2. What are the most common parts of an argument?
Claim—SW should serve free lunch for all.
Reasons— Students would be able to focus on their learning
if they’re not distracted by hunger
Evidence— A recent DOE study found that students who complained of
a lack of food did worse on standardized tests.
Concessions— It’s true that well-off students will also benefit,
the lack of stigma is worth it.
Rebuttals— It will not cost too much money, our budget can handle it.
5. Let’s Visualize this
Claim
SW should
serve free
lunch for
all.
Reason 1
Students would be able
to focus on their
learning if they’re not
distracted by hunger.
6. Let’s Visualize this
Claim
SW should
serve free
lunch for
all.
Reason 1
Students would be able
to focus on their
learning if they’re not
distracted by hunger.
Evidence
A recent DOE study
found that students who
complained of a lack of
food did worse on
standardized tests.
7. Let’s Visualize this
Claim
SW should
serve free
lunch for
all.
Reason 1
Students would be able
to focus on their
learning if they’re not
distracted by hunger.
Evidence
A recent DOE study
found that students who
complained of a lack of
food did worse on
standardized tests.
What does this argument need?
What does my audience care about?
9. In the course of their duties, Chicago police come into possession of all sorts of
contraband: jewelry, video games, bicycles, cars. They sell the stuff through online
auctions that are open to the public. They also confiscate some 10,000 firearms
each year, with an estimated value of $2 million. They sell them and put the $2
million through a shredder.
Just kidding. It would be insane to shred large stacks of perfectly good money. What
they actually do is destroy the guns. That way, there's no money to destroy.
Take the beginning of the Argument Classwork
What just happened there?
10. In the course of their duties, Chicago police come into possession of all sorts of
contraband: jewelry, video games, bicycles, cars. They sell the stuff through online
auctions that are open to the public. They also confiscate some 10,000 firearms
each year, with an estimated value of $2 million. They sell them and put the $2
million through a shredder.
Just kidding. It would be insane to shred large stacks of perfectly good money. What
they actually do is destroy the guns. That way, there's no money to destroy.
Take the beginning of the Argument Classwork
The Claim is Implied:
11. In the course of their duties, Chicago police come into possession of all sorts of
contraband: jewelry, video games, bicycles, cars. They sell the stuff through online
auctions that are open to the public. They also confiscate some 10,000 firearms
each year, with an estimated value of $2 million. They sell them and put the $2
million through a shredder.
Just kidding. It would be insane to shred large stacks of perfectly good money. What
they actually do is destroy the guns. That way, there's no money to destroy.
Take the beginning of the Argument Classwork
The Claim is Implied:
It’s wasteful for the
city of Chicago to
destroy confiscated
weapons.
12. Demolishing Guns and
Common Sense
Claim
It’s wasteful
for the city
of Chicago
to destroy
confiscated
weapons.
Reason 1
The confiscated
weapons are worth a lot
of money that could be
spent on city needs.
Evidence
“Estimated” 2 million
dollars
Evidence
City already confiscates
and sells other items.
13. Demolishing Guns and
Common Sense
Claim
It’s wasteful
for the city
of Chicago
to destroy
confiscated
weapons.
Reason 1
The confiscated
weapons are worth a lot
of money that could be
spent on city needs.
Evidence
“Estimated” 2 million
dollars
Evidence
City already confiscates
and sells other items.
Putting money through a
shredder
FramingDevice
14. This practice comes to our attention thanks to a recent report by Robert Wildeboer
of WBEZ, the local affiliate of National Public Radio. At a time when the city of
Chicago has reduced the size of the police force because of budget pressures, you'd
think it would not lightly forgo such a handsome sum. But it does.
There is a common assumption in Chicago that guns are the equivalent of free-
roaming cobras, being lethal and unmanageable by any means except elimination.
The more guns, in this view, the more murders and mayhem.
This belief persists even though nationally, the number of guns in private hands has
grown steadily even as the crime rate has plunged. Guns in the hands of criminals
are bound to lead to senseless bloodshed. But guns in the hands of upstanding
citizens are no more likely to be abused than chainsaws or baseball bats.
Chart this part of the Argument in Small Groups
