| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Project 2 Draft

Page history last edited by perrinatisha 12 years, 8 months ago

Crimes Against Logic

 

 

1. What is the rhetorical situation?

The rhetorical situation is that the author is trying to persuade the readers about the misleading nature of arguments through different techniques that go unnoticed

 

2. What is the writer's ethos and how is it created?

The writer’s ethos is created by his stating his status as a lecturer at Cambridge University and by his extensive use of knowledge

 

3. What claim or proposition does the writer advance?

            Those arguments are really a bunch of smokes and mirrors that need to be analyzed more closely

 

4. Considering the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs the writer assumes to be common ground with her or his audience, how strong or weak are these arguments?

He attempts to always reinforce his point by stating that people who fall for the cover-ups are in a sense, dumb and ignorant, which he knows nobody wants to be.

 

5. How is the text arranged? What are its parts? What is their relation to one another?

            The text is arranged in chapters that each discuss a different category that discuses the techniques used in arguments. Each chapter is then broken up into subcategories that discus this topic in more detail

 

6. What is the role of style and tone?

            The role of style is an assult towards the typical misleading lecturer and sort of an eye opener to the general public about what they need to be careful about

 

Watchu Say

 

Getting your point across. Letting you opinion be known. Changing the opinions of other. These just a few of the many reason people engage in arguments everyday. People argue about everything from religion and politics, to fashion and sports. We each want to make our points known and support it with evidence to make it seem as solid as a brick house. We do this by using solid facts, and a lot of knowledge on the subject. Or do we? Jamie Whyte begs to differ. In Crimes against Logic, Jamie Whyte uses his expertise in philosophy to argue that arguments in this day and age are nothing but a bunch of smokes and mirrors covering up a lack of real evidence. Through logos, Whyte refers to specific examples in the world, such as politics, religion, and books, to expose the truths behind the smokes and mirrors, and state the real skills used by many to effectively (or ineffectively) persuade an audience.

 

The basis behind almost every argument is that people have their own opinions. Mr. Whyte argues that stating the fact that “I am entitled to my own opinion” is the weakest argument that one could possibly make. He states that  […]“by pointing out that he is entitled to his view, he has changed the argument from the original topic to a discussion about ones rights” (Whyte 3). He sees this technique as a form of self-defeat. Whyte emphasizes that by doing so, one is refusing to hear opposing views, regardless of their truthiness or falsity. He argues that yes, although everyone has the right to their opinion, we have the duty to change the opinion of that person if it may be wrong and detrimental to that persons health.

 

Aside from opinions playing a major role in arguments and the shady business that Whyte indicates it to be, he also puts blame on motives for affecting what people choose to say and whom they choose to say it to. Everyone has a motive for saying what he or she doe. Whether it be a job, hobby, passion, and political/religious affiliation, everyone’s’ viewpoint in an argument is biased by these motives. Motives, regardless what they are may not be easily spotted. Whyte explains that although one may claim to have good intentions for having a specific viewpoint, it may in fact be based on negative motives, which in turn, becomes a dirty secret in terms of the argument. An example emphasized my Whyte is that certain politicians may claim the support a certain bill, but only say so to gain the support of voters. It is also made clear that although someone may have negative motives, the outcome may be believed to be for the common good making the motive irrelevant. For example, Whyte refers to Bush’s reasoning for being in Iraq. Whyte explains that although Bush may have had personal motives for being in Iraq, stating, “He wanted to finish his fathers work” (Whyte 15). He goes on to state how, since the general public seems to believe that it is doing the world good that America is in Iraq, Bush’s motives become irrelevant.

 

Whyte also attempts to expose the deliberate inconsistencies in arguments due to authority figureheads. Through this argument, he targets individuals who use their authority to cover up the lack of evidence needed to support the argument in question. For example, Whyte uses the common “Because I say so” (Whyte 19), phrase used by parents in arguments with their offspring. Since parents have ‘authority” over their offspring, the offspring is required to take abide by this saying, regardless the topic in question. By using the aforementioned phrase, the authority in question is basically admitting the lack of evidence to properly support their case, so they turn to means that, although off topic, gets their way. This, in turn, is irrelevant to the argument, therefore works as a type of immortality in an argument. Due to this “immortality’, the argument is therefore made irrelevant.

