ANALYZING DOCUMENTARIES

•…CONTINUED

MORE CONVENTIONS OF ARGUMENTS:

“CHAPTER 16 –WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE?”

•EVIDENCE & ARGUMENTS• PRECEDENCE – EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS AND DECISIONS THAT ARE

SIMILAR

• DATA – GATHERING AND PRESENTING

• STATISTICS – STATS, NUMBERS, TABLES, CHARTS, GRAPHS

• DEFINITIONS, ANALOGIES, ANALYSES

• SOURCES – FIRSTHAND VS. SECONDHAND

• EXPERIENCE – PERSONAL VS. EXPERT

• QUOTES

• IMAGES – INTEGRATED OR ALONE

DOING YOUR RESEARCH…

FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE • OBSERVATIONS

• FIRST DECIDE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND ANTICIPATE WHAT YOU WILL SEE

• THINK FIRST!

• INTERVIEWS

• CHOOSE WISELY

• HAVE A PURPOSE AND RECORD ALL INFORMATION

• SURVEYS / QUESTIONNAIRES

• HAVE PURPOSE, TEST QUESTIONS, BE CLEAR

• EXPERIMENTS

• CONTROLLED AND EXPLAIN PROCESS

SECONDHAND EXPERIENCE• LIBRARY SOURCES

• DATABASES

• WHICH ARE CREDIBLE IN THE FIELD?

• HOW RECENT SHOULD THEY BE?

• HOW DO I ACCURATELY ‘SEARCH’ / ‘ADVANCED SEARCH?’

• INTERNET

• WHICH CAN I USE?

• WHICH ARE CREDIBLE?

• HOW CAN I USE A SEARCH ENGINE?

CHAPTER 17: FALLACIES OF ARGUMENT

•FALLACIES ARE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE FLAWED – STRUCTURALLY – SO THEY TRULY LESSEN THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE

•RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ETHICS OF AN ARGUMENT, PARTICULARLY IF IT’S FAIR OR ACCURATE

EMOTIONAL FALLACIES• SCARE TACTICS

• EITHER – OR CHOICES

• SLIPPERY SLOPE (TINY MISTAKE TODAY WILL CAUSE HUGE DISASTER TOMORROW)

• SENTIMENTAL APPEAL –GUILT-RIDDEN, KEEP AUDIENCE FROM THINKING CLEARLY

• BANDWAGON – ‘EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT’ APPROACH

ETHICAL FALLACIES

•FALSE AUTHORITY – EXPERT ON ONE THING MAKES ME AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING

•DOGMATISM – “NO RATIONAL PERSON WOULD DISAGREE…” “IT’S CLEAR TO ANYONE…”

•MORAL EQUIVALENCE – SERIOUS WRONGDOING IS SAME AS MINOR OFFENSE

•AD HOMINEM – ATTACKING THE PERSON’S CHARACTER

LOGICAL FALLACIES• HASTY GENERALIZATION – INFERENCE DRAWN FROM

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

• FAULTY CAUSALITY – FROM LATIN PHRASE ‘POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC’ – AFTER THIS, THEREFORE BECAUSE OF THIS (BECAUSE ONE EVENT FOLLOWED ANOTHER, THE FIRST ONE ACTUALLY CAUSED THE SECOND ONE)

• BEGGING THE QUESTION – CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE BECAUSE THE GROUNDS ARE IN DOUBT (YOU CAN’T GIVE ME A “C” – I’M AN “A” STUDENT)

MORE LOGICAL FALLACIES•EQUIVOCATION – TRICK OF LANGUAGE – DOUBLE-

MEANING

•NON SEQUITUR – CLAIMS, REASONS AND WARRANTS FAIL TO CONNECT LOGICALLY; ONE POINT DOESN’T FOLLOW ANOTHER

•STRAW MAN – ATTACK AN ARGUMENT THAT ISN’T THERE

•FAULTY ANALOGY – COMPARISON TAKEN TOO FAR SO THAT IT CAN’T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS:

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

• YOUR ASSIGNMENT: WRITE A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENTARY FILM.

• ANALYZE THE PURPOSE, THE AUDIENCE, AND THE STRATEGIES USED.

