English 320, web-based Class

Lesson for Week 10: Day 2

10:2

Your assingment for today was to . . .

Continue research for your paper on GMOs and send me a copy of your annotated bibliography by today. It should have five to ten entries. Read chapters 17 and 18 in Lambrecht's Dinner at the New Gene Cafe and look especially at chapter 18 as an example of civil discourse about a public issue. Make a blog entry on your reading.

Today, we look at five argumentative patterns

Last time we talked about dissoi logoi, incommensurable views or arguments on a given topic. We saw how the philosophers in antiquity tried to get to truth by getting rid of competing visions so that there wasn't any way to look at the issue except the right way. We also saw how rhetoricians opted for finding the most expedient rather than the truth and how they developed a system called stasis, to determine where to pitch the battle, and a method of rhetorical invention, the topics, to help them generate arguments.

Today, we come into the modern world to look at five patterns, each of which attempt to deal with the dissoi logoi in different ways. In the first, you stay inside your own logos or world view and argue for it and against the opposing view. This is the traditional, polemic argument. In the second, you assume the position of a judge, someone in neither of the logoi, and you judge between them. This is the evaluative stance. In the third, you inhabit one of the logoi, but instead of trying to argue for it at the expense of your opponent, you enter into dialogue with him or her and invite them to share in a compromise. This is the Rogerian approach. In the fourth persuasive pattern, the problem-solution pattern normally presents only one solution to a problem although it sometimes talks about alternatives in order to show the superiority of the solution being offered. The fifth pattern is based on analysis of cause and effect.

1. Traditonal Polemic Argument Pattern. The traditional polemic argument is one in which rhetors argue for their own side and try to defeat their opponents. They are not trying to change the opponent's mind; rather, they are appealing to onlookers, judges, the public, trying to get the third party to join their side and reject the opponents. It is called polemic because such arguments drive opponents further and further away from a common solution, created stringent and fixed positions. The traditional pattern was as follows:

• Introduction: the speaker tries to win the trust of the audience. This section is primarily concerned with building the speaker's ethos.
• Narration: telling the view of the case from the speaker's perspective. You might say it is a story or overall summary of the way the speaker sees things.
• Confirmation: arguments supporting the narration; evidence that supports the speaker's view of the case. Often the arguments were arranged in a 2, 3, 1 pattern. The second strongest arguments goes first, then the weakest, finally the strongest. The contrast betwee the 3 and th 1 magnifies the strength of the final argument and makes it stick in the audience's memory. This section is primarily logos oriented.
• Refutation: arguments against anticipated counter view of the opponent. The refutation can use logic (logos) emotion (pathos) or character assassination (a reverse ethos argument), or even humor.
• Conclusion: rhetor tries to put the audience in the right state of mind to take action or to resist the opponent's argument. This section is primarily pathos oriented.

2. The Evaluative Stance. A writer who assumes the evaluative stance is not an advocate for either logos. Instead, the writer assumes the position of the third party, the judge, who tries to discriminate between the competing logoi.

In business, industry, and government, the form of report that comes from this stance is often called a feasibility report, and a feasibility report recommends, supposedly objectively, whether or not something should be done, or if there is more than one option, which option should be chosen. Naturally, then, it makes sense that feasibility reports are likely to follow chronologically after proposals have been made. If an organization knows what they want, they often create a call for proposals (CFP) in which they describe the product or service they would like. Competing proposals are submitted (like the design options for downtown Moorhead or the corner lot of Broadway and Main in Fargo), and the proposals are then compared.

A good CFP will delineate the criteria by which the proposals will be judged, and a good proposal will directly address those criteria. The feasibility report will then compare the alternatives at each of these criteria and select the best overall design or alternative. Determining what the criteria are is, therefore, very important. Although businesses or governments often think only in terms of money and performance, socially responsible organizations (including businesses and government units) will also include criteria that address ethics (such as environmental impact, effects on workers, effects on communities, etc.) and aesthetics (such as whether or not the design will fit with existing landscape, whether it will enhance the beauty of the area, etc.).

