DAY 1 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered Lesson 16 in the Sentence Diagramming Workbook: Interjections and Proper Nouns. Egad! Jinkies! Holy jumping jenny-wren! Great fun was had by all. See me if you would like to check your answers.

Then, it was on to the introduction of the Seagull Reader. Here, some of the basics about rhetoric are laid out, giving you the tools you need to assess an argument. I had you work on a study guide in class. You can find it on the wikispace. Learning this stuff at first might not strike you as inherently interesting (learning the vocabulary of any process usually isn't), but the process itself is actually good fun and rather gratifying once you've had some practice. Think an argument is silly, unconvincing, askew, or totally compelling? Now you can explain why! Who knows; perhaps you'll grow so good at it that you'll become a rhetoric major, which is great groundwork for all you budding lawyers.

The first thing to understand is the difference between a DEDUCTIVE argument and an INDUCTIVE argument. A deductive argument starts with a general premise and ends with a specific conclusion.








An inductive arguments examines several examples to draw a general conclusion.





If you understand these basic points, the "logical arguments" section of the introduction should make a good deal of sense to you. The "fallacies" (logical errors) section might be a bit tougher since not all fallacies are explained well.

For example, BEGGING THE QUESTION, or "circular logic" is not necessarily well-explained in the book. However, the following example serves nicely:

Examples of BEGGING THE QUESTION:

• Bill: "God must exist."
• Jill: "How do you know."
• Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
• Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
• Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
  
  
• "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
  
  
• "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
  
  
• Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
• Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
• Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
• Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."[1]
  
  [1] "Fallacy: Begging the Question." The Nizkor Project. 2009. 13 Jan. 2009 .
  

In the RED HERRING FALLACY, the following happens:
TOPIC A is introduced;
TOPIC B is introduced and it's implied that it's related to topic A, but it really isn't;
TOPIC A is abandoned.

For example:

• Imposing harsher consequences for uniform violations makes sense.
• Visitors to University School are impressed by the students' appearance and the campus.
• In these tough economic times, we need to make a good impression.

At the end of this, you still have no idea why it's a good idea to impose harsh consequences for uniform violations.

We'll continue our work on the introduction in class.

HOMEWORK:

1. Read the above.

2. Read Katha Pollitt's essay, "Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls" in the Seagull Reader starting on page 186 of the book.

3. Complete your anecdotal notes on "class dynamics" for each of your classes. That sheet is also available on the wikispace.

VOCAB QUIZ ON DAY 5 OF THIS CYCLE!