AP Language Introductions

Visual Representation of Effective Introductions

Things to Avoid in Your Introductions

    • General comments about human nature/society.
    • Rambling incoherence designed to fill the paragraph until you get tired of writing.
    • Obviously false stories.
    • Generic, weak questions that are easily answered.
    • Opening with a quotation.
    • Generalized, cliched, trite observations or truisms.
    • Opening with the author/title of the piece as your opening phrase.
    • Don’t open with weak, vague nouns and adverbial phrases. A stronger approach is to open with verbs or vivid adjectives.

Structure of the Introduction

  • Hook: A brief, STAMPy introduction to the piece, one that draws the reader into the rest of the essay. Generally, the hook should be a specific detail that broadens into a more interesting claim.
  • Bridge: A transition sentence that moves from the specific of the hook to the broader topic of the thesis.
  • Thesis: Your central argument, outlining your claim and previewing the arguments you will make in the rest of the piece.

Effective Introductory Approaches (Stamp)

    1. Shock your audience with a statistic. It should be shocking, but plausible.
    2. Tell a story/establish a scenario. (Literary or real) Ideally, this will be bookended in your conclusion.
    3. Analogize with an effective comparison.
    4. Make a good question, one that does not have an easy answer.
    5. Personalize with an effective anecdote.

Sample Introduction

 

/by

SOAPS

SOAPS Model

rhetorical_triangle.jpg

What is the SUBJECT(S)?
The general topic, content, and ideas contained in the text. You should
be able to state the main subjects in a few words or less.

What is the OCCASION? (or CONTEXT)
The time, place, context or current situation of the piece. It is
particularly important that you understand the context that encouraged
the writing to happen, but don’t confuse occasion with purpose. Also
think of it as the “genesis” of the writing, or what possibly got it
started. Why did the author sit down and write this piece? How did
events encourage the writing?

Who is the AUDIENCE?
The group of readers to whom this piece is directed (target audience).
The audience may be one person, a small group, or a large group. Try to
be as specific as possible in your description. Authors do not just
write and hope someone will read, they write for a specific audience
and hope for a possible broader audience than intended. Imagine the
author having a conversation. Who is he sitting across from? Who is the
hoped-for audience?

What is the PURPOSE?
The reason behind the text. This is especially important for examining
rhetoric. You can not examine the logic or argument of a piece until
you know the reason for the piece, or what the author is trying to tell
you. What does the author hope the reader will take from the piece?
(OCCASION is the beginning, PURPOSE is the end)

Who is the SPEAKER? (with literature it could be the persona or narrator)
-What is his/her ATTITUDE? (context + opinion or bias) Look for manipulation of reader by the author
-What is their TONE? (occasion + purpose)
The voice which tells the story. When you approach a piece of fiction,
you often believe that the author and the speaker of the piece are one
and the same. They fail to realize that in fiction the author may
choose to tell the story from any number of different points of view,
or through different methods of narration and characterization. You
need to be able to differentiate between the author and the narrator,
understanding that what the narrator believes may not be true for the
author. In nonfiction it is important that the student not just
identify the author, but also analyze the author’s attitude toward the
subject and audience and the “tone of voice” that is used in the
selection.

NOTE
The speaker’s purpose and subject can be entirely different things,
either for purposes of satire or manipulation. Be careful to analyze
for the author’s intended message. 

/0 Comments/by

Toulmin Model


Toulmin
developed his theory of argumentation because of what he viewed as an inherent
problem with formal logic. Put simply, Toulmin recognized what every person
should already know: Real people do not argue in syllogisms. You may remember
from a philosophy class that a syllogism is a form of logical argument.
According to rules of logic, if an audience accepts both the major and minor
premises of a syllogism, they must accept the conclusions. For instance, many
people are familiar with the following example of a syllogism:

  • Major Premise: All men are mortal,
  • Minor Premise: Socrates was a man,
  • Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Toulmin
realized that this form of argumentation is not what one encounters when
listening to a public speech, arguing with a roommate about what music to
listen to, or talking politics at a bar. Consequently, Toulmin developed his
theory in order to explain how argumentation occurs in the natural process
of everyday argument. Consequently, Toulmin wanted to explain how real
people (not philosophers) argue.

Although
Toulmin’s position on formal logic — that formal rules of logic do not fit
well with common practices of argument — may seem obvious, one must remember
the time period in which Toulmin developed his theory. Students of public
speaking, rhetoric, and logic were only taught formal logic. Using a
contemporary example to illustrate: Students were taught how to program a
computer before they were taught how to click a mouse. When one recognizes the
traditions of the time period, Toulmin’s theory of argument seems even more
revolutionary.

