Eng Comp. II
Research topic(s)
Questions you hope to pursue or are thinking of pursuing in relation to the topic:
Argument types:
How best to prevent texting while driving:
We should do this or that ( to prevent texting while driving)(argument of policy)
1. Arguments of fact: prove that a problem exist, has existed, or will exist in the future: evidence = facts: data and examples; expert opinion
2. Arguments of value: compare the value of two or more things based on standards Evidence = examples
3. Arguments of policy: we argue the solution to a problem: facts, examples, experts etc etc.. (hardest to form) argument of fact: you have to prove a problem exist first
4. Arguments of definition Need to be able to identify1 aspects of the framework (break it down) Describe2 what you’ve identified. Need to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of effectiveness of another authors framework.
STRUCTURE/Framework:
Identifying the Problem: This is what position addresses
Position:(the thing you are trying to convince your friend to think/believe/do): The best way to prevent texting while driving is a big fat fine: $500.
The best way to prevent texting is to install a cabin dampening technology.
Arguments that support the position. Arguments: why do you think this or that is true or false.
Support for the argument: Serves to Convince : Accident reports (1000 in 2011…):
Evidence: facts, data, examples, expert opinion, anecdotes…etc etc…
Appeals to Needs and Values (also serves to convice)
The authors= incorrect Dr. Doright’s = correct position is that texting best solved with a series of harsh penalties. He writes, “la la la la la” (45). He makes several arguments in support of this position. In support of the argument he mainly uses data and expert opinion.
Don’t say I found five arguments: Tell the reader what those articles are…compare and analyze them.
A significant argument he brings to the table is that other states who have
Questions you hope to pursue or are thinking of pursuing in relation to the topic:
Argument types:
How best to prevent texting while driving:
We should do this or that ( to prevent texting while driving)(argument of policy)
1. Arguments of fact: prove that a problem exist, has existed, or will exist in the future: evidence = facts: data and examples; expert opinion
2. Arguments of value: compare the value of two or more things based on standards Evidence = examples
3. Arguments of policy: we argue the solution to a problem: facts, examples, experts etc etc.. (hardest to form) argument of fact: you have to prove a problem exist first
4. Arguments of definition Need to be able to identify1 aspects of the framework (break it down) Describe2 what you’ve identified. Need to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of effectiveness of another authors framework.
STRUCTURE/Framework:
Identifying the Problem: This is what position addresses
Position:(the thing you are trying to convince your friend to think/believe/do): The best way to prevent texting while driving is a big fat fine: $500.
The best way to prevent texting is to install a cabin dampening technology.
Arguments that support the position. Arguments: why do you think this or that is true or false.
Support for the argument: Serves to Convince : Accident reports (1000 in 2011…):
Evidence: facts, data, examples, expert opinion, anecdotes…etc etc…
Appeals to Needs and Values (also serves to convice)
The authors= incorrect Dr. Doright’s = correct position is that texting best solved with a series of harsh penalties. He writes, “la la la la la” (45). He makes several arguments in support of this position. In support of the argument he mainly uses data and expert opinion.
Don’t say I found five arguments: Tell the reader what those articles are…compare and analyze them.
A significant argument he brings to the table is that other states who have