Class Notes (838,933)
York University (35,553)
MODR 1770 (89)
Lecture

MODR 1770B Note 16.docx

5 Pages
138 Views

School
Department
Modes Of Reasoning
Course
MODR 1770
Professor
Jai Chetram
Semester
Winter

Description
MODR 1770B Note 16 Continuing Article Analysis Step 6 - All of the concepts come from our step 2. - The first thing are whether the concepts are clearly defined  these are the step 2 concepts - The style and method he wants us to use is so: o Step 6.1 Are the concepts clearly defined. Use different concepts. Use the weakest ones.  List the concepts, and you list all the paragraphs that the concept comes from.  Use two pieces of evidence (the paragraph  quote directly from the article)  Check and see if the concept was indeed defined. List the characteristics of the concept as to how the author defines the concept.  If the concepts are inconsistent, then you have two separate lists of characteristics  Have a rationale of why you think the concepts are/aren’t clearly defined.  W3 want to determine whether the definitions are indeed good ones. If the author is consistent, then we have to be fair.  If the author fails to define the concepts, we can say “no” they’re not clearly defined. The author assumes that we know, and we unpack of what the assumptions could be. o An author who fails to clarify the argument and fails  You define the DEFINITION, and not usage.  You evaluate four concepts like this. o Step 6.2 has to do with usage Pull out two concepts from the list, and say if the concepts are used for too widely  Use one concept for “too widely” and one too “narrow”  Widely means when too many characteristics are included in the concept, and the author stretched the criteria too much, and the concept cannot handle that many characteristics o Boundaries = context of the argument. o Provide him with the specific evidence, list where it comes from, and then show/list the usage and give the rationale.  The way we normally use the concept is gone outside, and therefore  Usage is how we use a concept in a social meaning.  Narrow means when key characteristics are intentionally omitted to trick the reader in believing the author’s argument and conclusion. o The author purposefully does this. If the author is talking about religion, but fails to specify one specific religion o USE JUSTICE AND CAPITALISM FOR THIS CONCEPT o Step 6.3 – This has to do with the fallacy of equivocation – Are the concepts used correctly or not?  Consider the concept “self”. Is it used successfully? List at least three references where that concept was used.  Quote the entire paragraph that is necessary.  Use premise form.  Outline the intended meaning of the premises  E.g. In P.1 – the Analysis would be “substitution method”  self is referred to as “human personality”  In P.2. it points to an “indexical reference”  In P.3 the author talks about a vague notion of “soul/spirit”  In our substitution method, we have to show how the author could have avoided inconsistency.  The substitution method is the analysis   Look at the concept and replace it with another concept. o Step 6.4 – This is positive critique. Pull out two concepts – pull out the strong ones. You want to say something good about the article. These are two concepts that the author has clearly defined them. The concepts were used with the correct/exact amount of characteristics, and that there was no equivocation. There must be consistency, no equivocation, and good usage. Step 7 - Do a final map of the main arguments after reconsidering your answer to step 1 and 4 above o Evaluate the argument - If you look at the article, you might have 5-7 sections. A section consists of several paragraphs - Step 7.1 – Select three sections, and select the sections that best support the author’s conclusion (MC) in step 1. o List paragraphs, and break down the paragraphs into premises:  E.g. P1, P2, P3, HP, MC  A hidden premise is a hidden element that the author assumes we know and requires an inference. Therefore, it is weak.  This section has a minor conclusion. It should look in an argument form o We then evaluate this step. It is possible that these premises are poor. Select 1 premise out of the four. DO NOT SELECT THE HIDDEN PREMISE.  Show how the premise contains a generalization, or keywords that are vague and open to doubt, and change the structure of the conclusion and render it as “weak”. o There are two ways you can do the conceptually problematic premises:  If it is a generalization, then you can refer to that specifically. o Section 2: give the title of that section, list what paragraphs it encompasses, and break that down into P1, P2, P3, HP, and Minor Conclusion  Then evaluate one of the premises. All of these premises could be conceptually problematic. Always indicate WHICH premise you are analyzing, evaluating. o This is the same in section three o Make sure it looks like an argument. - Step 7.2 Apply the three criteria that constitute a good argument. There may not be any violation in the mapped sections. o Select an argument where the author violates relevancy, sufficiency, or acceptability
More Less

Related notes for MODR 1770
Me

OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Join to view

OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.