local town or the county in which you live. Give facts only in the report (below). These facts should include the following information: population, main industry, main attractions and factual details. Here’s an example of how you could begin this section of your report: I live in Leeds, West Yorkshire. It has a population of 715,404 and has become a major financial and legal centre outside London. Remember: you will have to do some research to find out these things. The following websites will help your research: · To find the population of the area in which you live, visit the Office for National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk · To find census information for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, visit: www.ons.gov.uk/census · To find out more about your local area (from news and activities to local entertainment) visit your local BBC site: www.bbc.co.uk/local Write your report in the box below: Now look at the worksheet ‘Where you live: opinion’ and write your opinion of where you live. 38

Where you live: opinion Rt/L1.1 Rt/L1.2 © BBC 2011 Write a report about your local town or the county in which you live. Give opinions only in the report (below). Here are some questions to help you: • What do you think about where you live? • Where are your favourite places? • What do you like to do there in your free time? • What would you change about where you live? Remember: this is your view of the place you live. You don’t have to do any research. To follow is an example of how you could begin this section of the report: I love Leeds. It’s a great place to live. There are lots of things to do and lots of good shops to visit. For example… Write your report in the box below: 39

Editorial writing 40

Writing an editorial letteri WHAT IS A LETTER TO THE EDITOR? You feel strongly about an issue, and you want to let people know what you think. You believe you can even influence people to take some action if you speak your mind. But you want to reach an audience larger than just your friends or your group membership. Letters to the editor can be an effective way to get the word out. A letter to the editor is a written way of talking to a newspaper, magazine, or other regularly printed publication. Letters to the editor are generally found in the first section of the newspaper, or towards the beginning of a magazine, or in the editorial page. They can take a position for or against an issue, or simply inform, or both. They can convince readers by using emotions, or facts, or emotions and facts combined. Letters to the editor are usually short and tight, rarely longer than 300 words. Using a few carefully placed letters, you can generate plenty of community discussion. You can also keep an issue going by preventing it from disappearing from the public eye. You can stimulate the interest of the news media and create more coverage for the matters you are working on. You can also send a "good news" letter to bring recognition to people who deserve it or acknowledge the success of an effort. WHY SHOULD YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR? Letters to the editor are among the most widely read features in any newspaper or magazine. They allow you to reach a large audience. You can probably think of many more specific reasons why you might want to write to the editor, but here are a few general ones: • You are angry about something and want others to know it. • You think that an issue is so important that you must speak out. • Part of your group's strategy is to persuade others to take a specific action. Or you want to: • Suggest an idea to others. • Influence public opinion. • Educate the general public on a specific matter. • Influence policymakers or elected officials directly or indirectly • Publicize the work of your group and attract volunteers or program participants. 41

WHEN SHOULD YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR? Letters to the editor can be written any time you want to shape public opinion, tell others how you feel about people, programs, or ideas, or just inform the public on a certain issue. They are a great way to increase awareness of the issues that you or your organization are working for, as well as to advocate for your cause. Letters to the editor can also be used to start a community conversation about an issue important to you. A planned series of letters to the editor can stimulate public interest and media coverage. It is up to you to determine when the best time is to start writing the letters, allowing time for them to be published—if that is the case. Professors assign editorials in class to determine your skill at persuasive writing, while writers at newspapers and magazines create editorials to make a claim or create discussion about their publication. Either way your editorial should make a clear argument that reflects your stance and that appeals to your audience. WHAT TYPES OF EDITORIALS ARE THERE? There are those that: 1. Explain or interpret: Editors often use these editorials to explain the way the newspaper covered a sensitive or controversial subject. School newspapers may explain new school rules or a particular student-body effort like a food drive. 2. Criticize: These editorials constructively criticize actions, decisions or situations while providing solutions to the problem identified. Immediate purpose is to get readers to see the problem, not the solution. 3. Persuade: Editorials of persuasion aim to immediately see the solution, not the problem. From the first paragraph, readers will be encouraged to take a specific, positive action. Political endorsements are good examples of editorials of persuasion. 4. Praise: These editorials commend people and organizations for something done well. They are not as common as the other three. WHAT SHOULD I KEEP IN MIND TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR? 1. Pick a significant topic that has a current news angle and would interest readers. 2. Collect information and facts; include objective reporting; do research. 42

3. Open the letter with a simple salutation. Do not worry if you don't know the editor's name. A simple "To the Editor of ___________," or just “To the Editor:” is sufficient. If you have the editor's name, however, you should use it. 4. State your opinion briefly in the fashion of a thesis statement (not necessarily the very first sentence but one after a few engaging introductory statements). 5. Explain the issue objectively—as a reporter would—and tell why this situation is important. Newspaper editorials should have at least three arguments. These arguments, of course, should be backed up with facts and evidence from your research on the topic: • Use statistics to help prove your argument. • Make sure your strongest argument is left for last. • Do not be passive in the arguments that come before the strongest. If this happens you likely will not have readers reading your entire newspaper editorial. 6. Give opposing viewpoint first with its quotations and facts. 7. Refute (reject) the other side and develop your case using facts, details, figures, quotations. Pick apart the other side's logic. 8. If necessary, concede a point of the opposition — they must have some good points you can acknowledge that would make you look rational. 9. If you draw attention to an issue in an editorial, provide possible solutions to the problem. You want to avoid simply complaining so that the audience can find value in your work and consider taking action themselves. Whatever solution(s) you provide, make sure they are realistic and beyond common knowledge. 10.Wrap it up in a concluding punch that restates your opening remark (thesis statement). 11.Keep it to 300-400 approximately words; make every work count; use "I" only if allowed. (Consult with your instructor) WHAT IS A POSSIBLE SAMPLE STRUCTURE? I. Lead with an objective explanation of the issue/controversy. Include the five W's in writing (Who, What, When, Where, Why). Example: Members of Congress, in an effort to reduce the budget, are looking to cut funding from public television. Hearings were held … • Pull in facts and quotations from the sources which are relevant. • Additional research may be necessary. II. Present your opposition first. As the writer, you disagree with these viewpoints. Identify the people (specifically who oppose you. 43

Example: Republicans feel that these cuts are necessary; other cable stations can pick them; only the rich watch public television. • Use facts and quotations to state objectively their opinions. • Give a strong position of the opposition. You gain nothing in refuting a weak position. III. Directly refute the opposition's beliefs. You can begin your article with transition. Example: Republicans believe public television is a "sandbox for the rich." However, statistics show most people who watch public television make less than $40,000 per year. • Pull in other facts and quotations from people who support your position. • Concede a valid point of the opposition which will make you appear rational, one who has considered all the options. Example: Fiscal times are tough, and we can cut some of the funding for the arts; however, … IV. Give Other, Original Reasons/Analogies In defense of your position, give reasons from strong to strongest order. (Taking money away from public television is robbing children of their education …) Use a literary or cultural allusion that lends to your credibility and perceived intelligence (We should render unto Caesar that which belongs to him …) V. Conclude with some punch. Give solutions to the problem or challenge the reader to be informed. Example: Congress should look to where real wastes exist — perhaps in defense and entitlements — to find ways to save money. Digging into public television's pocket hurts us all. • A quotation can be effective, especially if from a respected source. • A rhetorical question can be an effective concluder as well. Example: If the government does not defend the interests of children, who will? i Adapted for pedagogical purposes from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/direct-action/letters-to-editor/main (by Bonilla, M.) 44

Sample letters 45