Tuesday, July 21 2009

Part One Goals:

• Begin Unit Two

• Continue to work with Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard”

Part One

Introduction to Unit Two:

Arguments in Action: An Overview of Argumentative Types and Structures

Unit Goals:

In this unit we are going to cover a number of issues, including but not limited to:

Oral presentation skills (presenting evidence)

An awareness of logical fallacious reasoning

Critical thinking skills (esp. synthesis)

An awareness of the conventions of essay structure

The ability to perform thesis and paragraph development

Proper documentation of source material (works cited)

Argument as Exploration: Using Argument to Uncover

Our project for this unit is going to be: a 3-5 page argument, using a variety of sources as material.  In the argument, you will analyze and evaluate the source material and synthesize it into a coherent whole.

So, let’s begin down that path:

Last time, I asked you about “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.”

Groups: In your groups, I want you to identify the thesis of this argument, Bok’s major claims, and the evidence he uses to back up these claims.

Okay, now that we have broken that down, let’s discuss which of these claims relate to Logos, Ethos, or Pathos.

Okay, now that we have done that, we need to think about how we would summarize this information, let’s open to pages 538-546

Part Two Goals:

• Arguing Bok

• Introduction to Evaluation

Part Two

So far, we have had a good, spirited conversation about the first amendment: let’s look at it, so we know what it looks like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, now that we know what it looks like, I want you to take your assignment out, turn it over, and spend the next ten minutes writing on the following subject:

Describe HOW and WHY you would either agree or disagree with Bok.

Group Work:

Okay: who agreed with Bok? Who disagreed with Bok? As far as it is possible, I want you to get into groups of 3 that are split on whether or not you agree with Bok. In your groups, I want you to go around, explain your analysis, and then begin to try to convince one another that you are correct in your analysis.

Class Discussion

Okay: now that we have had a chance to being arguing with one another in a constructive way, we are ready to being the ground work for our second major project in this course, which is, as I told you last time:

A 3-5 page argument, using a variety of sources as material.  In the argument, you will analyze and evaluate the source material and synthesize it into a coherent whole.

Analyze: What does it mean to analyze something?

Analyze: to separate (a material or abstract entity) into constituent parts or elements; determine the elements or essential features of (opposed to synthesize ): to analyze an argument.

Now we need to EVALUATE the materials.

What does it mean to evaluate something?

When we evaluate something, we to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of; assess: to evaluate the results of an experiment.

Our job over this weekend is going to be to evaluate “The Oblivious Empire.”

We do this by considering the following:

I) We identify the thesis, and then explain whether or not – and how – A) the evidence the author presents supports this thesis (either through pathos, ethos, or logos). We then explain whether or not the structure and order of this information is reasonable, and how or if it contributes to the strength of the argument.

Your evaluation is to be posted here as a two page blog post. This is due before class on Monday. It will take some serious thought this weekend.

Homework

Write  a two-page EVALUATION of “The Oblivious Empire.” Post to this page.

Advertisement