|
To clearly express arguments / explanations need to think carefully about analytical structure
|
|
|
Can be tricky to simultaneously write a narrative flow and reason at same time. So need to plan work.
|
|
|
Planning can be done using the analytical structure format, getting good at this will make reasoning clearer and improve quality and readability of oral and written work.
|
|
|
Before starting anywhere near narrative flow start thinking about structure and logical connections between ideas.
|
|
Scope
|
|
|
Size of the claim
|
|
|
Stating Numbers (all, most, some, many etc)
|
|
|
Geographical area (Brisbane, Aus, etc)
|
|
|
and/or Time (always, never, sometimes)
|
|
|
Certainty
|
|
|
Claimed probability (highly likely, virtually, some chance)
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Say things should or should be a certain way
|
|
|
Sometimes value is stated sometimes implied (hidden in tone and words)
|
|
|
Many, maybe all claims have value judgement
|
|
|
Descriptive
|
|
|
Things are or have been a certain way
|
|
Linking words are words which link the claims together, indicating the premises and the conclusions. They are hints of the mental process of linking.
|
|
|
Need to evaluate reasoning, ensure all claims stand without needing further support or arguments, add new premises / sub arguments as necessary until argument is fully formed and reader can some to same conclusion without needing to seek out further information or not have whole story.
|
|
|
Do not assume readers know already anything in relation to your argument
|
|
|
Ensure ideas within claims are introduced and supported
|
|
Causal
|
premises state the cause, and conclusion is effect
|
|
Generalisation
|
shows how knowledge about general class of events allows us to make a conclusion about a specific event in that class
|
|
Specific cases
|
Specific cases lead to a conclusion
|
|
Analogy
|
Draw a specific conclusion from specific premises via a comparison of like aspects
|
|
Terms
|
Some claims establish a definition or a particular meaning in a given context
|
|
1. Decide conclusion. Write out carefully explaining exactly what you mean
|
|
|
2. Think about reasons for conclusion
|
|
|
a
|
Write them down as claims
|
|
b
|
Keep related premises together if possible
|
|
c
|
Everything must relate back to the conclusion
|
|
d
|
Claims need to make sense as own entity
|
|
e
|
Number your claims from 2 onward (conclusion is 1)
|
|
f
|
Focus on your main reasons for concusion
|
|
3. Draw diagram to show links between claims
|
|
|
a
|
Links to show how constructed
|
|
b
|
Line under groups of premises
|
|
c
|
Arrow to show premise to conclusion
|
|
4. Stop and Consider
|
|
|
a
|
Do I need anymore premises?
|
|
b
|
Am I missing any claims?
|
|
c
|
Are relationships how I want them?
|
|
5. Make changes and re-draw if nessessary
|
|
|
Particular type of statement
|
|
|
Assert some kind of “truth” about the world
|
|
|
May actually be true or false
|
|
|
Expresses belief or view about how world is or should be
|
|
|
If you can ask “Is this true or false” it is a claim
|
|
Narrative flow = words arranged into sentences and then divided into paragraphs
|
|
|
Analytical structure = List of claims and a diagram of how they relate to one another
|
|
|
Diagram
|
|
|
Linking words represented by the + signs
|
|
|
Horizontal line groups the claims
|
|
|
Offers advantages
|
|
|
Clear way of constructing claims
|
|
|
How they relate to eachother
|
|
|
Avoids vagueness
|
|
|
• Make claims own entity and so defeats complex sentence formations
|
|
|
• Clarifies interesting writing to get to the premises and solutions
|
|
|
Can construct or deconstruct
|
|
|
After construction next step = add linking to create narrative flow
|
|
Word
|
|
|
Statement
|
A sentence can be made up of more than one statement
|
|
Text
|
Group of related statements
|
|
Context
|
Elements outside text to make it meaningful.
|
|
Influence every argument / explanation. Values / ideas we take for granted. Smart thinkers recognise assumptions that surround us (including own)
|
|
|
Assumptions can be dangerous because they are not tested to see if they are correct.
|
|
Premise = claim that acts as reason
|
|
|
Conclusion = claim that is being supported
|
|
|
In reasoning, there is therefore always at least two claims (premise and conclusion)
|
|
|
Fundamental skill of reasoning to be able to identify these in other peoples claims and own
|
|
|
Conclusions
|
|
|
When reasoning – first choose a conclusion
|
|
|
Conclusion is not summary, but new statement
|
|
|
Supports and gives a bit further information than the premises
|
|
|
Truth of conclusion is clear because of premises
|
|
|
Conclusions can be: Predictions, Appeals to action, Events in past
|
|
|
Premises
|
|
|
Any claim can work as a premise
|
|
|
Has to support conclusion
|
|
|
Usually initially more acceptable than conclusion
|
|
|
May make a point, define a term, frame other premises
|
|
No circular reasoning
|
|
|
Accurate scope and certainty accurate
|
|
|
Avoid sweeping generalisations
|
|
|
Value judgements in conclusion need more than one premise, premises must support value judgement
|
|
|
Consider surface and hidden meanings of words
|
|
|
Align choice of words with audience
|
|
|
Consider possible interpretations
|
|
|
No implied premises, if possible should be stated
|
|
|
Claims which have connections to the conclusion are relevant. Claims which have no connection to the conclusion are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Dont assume people will fill in the gaps
|
|
|
Think about context
|
|
|
Well founded claim has a number of good premises
|
|
|
Person with burden of proof needs a stronger argument
|
No comments yet.
Cheatography n. The art of mapping complex subjects into clear, instantly navigable reference guides.
