Arguments, part 2 (a new day!)

(photo by Robinn)

Most everybody is being asked for a rewrite on paper #2.   I've sent individual notes, and we'll talk about this in class and in individual conferences, but here are a few notes:

The most common issue was that there wasn't a simple, explicit analysis of arguments presented in the Lemann and Hewitt articles.  Sometimes the parts of the argument weren't labeled, sometimes one or more was missing,

... and a lot of the time, papers were just trying to do too much:  stuff like reach big picture conclusions, be interesting, etc.

I'm really looking for something kind of didactic, painstaking-- maybe even a little boring.  It's a little unusual, and I'm not normally a big fan of dry, formal exercises, but this one has a special purpose:  I want you to consider the formal structure of argument.


So here's a revised version of the assignment:  


Before you start rewriting, map things out.  Make a simple, clear outline of the arguments.  (And remember that the "warrant" may have more than one component-- it could be a whole chain of reasoning, or set of claims/assumptions.) 


Start with a worksheet-- which you will turn in along with your paper. Here's a link to a spreadsheet you can use, or you can just use a Word document.  


Then, write up the paper based on the worksheet.  


In a way, the paper is just a report on what the worksheet says-- a description.  It shouldn't be a snazzy attempt to persuade, and it probably shouldn't be attempting to answer the big-picture conclusions-- does objectivity exist?  is mainstream journalism doomed?  Instead, your focus is on how the person making each argument uses evidence to make his point.  


And here's an example:

Claim implicit Mainstream journalists advance a liberal agenda, even as they claim objectivity Evidence explicit Dana Milbank voted for Chuck Hagel Warrant implicit Supporting critics of George W. Bush makes you a liberal Answers the question: What would solid evidence for this claim look like? ... and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel criticized George W. Bush, harshly implicit A write-in vote for Chuck Hagel is all about supporting a critic of George W. Bush; you might vote for Democrat John Kerry because you *like* him on some specific grounds and want him to win. But Chuck Hagel can't win. The only reason to vote for him is as an anti-Bush vote. So only a liberal would write in Chuck Hagel. explicit 3rd paragraph from end of "Right Hook" A journalist's political beliefs will be reflected in his or her work. (""The vanity that people can divorce themselves from their bias is just that, vanity," Hewitt tells Lemann.) Counter-warrant Chuck Hagel might be Dana Milbank's brother-in-law or something What's a different interpretation of this evidence, that doesn't support the claim? explicit 2nd paragraph from the end of "Right Hook." A journalist's political beliefs may not always be reflected in his or her work. ("One can be curious or not, fair-minded or not, intellectually honest in the use of evidence or not, empathetic or not, imprisoned by a perspective or not," Lemann writes.)