The calendar guides us to write and share our rough draft of our summary and analysis, but since we were not able to get to that part, I am going to address the other two points that were made in the calendar. How I understand argument and also explaining what I know about argument already.
Understanding the elements of argument is not hard since we have been exposed to them before, just not in a direct matter. Obviously, there can not be an argument unless there is a specific type of claim. Within that claim, however, there must be room for what maybe you can call controversy. Your claim can not be 100% factual because then there is no argument. Also, if your argument is opinionated, you will have difficulty finding evidence to help support your argument. And as I mentioned before, your argument must evidently be able to be argued. Since the beginning of our writing careers and maybe even before that, we naturally look for reasons to support what we do. Being why we got in trouble as kids or why we asked our parents to let us use the car. Evidence is a key factor in an argument because a goal can be to try to get someone to see your side of the story, and without proper and strong evidence, there is no argument. Inartistic evidence is evidence gathered not by our imagination but rather through formal findings such as reports books, or articles, which is obviously most common. Artistic proofs come from within and often appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos as well. For sake of all arguments, we need to have reason, We don't argue for something we don't have a reason for. Like every proper and formal argument, it is necessary to state the opposite side. In reality, addressing the other side only makes your argument stronger. As dr. kyburz has mentioned, we all know this. None of these words, but warrants, is new to me. During high school, writing papers and trying to argue a stance was not the easiest thing. Clarifying these terms will make this assignment easier.
Like I mentioned before, I know a lot about argument and it is nothing new to me either. one of the course's guiding concepts is that all claims require evidence. I stated that no matter when we began, we naturally had reasons or evidence for everything we did. From writing papers to explaining to our angry girlfriend why we couldn't text back. We see it in our daily lives how candidates give evidence on why they are best fit for positions. Meaning has context was a little difficult to understand to me. I understand that behind every author, there is a purpose but the word context is troubling me. Does it mean that meaning has background. I am having trouble understanding that part. Writing in revision is something we all as writers can refer to. With years of writing, there have been countless drafts written and millions of peer reviews, and teacher conferences. The only way to get better at your writing is to revise and to ensure that everything is as best as can be. Familiarizing yourself with your writing and getting feedback is essential to writing a great paper. These concepts come into sharper focus because they in reality have a lot to do with argument. You definitely need to back up whatever your saying with great evidence, and give your meaning something the audience can clearly see, and lastly, you want to revise what your putting together, constantly. Who knew argument elements were so engraved in our heads.
No comments:
Post a Comment