Analysing Argument

[clarke54321]

Hi everyone,

Since this element is part of the new English study design, I have been quite confused as to how I am supposed to be structuring my essay for this outcome. The exam is next week and I literally have no I idea of what to do.

If any year 11 doing English has more experience on this topic than I do, please give me some advice!!

Thanks 

[literally lauren]

Hi everyone,

Since this element is part of the new English study design, I have been quite confused as to how I am supposed to be structuring my essay for this outcome. The exam is next week and I literally have no I idea of what to do.

If any year 11 doing English has more experience on this topic than I do, please give me some advice!!

Thanks 

As far as I can tell from the VCAA study design, the 'analysing argument' component is functionally identical to the 'using language to persuade' part of the old(/current/2008-2016) study design, so if you've done 'Language Analyses' or 'Media Journals' in previous years, it'll be pretty similar to that.

i.e. you get given a newspaper article or some other kind of text(s) and have to analyse how the author uses language to persuade the audience. Previously, there was more focus placed on your ability to isolate rhetorical devices and discuss their effects (e.g. 'the author uses inclusive language in the phrase "we deserve better" to encourage readers to fight for their collective rights...') but in the revamped version, the assessors seem to want you to concentrate more on arguments, meaning that you need to consider what the author is trying to argue, and how that's evident in the words/phrases/tones they're employing.

There's a breakdown of the new SD here and an explanation of Language Analysis essay structure here if you need, but it's probably worth checking with your teacher to see what they expect too, since your school's requirements (esp. in Year 11) may differ from VCAA's

[clarke54321]

As far as I can tell from the VCAA study design, the 'analysing argument' component is functionally identical to the 'using language to persuade' part of the old(/current/2008-2016) study design, so if you've done 'Language Analyses' or 'Media Journals' in previous years, it'll be pretty similar to that.

i.e. you get given a newspaper article or some other kind of text(s) and have to analyse how the author uses language to persuade the audience. Previously, there was more focus placed on your ability to isolate rhetorical devices and discuss their effects (e.g. 'the author uses inclusive language in the phrase "we deserve better" to encourage readers to fight for their collective rights...') but in the revamped version, the assessors seem to want you to concentrate more on arguments, meaning that you need to consider what the author is trying to argue, and how that's evident in the words/phrases/tones they're employing.

There's a breakdown of the new SD here and an explanation of Language Analysis essay structure here if you need, but it's probably worth checking with your teacher to see what they expect too, since your school's requirements (esp. in Year 11) may differ from VCAA's

Great, thanks Lauren! 

[clarke54321]

Could someone please explain the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as argument techniques.

Thanks in advance!

[literally lauren]

Could someone please explain the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as argument techniques.

Thanks in advance!

Deductive reasoning:
Premise 1: I like red cars.
Premise 2: My car is red.
Conclusion: I like my car.

Inductive reasoning:
Premise 1: Cars can be red.
Premise 2: All the cars I've ever seen are red.
Conclusion: All cars are red.

Basically, deductive reasoning involves taking general statements and drawing specific, unequivocal conclusions from them (i.e. there's no way I couldn't like my car in that first scenario because of the logical parametres we set up.) But inductive reasoning involves making general statements based on specific and potentially limited information (i.e. it's possible that our conclusion could be untrue in the second scenario if I, by chance, had never seen a blue/white/yellow car in my life.)

That's not to say deductive reasoning is inherently better than inductive reasoning; a lot of the conclusions we make about the world are based on inductive reasoning (eg. 'All known humans need oxygen to breathe, the guy sitting over there looks like a human, therefore, if I choke him to deprive him of oxygen, he will die.' <-- most people would agree that's a sound argument, but it's possible for the conclusion to be untrue for a number of reasons - e.g. he's an android, he has some circulatory abnormality that lets him breathe through his ears, he's actually a projected hologram, etc.)

In L.A. argument terms, an author might use inductive logic to try and imply something (e.g. Our last Prime Minister was a corrupt, garbage human being. Our current Prime Minister is a corrupt, garbage human being. Hence, all Prime Ministers past and future are corrupt, garbage human beings) or deductive logic, which'd be less common but still analyse-able.

Just be careful not to evaluate the author's argument by picking apart any logical inconsistencies. You can call something 'inductive reasoning,' but don't then explain how the author's rationalisation is flawed, or that their conclusions are unfounded. Assume things are persuasive, and just discuss how & why

[clarke54321]

Deductive reasoning:
Premise 1: I like red cars.
Premise 2: My car is red.
Conclusion: I like my car.

Inductive reasoning:
Premise 1: Cars can be red.
Premise 2: All the cars I've ever seen are red.
Conclusion: All cars are red.

Basically, deductive reasoning involves taking general statements and drawing specific, unequivocal conclusions from them (i.e. there's no way I couldn't like my car in that first scenario because of the logical parametres we set up.) But inductive reasoning involves making general statements based on specific and potentially limited information (i.e. it's possible that our conclusion could be untrue in the second scenario if I, by chance, had never seen a blue/white/yellow car in my life.)

That's not to say deductive reasoning is inherently better than inductive reasoning; a lot of the conclusions we make about the world are based on inductive reasoning (eg. 'All known humans need oxygen to breathe, the guy sitting over there looks like a human, therefore, if I choke him to deprive him of oxygen, he will die.' <-- most people would agree that's a sound argument, but it's possible for the conclusion to be untrue for a number of reasons - e.g. he's an android, he has some circulatory abnormality that lets him breathe through his ears, he's actually a projected hologram, etc.)

In L.A. argument terms, an author might use inductive logic to try and imply something (e.g. Our last Prime Minister was a corrupt, garbage human being. Our current Prime Minister is a corrupt, garbage human being. Hence, all Prime Ministers past and future are corrupt, garbage human beings) or deductive logic, which'd be less common but still analyse-able.

Just be careful not to evaluate the author's argument by picking apart any logical inconsistencies. You can call something 'inductive reasoning,' but don't then explain how the author's rationalisation is flawed, or that their conclusions are unfounded. Assume things are persuasive, and just discuss how & why

Thanks Lauren