Argument

Argument

ambiguity - A statement with two or more meanings that may seem to exclude one another in the context.
There are two types of ambiguity, lexical and structural.

Lexical ambiguity is by far the more common. Everyday examples include nouns like 'chip', 'pen' and 'suit', verbs like 'call', 'draw' and 'run', and adjectives like 'deep' and 'dry'. There are various tests for ambiguity. One test is having two unrelated antonyms, as with 'hard', which has both 'soft' and 'easy' as opposites.

Structural ambiguity occurs when a phrase or sentence has more than one underlying structure, such as the phrases 'Tibetan history teacher', 'a student of high moral principles' and 'short men and women', and the sentences 'The girl hit the boy with a book' and 'Visiting relatives can be boring'. These ambiguities are said to be structural because each such phrase can be represented in two structurally different ways, e.g., '[Tibetan history] teacher' and 'Tibetan [history teacher]'

anecdote - a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

appeals – ethos, logos, pathos (see handouts)

concession - when you show an audience that you have anticipated potential opposition and objections, and have an answer for them, you defuse the audience’s ability to oppose you and persuade them to accept your point of view. If there are places where you agree with your opposition, conceding their points creates goodwill and respect without weakening your thesis.

deductive – Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

inductive - Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" and not "bottoms up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

logical fallacies (ad hominem, begging the question etc.) – see your handout

syllogism - In a syllogism the primary premise is a general statement. The primary premise is always universal, and may be positive or negative. The secondary premise may also be universal or particular so that from these premises it is possible to deduce a valid conclusion.

Everything that lives, moves (primary premise)
No mountain moves (secondary premise)
No mountain lives (conclusion)

enthymeme - An enthymeme is a partial syllogism. It is based on the probable rather than positive premises and is based on implicit conjectures that are shared by the speaker and the audience. The speaker gives the primary premise and assumes that the audience will supply the missing knowledge in order to reach the conclusion.

Everything that lives, moves (primary premise)
No mountain lives (conclusion)

FALLACIES

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacies can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener.