Everything's an Argument

“Our laughter testifies to what some people have thought all along: people who want us to eat tofu are the real problem.”

This quote uses humor to engage readers and build ethos by relating to those who love food, a typical college stereotype. In positioning this passage after a section about using humor to suspend an audience’s judgment of the speaker, the authors model this strategy. They take the risk of alienating the vegans and vegetarians in their audience for humor’s sake, but their choice of collective pronouns establishes a sense of camaraderie.

“We observe people, groups, or institutions making and defending claims all the time and inevitably ask ourselves, Should we pay attention to them? Can we rely on them? Do we dare to trust them? Consider, though, that the same questions will be asked about you and your work, especially in academic settings.”

The arrangement of this quote twists readership into authorship. First empathizing with the familiar phenomenon of critiquing others’ credibility, the authors connect a familiar experience to one less familiar to readers: considering how others do the same to the reader’s arguments. This quote also models the design element of italics to clearly differentiate those italicized sentences as internal thoughts. Finally, the concept of building credibility through presentation of oneself and one’s ideas resonates throughout the book as a call to action to readers.

“In an ideal world, good information—no matter where it comes from—would always drive out bad. But you already know that we don’t live in an ideal world, so sometimes bad information gets repeated in an echo chamber that amplifies the errors.”

The authors compare the sharing of unreliable information to calling out in an echo chamber; just as the echo reverberates, repeating into an expanding space, so do people share information online at an exponential rate and with increasing emotional appeal. Categorizing the information as going into only two categories—“good” or “bad,” simplifies the complexity of evaluating credibility to make understanding more accessible to the inexperienced researcher.

“Fallacies are argumentative moves flowed by their very nature or structure. Because such tactics can make productive principled argument more difficult, they potentially hurt everyone involved, including the people responsible for them. The worst sorts of fallacies muck up the frank but civil conversations that people should be able to have, regardless of their differences.”

Asserting that people “should be able to have […] frank but civil conversations,” the authors also relay the underlying request for readers to limit their use of fallacies. The metaphorical use of “muck” illustrates fallacies as detritus on an otherwise clear and fair discussion. The authors also appeal to reader’s sympathy, playing on their desire to keep people from getting “hurt.” This word brings to mind an argument—which is abstract by nature—enacting physical pain, emphasizing the power of a speaker can wield through their arguments.

“Knowing how to judge the quality of sources is more important now than ever before because the digital universe is full of junk. In some ways the computer terminal has become the equivalent of a library reference room, but the sources available online vary widely in quality and have not been evaluated by a library professional.”

The authors metaphorically compare much of the information found online to trash, imploring the reader to evaluate evidence before using it. Further comparing accessing information online to accessing it in a “library reference room,” the authors point out the false analogy, for online sources “have not been evaluated by a library professional.”

“Students we know who are working in high-tech industries also tell us how much [invitational] arguments are valued, since they fuel innovation and ‘out of the box’ thinking.”

This statement appeals to a college student’s ambition toward affluent professions, such as in the technology industry. Appealing to pathos helps convince readers of the need for Rogerian and invitational arguments, which are highly valued by the authors.

“My claim is true, to a qualified degree, because of the following reasons, which make sense if you consider the warrant, backed by these additional reasons.”

The authors present this sentence as a miniature Toulmin argument. Writing using first- and second-person pronouns, this straightforward expression of Toulmin’s argumentative structure provides concrete understanding for readers. It also puts several terms into context, such as claim, warrant, and qualified.

“Quick preliminary research and reading might allow you to move from an intuition to a hypothesis, that is, a tentative statement of your claim […] as noted earlier factual arguments often provoke other types of analysis.”

The authors underscore the need for factual basis in argumentation. Their assertion that “factual arguments often provoke other types of analysis” connects to the theme of interconnectedness between arguments: often arguments rely on other arguments for support.

“When you prepare a factual argument, consider how you can present your evidence most effectively. Precisely because factual arguments often rely on evidence that can be measured, computed, or illustrated, they benefit from thoughtful, even artful presentation of data.”

Argumentation is presented as both an art and science. The authors provide structures and means of sifting through information to form a conclusion and find hard evidence as the scientific aspect of rhetoric. Appealing to pathos and ethos and writing with style takes artistry.

“None of the statements listed here could stand on its own because it likely reflects a first impression and gut reaction. But that’s fine because making a claim of definition is typically a starting point, a cocky moment that doesn’t last much beyond the first serious rebuttal or challenge. Statements like these aren’t arguments until they’re attached to reasons, data, warrants, and evidence.”

This statement provides a good overview of a working claim. Writers form working claims when initially developing an argument. They are “working” because they are not in their final form and may be altered to accurately match their support. The authors’ choice of the phrases “gut reaction” and “cocky moment” contribute to a familiar, engaging tone by using visceral, empathetic language. Addressing the emotional experience of developing a claim also reflects their consistent appeal to pathos.

“Today, rituals of praise and blame are a significant part of American life. Adults who would choke at the notion of debating causal or definitional claims will happily spend hours appraising the Oakland Raiders, Boston Red Sox, or Tampa Bay Rays.”

The authors hyperbolize the repulsion toward more academic arguments to underscore the prevalence of evaluations. They choose two very American pastimes—football and baseball—to exemplify the types of evaluative arguments readers encounter every day and to appeal to their base of college readers, modeling how to build pathos by calling on common experiences.

“To demonstrate that X caused Y, you must find the strongest possible evidence and subject it to the toughest scrutiny. But a causal argument doesn’t fail just because you can’t find a single compelling cause. In fact, causal arguments are often most effective when they help readers appreciate how tangled our lives and landscapes really are.”

Again, the authors praise acknowledgement of the complexity of most issues. Rather than giving up on a claim because the evidence isn’t concrete enough, the authors advise readers to explore multiple perspectives within the argument to strengthen their claim’s support. Demonstrating reasonableness can be as effective as presenting strong evidence.

“Sentences, you see, offer you more options and special effects than you can ever exhaust.”

The cinematic language in this quote entices readers to consider the influence of sentence structures. Labeling this influence as “special effects” provides context from which to consider sentences—they rhetorically enhance an argument.

“But you can learn a lot about the power of sentences simply by observing how the writers you admire engineer them—and maybe imitating some of those sentences yourself. You might also make it a habit to read and re-read your own sentences aloud (or in your head) as you compose them to gauge whether words and phrases are meshing with your ideas. And then tinker, tinker, tinker—until the sentences feel right.”

The authors make an extended metaphor comparing structuring sentences to engineering, ultimately advising readers to experiment with and fine tune sentences until they serve a purpose or “feel right.” To underscore their point, the authors model various syntactic strategies in this passage, like beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction (“but”), setting ideas apart with dashes, and repeating the word “tinker” to imitate the sometimes tedious nature of writing. This quote also exemplifies the authors’ effort to continually provide practical advice, such as reading sentences aloud.

“Even so small a sampling of visual rhetoric underscores what you doubtless already know: images tease our imaginations, provoke responses from viewers, and, yes, make arguments. They have clout.”

The authors insert a colon to emphasize the parallel action verbs that express how images function in an argument. The short sentence following this long explanation of an image’s effect underscores the authors’ choice of “clout,” which brings to mind both influence and brute force. This choice further emphasizes images’ power to evoke pathos in audiences. 

“The prophet of this era was Marshall McLuhan, who nearly fifty years ago proclaimed that ‘the medium is the massage,’ with the play on message and massage intentional. As McLuhan says, ‘We shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us.… All media works us over completely.’”

The authors model several strategies previously mentioned: metaphor, trope, and building ethos through expert testimony. McLuhan first metaphorically compares the medium to both a massage and the message. This trope and metaphor establishes the need for a media medium through which to share arguments and demonstrates how an argument’s presentation warms people up to the content. The authors include words from the “prophet of this [media connectivity] era” to add authority to their assertion.

“People are so accustomed to visual (and aural) texts that they genuinely expect to see them in most oral reports. And, in many cases, a picture, video, or graph can truly be worth a thousand words.”

Using the cliché of a picture being worth a thousand words relates the concept of an image conveying meaning to audiences. The authors demonstrate knowledge of their audience; though the text is targeted to college students, the authors expand their concept of argumentation past traditional essays and into their audience’s real world.

“Books on e-readers have become like ancient scrolls again, handy for sequential reading, but not so great for moving back and forth or browsing.”

This ironic analogy between e-readers and ancient scrolls shows how, in some ways, technology has come full circle. Comparing the interaction of reading a book on an e-reader to interacting with a simple scroll also demonstrates how even technology can have limitations. Books, more modern than scrolls but less modern than e-readers, still have advantages over other technologies.

“So, once again, the audience in new media becomes a tangible object—its political power evidence in the sheer number of people weighing in on controversies, expressing their sentiments succinctly, but also accumulating a sense of direction, solidarity, and gravity.”

Metaphorically comparing audiences to a physical object shows how an argument can function in terms of physics. Just as a force influences the direction and movement of an object, so too do arguments influence objects (in this case, audiences). In turn, the object creates its own gravitational pull. Listing the audience’s accumulations at the end of this quote mimics the buildup of online audiences; the growth is exponential, for as the audience grows, so does exposure to larger audiences.

“But an academic argument crumbles if its facts are skewed or its content proves to be unreliable.”

This metaphor emphasizes that facts should be the basis of a strong argument. Houses built on weak foundations crumble. The authors hold fast to the idea that arguments based purely on appeals to ethos or pathos do little to further society. Carefully reasoned and evidenced arguments, however, can contribute to global solutions.

“Research suggests that most students overestimate their ability to manage these tools and, perhaps more important, don’t seek the help they need to find the best materials for their projects.”

The authors appeal to logos by presenting research, though the lack of source citation diminishes the appeal’s credibility. The implication that college readers should seek help indirectly promotes the use of this book, a resource tool that could enhance their projects.

“Teachers and librarians are not exempted from this caution: even when we make every effort to be clear and comprehensive in reporting information, we cannot possibly see that information from every single angle. So even the most honest and open observer can deliver only a partial account of an event.”

The authors’ use of a collective personal pronoun (“we”) alongside “teachers and librarians” identifies their role as educators in relation to the student audience. This association, and the concession of fallibility, builds authority and trust with the audience.

“Today it’s a truism to say that we are all drowning in information, that it is pouring out at us like water from a never-ending fire hose.”

The authors hyperbolize the amount of information available online but preface the description by labeling it as true.