 

The Toulmin Model of Argument-Basics

 Toulmin Model

Claim

Think
of the claim in an argument as the most general statement in the
argument. It may not be a particularly general statement all by itself,
and some claims for arguments are very narrow. But the claim in an
argument is like the umbrella statement that all other parts of an
argument have to fall under. If a reason (or evidence) doesn’t fall
under the umbrella of the claim, then it’s irrelevant.


Warrants


These are the assumptions or presuppositions underlying the argument.
Warrants are generally accepted beliefs and values, common ways our
culture or society views things; because they are so commonplace,
warrants are almost always unstated and implied. The author and
audience may either share these beliefs, or the author’s warrants may
be in conflict with audience’s generally held beliefs and cultural
norms and values. Warrants are important because they are the "common
ground" of author and audience; shared warrants invite the audience to
participate by unconsciously supplying part of the argument. Warrants
are also important because they provide the underlying reasons linking
the claim and the support. You can infer the warrants by asking,
"What’s causing the author to say the things s/he does?" or "Where’s
the author coming from?"


Data


Data is the information that generates the claim in theory. More often, it is searched for after the claim is provided.


  • “the evidence, facts, data, and information that are the
    reason for the claim in the first place- a reasoned beginning” (Ross,
    1985).
  • Data is significant because it establishes the
    basis of the argument. In effect, the data is the starting point from
    which all sound arguments must begin.
  • Types of Data: Anecdotal, Testimony, Statistics


Rebuttal


The Rebuttal (or Reservation) is an exception to the claim presented by
the arguer. In Toulmin’s model, arguments are not considered to be true
without analysis. The rebuttal demonstrates how arguments can be
strengthened (and made more correct) by acknowledging the limits of the
argument.


Qualifier


The Qualifier is recognition of the rebuttal. After analyzing one’s
argument and acknowledging its limits, the rhetor should signify
his/her new statement with the qualifier statement. Qualifiers are
often words like

  • Except
  • Unless
  • Other than




The Toulmin model is both a method of analyzing the argument of others
and developing the soundness of one’s own argument. A useful technique
to develop sound argument is to run one’s argument through the model
until the claim is true.

 

/0 Comments/by

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of Distraction

  • False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are more options
  • From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
  • Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn
  • Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition

Appeals to Motives Instead of Support

  • Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force
  • Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
  • Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
  • Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
  • Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true

Changing the Subject

  • Attacking the Person: (Ad Hominem)

1) the person’s character is attacked
2) the person’s circumstances are noted
3) the person does not practice what is preached

  • Appeal to Authority:

1) the authority is not an expert in the field
2) experts in the field disagree
3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

  • Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
  • Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion

Inductive Fallacies

  • Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population
  • Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole
  • False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar
  • Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
  • Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Statistical Syllogisms

  • Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception
  • Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Causal Fallacies

  • Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
  • Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
  • Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
  • Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed
  • Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Missing the Point

  • Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
  • Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
  • Straw Person: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument

Fallacies of Ambiguity

  • Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
  • Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
  • Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says

Category Errors

  • Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
  • Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Non Sequitur

  • Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
  • Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
  • Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

 

/0 Comments/by

WILDS

Word Choice: Word choice (diction) refers to the speaker’s word choice and vocabulary. We often describe
someone’s diction as colloquial, slang, technical, informal, formal, or elevated.

Imagery: The speaker’s imagery adds to the purpose because of the illustrations he or she uses. Remember, imagery refers to the words and phrases that create a visual for the reader. However, imagery also refers to how the speaker appeals to smell, touch, hearing, and taste.

Language: The speaker often demonstrates one of his or her richest components of a description through language, which includes any literary device you can find. Similes, metaphors, paradoxes, oxymoron, personification, allusions, analogies, and symbols are all important language devices to look for. Remember, though, when you speak of language devices, you must identify them through language that blends analysis as well. Don’t just identify the device in isolation; blend it naturally with your analysis of the piece.

Details: Details are the “objects” that the author encodes in his passage. Keep in mind that often an author will intentionally omit certain objects or facets of the object for effect as well.

Syntax: When an author’s syntax becomes important in understanding the passage, you will look for the effect of the word order, sentence variety, and types of sentences (periodic, imperative, and declarative to name a few), questioning strategies (rhetorical or sincere) and structure of phrases (parallel structure, organization of sentences, repetition).

Connotation/Denotation/Sound

The average word has three components parts: sound, denotation, and connotation.
Denotation is the dictionary meaning(s) of the word; connotations are what it suggests beyond what it expresses: its overtones of meaning. It acquires these connotations by its past history and associations, by the way and the circumstances in which it has been used. 

/0 Comments/by