 

Perhaps more misleading than evidence is the wording of the argument. The strategic wording of an argument gives a debater an edge. Though one may have a poorly supported view on a certain subject matter, the way that the present makes up for the lack of evidence. Whyte emphasizes that through the use of what he calls “empty words” (Whyte 63), an ordinary, intellectual lacking sentence can be spruced up to the extent that it seems to have more meaning than it actually does, and in turn, making the statement seem more credible and worthy of replacing hard evidence. 

 

All in all, Whyte argues that through sleazy tactics, arguments have become pure bogus that aims at only pleasing ones mind, and not the actual topic in question. This is commonly achieved through cleaver wordplay, ulterior motives, and inconstancies on the questions in question.

 

 

Peer Review: by Perrin Atisha 

 

1. Does the paper have a clear thesis that follows the "skeletal structure" we've discussed? I.e., doe it both identify the central argument(s) of the work it is analyzing and identify the trope and/or techniques the author/director uses to make their point(s)?

 

The thesis needs to be made clear. You talk about Whyte using the strategy of logic to explain why politics, religion, and books expose the truths. So your paragraphs should be supporting these 3 examples. 

 

2. Does the paper have a clear exigence and purpose (by explaining the exigence and importance of the work it is analyzing and/or the exigence and importance of analyzing this piece of work)? Do you have a solid idea of why this argument is an important one and/or why it is or should be interesting to an audience made up of people such as yourself? What is the exigence?

 

It does have a clear purpose, the purpose is to say that we should push our feeling aside and our opinions and focus on the hardcore facts and logic. This is interesting because in order to have a valid argument we must have valid reasoning’s and proof of why we agree/disagree.  

 

3. Does the project contain sample support statements/support paragraphs that refer to and back up the thesis?

 

It does, but it needs to be made clearer. Talk about the religion, books, and politics more in depth. 

 

4. What is the strongest part of the paper (most interesting, most powerfully argued, etc.)?

 

the strongest part is the intro when you talk about people basing their arguments on their opinions and feelings. 

 

5. What is the weakest part of the paper (or the part that needs to be improved, further developed or extended)?

 

The weakest part is the ending. Tie everything in together….Why is it important to have logic and facts? Why is it important to push aside our feelings and opinions? What is the truth? 

 

6. Does the author make appropriate references to particular moments in the text (quotations, paraphrases, etc.)? Are there enough references to both back up the thesis and allow a reader to follow the argument being made?

 

The references are good. 

 

7. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammmar or sentence-fragments? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times?

 

Turn your spell check on! 

 

8. Does the project read like an analysis rather than a review? I.e., does show a clear attention to the structure and technique of the piece rather than simply summarizing it and explaining its strenghts and weaknesses?

 

This is definitely more of an analysis than a review. Talk about your own personal experience with arguments? Do you feel like we should push our opinions aside? Or should we just base our arguments on fact, reason, and logic? Should arguments be based on both facts and opinions? 

 

9. What grade would you give the paper if it was a final draft?

     B

 

Says, essay as a whole: Push your opinions aside, show us the evidence

Does, essay as a whole: Give us the truth, we want the truth

 

Says, first paragraph: Jamie Whyte uses his expertise in philosophy to argue that arguments in this day and age are nothing but a bunch of smokes and mirrors covering up a lack of real evidence.

Does, first paragraph: Present an overall analysis of the book

 

Says, second paragraph: The basis behind almost every argument is that people have their own opinions.

Does, second paragraph: Explains the argument, what we must not do.  

 

Says, third paragraph: Everyone has a motive for saying what he or she doe.

Does, third paragraph: gives this argument, goes on to talk about negative motives

 

Says, fourth paragraph: Though one may have a poorly supported view on a certain subject matter, the way that the present makes up for the lack of evidence.

Does, fourth paragraph: Explains the issue then brings up how people cover up the lack of evidence

 

Says, final paragraph: All in all, Whyte argues that through sleazy tactics, arguments have become pure bogus that aims at only pleasing ones mind, and not the actual topic in question. This is commonly achieved through cleaver wordplay, ulterior motives, and inconstancies on the questions in question.

Does, final paragraph: Summarizes and concludes by saying what we should be doing with arguments.

 

 

 

 

Comments (1)

Ahmed Alshaibani said

at 2:17 am on Oct 11, 2011

ROUGH draft. Emphasis on ROUGH

You don't have permission to comment on this page.