Você está na página 1de 18

Ramage Chapter 7: Responding to Objections & Alternative Views


only the writers position on the issue without summarizing and responding to alternative viewpoints Usually occur when an issue isnt highly contested Filled with motivational language that lists benefits that will ensue from joining writers side of issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn TmBjk-M0c (Argument Clinic)


the writers position, but also summarizes and response to possible objections and alternative views Follows classical argument structure First summarize opposing views fairly Then refute or concede to opposing views strengths
Attempt to convince readers that opposition

is logically flawed, inadequately supported, or based on erroneous assumptions


the truth of the data Cite counterexamples and countertestimony Cast doubt on any representations or sufficiency of examples Cast doubt on the relevance or recency of the examples, statistics, or testimony Question the credibility of an authority Question the accuracy or context of quotations Question the way statistical data were produced or interpreted


presents himself as uncertain or searching, the audience is considered a partner in the dialogue, and the writers purpose is to seek common ground, perhaps leading to a consensual solution to a problem Best for resistant audiences Not meant to convert audience to writers position, but to lower resistance Two types delayed thesis argument & Rogerian argument


to find common ground between opposing positions the other sides viewpoint

Validates Usually

reveals the position near the conclusion of the argument after both viewpoints have been fully explored


when the other side may be very defensive or annoyed that are so fundamentally opposed that it appears neither side can fully win the argument


Can Too

seem manipulative

idealistic and doesnt really work in real-life because most people are too opinionated and hostile always solve situations, isnt goal/solution-oriented, its too cooperative



the points during which Stewart tries to bring their opposing viewpoints together wed-january-11-2012/jim-demint-pt--1 (12:47 start)



for common ground between writer and audience

out areas of agreement between the writers and readers positions usually disturbed by audiences views and hopes to open up a dialogue


Purpose: writer

Sally: People should only eat organic food because it is always better for their health and for the environment. George: So are you saying that all people should only eat organic food because its better for their health and for the environment? Sally: Yes. George: Even people who cannot afford organic food should only eat organic food because it is better to starve in a developing country than to eat nonorganic food.

Sally. No, thats not what I am saying. Let me try again. People in the United States who can afford organic food should only eat organic food because it is better for their health and for the environment. George: Okay, so what youre saying is that if people can afford to eat organic food, they should only eat organic food because it is always healthier and better for the environment, even if it takes lots of fossil fuels to transport it to your supermarket.

Sally: No, thats not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that if you can afford it, organic food produced locally in the US is better for your health and the environment than non-organic food. George: So it sounds to me like what you are claiming is essentially that if they can afford it, Americans should buy locally grown organic food because its better for their health and for the environment. Sally: Yes, that is what Im claiming.

Donna: I am unhappy with my husband because he drinks constantly and then likes to kick the dog. Tim: So if I understand you correctly, you are telling me that you are unhappy because when your husband drinks, he kicks the dog, and you dont like it when he kicks the dog. Donna: No, what Im saying is that my husband drinks too much and when he does, he likes to kick the dog, which makes me feel sad.

Tim: Okay, so it sounds to me like you are saying your husband drinks too much, and this over-consumption makes you sad because when hes drunk, he kicks your dog. Donna: Yes. I feel sad when my husband kicks the dog. My husbands drinking is probably the root of the problem.

Write a Rogerian Argument in the form of a dialogue. Length must include five exchanges (that means each character speaks five times)

Follow Rogerian template (introduce issue, summary of opposing view, common ground, contribution of new points to the negotiation, conclusion)

What, really is the issue on which we disagree?


Oh. So you are arguing this:

2 1.

Okay, I get it. I see your point. Well, here is where I am coming from.
2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1.

Now, what can we agree on? Is there any way we can both win? If you adopted part of my position, here is how you might benefit:

We can both win if we (synthesize two positions or what is gained through consensus)


working on annotated bib and rogerian argument

for grammar final