Feasibility reports that compare alternatives can be planned (or summarized, depending on your angle of vision) in a comparison table like the following:

Alternative	Cost of Production	Market Demand	Anticipated Profit Margin	Environmental Impact	Good Neighbor Value
Round-up Ready Wheat	.	.	.	.	.
Ceres Wheat	.	.	.	.	.
Summary Values	.	.	.	.	.
Recommendation

Notice in this table that the criteria are the column headings (across the top) and the alternatives are the row headings (down the left side). Shifting from the table to the report involves deciding whether the report body will discuss the first alternative completely before going to the next alternative (the block pattern) or will discuss both alternatives in terms of criterion one and then both alternatives in terms of criterion two, etc. (alternating pattern). The rhetorical decision between these two depends on whether the alternative is view holistically or analytically. If the individual criteria carry the most weight, then the analytical emphasis will dictate an alternating pattern, but if the overall unity of the alternatives carries the most weight, then the block pattern should be used. Here's the difference in outline form.

Block Pattern Transmittal Correspondence and Front Matter Introuction: purpose, problem, alternatives and criteria introduced I. Alternative One: general description of alternative one    A. Cost of Production .  B. Market Demand .  C. Anticipated Profit Margin .  D. Environmental Impact .  E. Good Neighbor Value .  F. Summary .  G. Overall Evaluation II. Alternative Two: general description of alternative Two .  A. Cost of Production .  B. Market Demand .  C. Anticipated Profit Margin .  D. Environmental Impact .  E. Good Neighbor Value .  F. Summary .  G. Overall Evaluation Evaluative summary of both alternatives Recommendations References Appendices

Alternating Pattern Transmittal Correspondence and Front Matter Introuction: purpose, problem, alternatives and criteria introduced I. Criterion One: general description of criterion one   A. Alternative one   B. Alternative two   C. Summary and Evaluation II. Criterion Two: general description of criterion two   A. Alternative one   B. Alternative two   C. Summary and Evaluation III. Criterion Three: general description of criterion three   A. Alternative one   B. Alternative two   C. Summary and Evaluation IV. Criterion Four: general description of criterion four   A. Alternative one   B. Alternative two   C. Summary and Evaluation V. Criterion Five: general description of criterion five   A. Alternative one   B. Alternative two   C. Summary and Evaluation Evaluative summary of both alternatives Recommendations References Appendices

3. Rogerian Approach. The Rogerian approach is one in which the rhetor inhabits one of the logoi, but instead of trying to win the argument by influencing a third party, she tries to create common ground between the competing views. This pattern, as our reading of Young, Becker, and Pike indicated, is premised on the notion that people don't change if they feel threatened; if any thing, they become even more set in their position. So the rhetor tries to remove threat by (1) using using provisional instead of dogmatic language, and (2) byshowing her opponent that she can inhabit his perspective and validate his judgment from that perspective. This fully display of empathy and common vision invites the opponent to reciprocate, thereby creating open and unthreatening communication that may lead to a compromise that works for both parties.

Although the Rogerian approach is more attitude than format, it has been reduced to a pattern that works for written documents.

1. An introduction to the problem that shows the opponent's position is understood
2. A statement of the contexts in which opponent's position may be valid
3. A statement of the writer's positon, including contexts in which it may be valid
4. A statement of how the opponent's position might be enhanced by adopting elements of the writer's position and an explanation of how positions complement each other.

4. The Problem-Solution Pattern. This pattern is a good one for thinking about your public discourse paper. You can focus your paper by attempting to define a problem. Instead of saying, "What is the biggest controversy about genetically modiefied crops or food?" you might ask, "What problem(s) has the introduction of GMO grains created (for farmers, for consumers, for environmentalists)?" When you define a problem, you are approaching it as something that has a possible solution, and that frame of mind is often less argumentative and more optimistic than the polemic pattern. The problem-solution pattern is divided into the following major sections:

• A description of the present situation in terms that show it to be problematic. One shows that something is a problem by showing that it does not measure up to some standard or ideal. It is also common to explain the causes of the present problem and to discuss possible negative effects that will come from it.
• A discussion of the criteria that indicates what any solution will have to accomplish. This section does not describe the proposed solution yet, it only addresses the elements of the problem that must be solved, the stakeholders who must be satisfied, the constraints that must be taken into account.
• A presentation of the proposed solution. This section describes the solution as a whole first and then explains how it satisfies the criteria spelled out in the previous section. This section is the sales pitch, so it attempts to make the solution look appealing.
• An explanation that the solution is feasible. Feasibility means that the thing can be done. The normal objections to implementing a plan are, first, that it won't solve the problem. This objection was addressed tacitly in the previous section. Second, cost factors are a problem; third, personnel, facilities, and equipment are a possible obstacle; and third, the schedule may not work. Typically, each of these possible objections are addressed directly, but not discussed in terms of obstacles. Instead the section is a positive showing that the proposal can be carried out because it is cheap enough, because the people, equipment, and facilities are available, and because the timing works.

