Pair up with another student. Log onto a computer. Open up your partner’s Blog Post 4. In a Microsoft Word document, number and answer the following questions. When you’re finished, discuss the results with your partner, and email the document both to your partner and to me. When you’re finished, discuss the results with your partner. At that point, call me over so that you can show me you and your partner’s work. Once you’ve fielded any questions I may have for you, you may leave.
- Translate your partner’s outline into its core stasis forms.
In at least one complete paragraph, use our “stasis form” terminology to describe the overall structure of your partner’s paper as laid out by their outline. This may take some work depending on how thorough or informative your partner’s outline is. If your partner’s outline is unclear, talk with your partner—indeed, interrogate your partner—to force them to go into more depth and give you some answers. The goal here is to look for holes in your partner’s argument and to flesh out the structure of their paper as we head into the rough draft-writing stage.
Here’s an example. Pretend this is your partner’s topic idea and outline:
Thesis: The federal minimum wage is not high enough. It should be increased which would reduce poverty and will increase the US economy.
Section 1: What is the federal minimum wage and statistics about poverty.
Section 2: Explanation to why federal minimum wage is not high enough using sources.
Section 3: Explain what would happen by increasing the minimum wage, Effects, using sources.
Section 4: Talk about some downsides of increasing minimum wage but talk about benefits outweighing the costs.
As this person’s partner, I would write something like:
The paper will begin by clarifying the definition of the minimum wage as it currently is (definition stasis), presumably just to inform any readers who aren’t completely up to speed on how the minimum wage is currently defined. The paper will then use the evaluation stasis to claim that the minimum wage isn’t high enough. In the final two sections, the paper will use the cause/consequence stasis: first, to show the positive effects that would stem from increasing the minimum wage, and then second, to admit to some possible negative consequences. Although it’s not entirely clear that this is what the author intends to do, it seems like they’re thinking then of concluding with one final evaluation stasis to show that the possible positive consequences of raising the minimum wage would outweigh the potential downsides.
Not every outline will be this clear. Some may contain sections in which it’s not quite obvious what (if any) stasis form is at stake. Here’s an example:
For Project 3 I’m going to write about the cuts for funding towards planned parenthood. I don’t believe that the government should make these cuts for these funds.
I. People believe that Planned Parenthood is only meant for abortions, but they are not aware of all the other important things Planned Parenthood has to offer. Not only to women, but to everyone.
A. Basic healthcare for women.
B. Cancer screenings.
C. Men’s healthcare.
D. Infertility
E. STD’s/STI’s
II. Counterargument
If this were my partner, I would respond as follows:
The overall strategy of the paper’s first big section seems to revolve around the evaluation stasis. The author wants to re-evaluate Planned Parenthood to showcase to its critics several positives/benefits the program offers to society, benefits of which the program’s critics may be unaware or not appreciate enough due to misinformation. The paper’s next big section—labeled simply as “Counterargument” in the outline—is not as clear. After talking with my partner (the author), we thought about what stasis forms might be useful in structuring and responding to possible counterarguments/objections that are out there. The most useful was the cause/consequence stasis. If one counterargument is that Planned Parenthood loves giving abortions and does them like crazy, the author can respond by giving statistics that correct that misconception, and then respond even further and even more strongly by directing the reader to the media outlets and specific articles/reports (e.g. on FoxNews, talk radio, or sites like RedState.com or Breitbart.com) that cause people to have that misconception. We also thought of another counterargument and cause/consequence rebuttal. Many people opposed to Planned Parenthood claim that, if the program were defunded or shut down, women can really easily just go get abortions at other clinics. To rebut this, the author could use the cause/consequence stasis to show what the negative consequences (e.g. increased black-market abortions) would be of shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics in states where there aren’t as many other abortion providers as opponents may realize.
2. Test your partner’s topic for exigence and “arguability.”
This question has two tasks.
First, come up with at least one possible counterargument against to your partner’s claims. Write this counterargument in at least three complete sentences.
Second, think about who the target audience(s) is(are) for this paper–to whom does this topic matter? Who would disagree with the paper’s major claims? Who is in a position to fix the problems that the paper identifies?
If you have trouble coming up with either of these components–a counterargument and a target audience (or audiences)–it means your partner’s topic may be lacking exigence: it may not be something worth arguing about. If that’s the case, interrogate your partner about it–ask for their input, and work with them to mold the topic so that it’s something worth arguing about and you can indeed come up with a counterargument and an audience to whom this topic matters.
For next time:
- Due: Project 3 Rough Draft (bring one printed-out hardcopy)
Rhetoric & Writing I 