1. Argument：claim+support+inferencefoe
●Claim: what u want the audience to accept (what they don’t believe yet)
e.g. “ the state should permit euthanasia of terminally ill people ”
●support: ideas that the audience accepts as true ( what they already believe) which provides foundation for acceptance of the claim
e.g. “ upon death, the terminally ill patient’s physical suffering ceas ”
chela clinton●inference: process of finding the connection between claim and support
e.g. “ since death ends physical suffering and euthanasia hastens the inevitable death of a terminally ill person, then euthanasia is desirable. This desirability, in terms of society’s public policy, becomes a reason for the legalization of euthanasia.”
2. forms of argument
2.1 Simple model: support→claim
( death ends suffering→legalization of euthanasia)
2.2 Chain model: support→support/claim→claim
e.g. support/claim: individual’cmcc是什么意思s right to choo to die which should be respected. (maybe regarded as a claim to be proved, cuz the family and larger society also have a stake in that person’s decision )
deep-rooted support冬季护肤小常识: individual’s autonomy in decision making is esntial to his humanity.
2.3 Cluster model: support+support+support→claim
e.g. support 1: individual’s right to choo to live or die should be respected
support 2: upon death, suffering ends
support 3: euthanasia relieves family’s financial burden
claim: euthanasia be legalized.
2.4 Complex model: chain + cluster model
e.g. support / claim 1: individual’s right to choo to live or die should be respected; (automony esntial to humanity; acc’d to UN declaration of human rights; consistent with natural law)
support 2: upon death, suffering ends;
support 3: euthanasia relieves family’s financial burden;
claim: euthanasia be legalized.
3. argumentation: the process of convincing the audience which argument is better.
3.1 Descriptive argumentation: the nature and definition of things.
e.g. the argumentation over whether euthanasia is murder.
Pro: euthanasia, like murder, is a willful termination of human life, cuz both involve intentional act that results in the end of another’s life, thus it is euivalent to murder.
Opp: while there’s similarity between them, murder is not like euthanasia cuz it occurs without the connt of the person.
3.1.1 Ways of forming descriptive arguments
Differentiation: place the issue in a general class then differentiate it from the rest of that class.
e.g. nature/definition of global warming: it is the increa of temparature on earth’s surface (general class) caud by atmospheric greenhou effect (defferentiation)
Example: nature/ definition of free trade: it allows Nike to export jobs to developing nations that don’buttercupt have strong regulations to protect labor or the environment.
Analogy: nature/definition of marijuana’s recreational u: compare the regulation and management on alcohol with marijuana as intoxicants.
Authority: nature of education: it is foundamental human right cuz it is identified as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3.1.2 opposing descriptive arguments (tests)
quality of being intrinsic:
e.g. pro: capital punishment in US is racist.pen
釉子Opp: the characteristic of racism is not intrinsic to the act of capital punishment. While it maybe administered in a way that is racially biad, the racially biad application of it is not an intrinsic characteristic of capital punishment. It can be practiced in a way that is not racially biad.
quality of thoroughness: whether all relevant characteristics have been identified.
e.g. laws to prohibit of u of drugs.
Pro: such laws ek to protect people from activities that maybe harmful.
Opp: such laws not only protect people from themlves but also reprent the expression of a moral opposition to recreational drug u. Thus the characterization of th
e laws as exclusively bebenicial is not a sufficiently thorough description of antidrug laws.
3.2 (causal) relational argumentation: the ability and likelihood one phenomenon or event producing another.
e.g. whether making drug u illegal decreas the consumption of tho drugs.
Whether capital punishment deters crime.
Whether violence in the media caus actual violence.
Tip: make causal predictions about what what we believe will happen bad on the information we have.
just for fun>13young七een幼儿