This pattern is the pattern of a typical proposal. It may sometimes add a section that discusses alternative solutions and that shows the one proposed here is superior. Also this pattern requires an introduction at the front that orients the reader to the genre and purpose of the paper, and it requires a conclusion that urges the audience to act on the proposal. Obviously, this type of paper is ineffective unless it is addressed to a rhetorical audience; that is, someone who has power or authority to do something.

5. Analysis of Cause and Effect. Another pattern that might work for this paper is one that focuses on cause and effect. When you talk about cause and effect, you can show a serial change of causes and effects:

cause > effect/cause > effect/cause > effect.

You can show how one cause will produce multiple effects:

------------------------------------Effect One
Cause creates multiple effects>-----Effect Two
------------------------------------Effect Three

You can show that multiple causes will produce a single effect:

Cause 1 contributes to>
Cause 2 contributes to> ----This one Effect
Cause 3 contributes to>

The first creates a pattern something like a chronology or narrative—serial in nature—first this causes that, and then that causes the next thing, and then the next thing causes yet another thing. The other two are analysis patterns: one thing is divided into multiple parts: this effect is the result of these multiple causes or this cause will have multiple effects. It is also important to keep in mind that there are different classes of causes. A sufficient cause is able to produce an effect without the aid of anything else—it is sufficient. A contributory cause “contributes” to an effect but is not sufficient to produce it by itself.

The outlines would look something like the following. For the serial cause and effect analysis:

• Intro: introduction of topic and preview of what is coming--prediction of ultimate outcome
• I. Cause one (this exist, or if this comes into being). Description of its nature and potential
• II. Effect one. How Cause one created this new condition. Description of the nature of new conditon and it potential
• III. Effect two. How Cause two created this new condition. Description of the nature of new conditon and it potential
• IV. Effect three. How Cause three created this new condition. Description of the nature of new conditon and it potential
• Summary of sequence and warning against initiating it or exhortation to initiate it.

For the multiple effects analysis:

• Intro: Introduction of topic and claim about the effects that result (preview)
• I. Discussion of first effect of this cause: how it is produced; discussion of whether it is good or bad
• II. Discussion of second effect of this cause: how it is produced; discussion of whether it is good or bad
• III. Discussion of third effect of this cause: how it is produced; discussion of whether it is good or bad
• Summary of effects and warning or exhortation

For the multiple causes analysis:

• Intro: Introduction of topic and claim about the causes that have produced or will produce and effect (preview)
• I. Discussion of first cause: how it contributes to the effect
• II. Discussion of second cause: how it contributes to the effect
• III. Discussion of third cause: how it contributes to the effect
• Summary of effects and warning or exhortation

These cause and effect patterns can be used as forensic rhetoric, which tries to determine what happened in the past to create a present situation. Or they can be used as deliberative rhetoric, which tries to determine what we should do to shape the future. Here is a report on the risks of introducing GM wheat written by Charles Benbrook. The link in the previos sentence is on the Western Organization of Resources Councils' website. If they happen to move it, here is a link to the downloaded PDF version of the report. It is long, so you don't have time to read it unless you are doing research on this subject, but take a look at the table of contents and see how it is structured. Notice that this is a deliberative report (concerned with the future) and that it tries to appraise risks by exploring the topic of cause and effect in several areas.

Assignment

For next time, write an outline based on one of these three patterns and send it to me by next time (11.1); then begin to fill in the sections of the outline with data summaries from your research. Doing that now will help you identify areas where you need more information and so will spur more research. Heres a New York Times Article on GM Grass Pollen Drift. A couple other newspaper articles from Spring 2005: GMO food is common, Fargo Forum, 3/24/05 (this article leans toward support of biotechnology; notice that you can often tell these biases on either side by loooking at the references they cite or the online resources they link to) and Syngenta biotech corn in food market, Fargo Forum, 3/23/05. You might find it useful as you continue to research GM issues and as you try to narrow your topic for the paper.

Next