• ANALYSIS CAN SUPPORT OR DEFEND THE FILM

• ANALYSIS CAN CHALLENGE OR OPPOSE THE FILM

GETTING STARTED•THESIS = AUTHOR, AUDIENCE,

GENERAL PURPOSE

•AT LEAST 5 SENTENCES = RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND HOW THEY ARE USED

•CONCLUSION SENTENCE = MUST INDICATE YOUR POSITION (DEFEND OR OPPOSE)

USING VARIOUS TERMINOLOGY

•DEFEND• PRESERVE

• GUARD

• SECURE

• SHIELD

• LOOK AFTER

• SUPPORT

• ENDORSE

• BACK

•CHALLENGE• OPPOSE

• CONFRONT

• DEFY

• DISPUTE

• CONTEST

• OBJECT TO

• QUESTION

• ARGUE

DEFEND: EXAMPLE INTRO PARAGRAPH

• IN AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, AL GORE WANTS TO REACH A LARGE AUDIENCE, PARTICULARLY NONSCIENTISTS, TO STRESS THE URGENCY OF RESPONDING TO GLOBAL WARNING.

• HE ESTABLISHES HIS AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC SERVANT WHOSE CONCERN STEMS FROM ETHICAL AND MORAL RATHER THAN POLITICAL MOTIVATION.

• HE PROVIDES AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A MULTIMEDIA FORMAT.

• HE APPEALS THE AUDIENCE’S REACTIONS BY JUXTAPOSING WHAT WAS OR IS WITH WHAT MIGHT BE – AND, IN FACT, IS LIKELY TO OCCUR.

• GORE ACKNOWLEDGES SEVERAL COUNTERPARTS, BUT HE REFUTES THEM WITH HUMOR OR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION.

• HE USES HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS A FATHER AND BROTHER TO STRESS THE DEEP COMMITMENT THE HAS TO THIS ISSUE.

• AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH EFFECTIVELY SOUNDS THE ALARM FOR GLOBAL WARNING BY OFFERING AN ACCESSIBLE EXPLANATION THAT BLENDS SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND HUMAN INTEREST.

CHALLENGE: EXAMPLE INTRO PARAGRAPH• ALTHOUGH AL GORE CLAIMS THAT ONLY MORAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

PROMPTED HIM TO MAKE THE DOCUMENTARY AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, THE FILM IS A THINLY DISGUISED BID FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

• THROUGHOUT THE FILM, HE ESTABLISHES THE STANCE OF A SUCCESSFUL POLITICIAN WHO HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN HIS DUE.

• HE INTERSPERSES HIS SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS WITH CRITICISMS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

• HE MANIPULATES HIS AUDIENCE INTO FEELING A SENSE OF URGENCY BY EXAGGERATING THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH BEFORE AND AFTER CONTRASTS.

• HE MENTIONS COUNTERARGUMENTS BUT DISMISSES THEM WITH SARCASM AND DERISIVE HUMOR.

• HE USES THE ARTISTIC ELEMENTS OF DOCUMENTARY FILM TO PULL AT HIS AUDIENCES HEARTSTRINGS BY DESCRIBING THE NEAR-DEATH OF HIS SON AND THE CANCER DEATH OF HIS SISTER, NEITHER OF WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HIS SUBJECT.

• AL GORE MAY HAVE A SINCERE CONCERN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH IS ONLY A MEANS TO FURTHER HIS AMBITIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY BY REACHING A LARGE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL VOTERS.

ASSIGNMENT• WRITE 2 SEPARATE INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPHS, ON THAT DEFENDS /

SUPPORTS AND ONE THAT CHALLENGES / DISAGREES WITH , THE ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE DOCUMENTARY BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

• BE SURE TO INCLUDE AT LEAST 6 SENTENCES THAT EXPLAIN THE LITERARY DEVICES THAT YOU WOULD DISCUSS IN THE PAPER AND END WITH A STRONG THESIS.

• USE ONE OF THE INTRODUCTION METHODS THAT WE LEARNED EARLIER IN THE YEAR – REFER TO YOUR NOTES!

• BRING THESE TO CLASS – TYPED OR HAND-WRITTEN - MONDAY / TUESDAY.