Scott 1

Speaking: Argument
1.
Context: This is an 11th grade general English course in suburban Ohio. There are 11
boys and 12 girls.
2.
Broad, Lifelong Goal/s & Rationale It is important for students to be able to discuss
topics both mundane and controversial with reasonable and evidence based argument. Argument
does not mean passionate speaking, but presenting their views effectively through using
evidence.
3.
Specific Daily Objective: Students will establish what makes a good argument using
reasoning, evidence, and recognize multiple positions on said argument. They will then discuss
in groups of three their topics today or tomorrow pending time.
4.
Common Core or NCTE Standards: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1.C Propel
conversations by posing and responding to questions that probe reasoning and evidence; ensure a
hearing for a full range of positions on a topic or issue.
5.
Assessment and/or Outcomes: The teacher will informally evaluate students during
guided practice, they will then be given a formal worksheet which they must list evidence and
reasoning for why they feel the way they do on a topic that is important to them. They must also
list the opposing view and discuss why someone might feel that way. They will then be
informally assessed as they discuss their topics in groups of three.
6.

Materials:

Computer/Projector/Screen
Reference Worksheet
Whiteboard
Topic Worksheet
7.

Methods:
Attendance, Classroom Announcements, Teacher will give a book talk about Parallel
Journeys.
This is a non-fiction book that is based upon the biographies of a woman who survived the
German concentration camps in World War II and of a man who was in the Hitler Youth.
Helen was a young woman who with her husband must make some hard decisions about their
child and Alfons is the picture of what Hitlers charisma was like. These are true accounts
and there are some pictures in here of them. They did talks around the United States for many
years, but sadly have passed away.~5 minutes

Susan Scott-Wright State University (2016)

Scott 2

Minilesson Categories:
Anticipation: Ask students how debates and arguments often go about heated topics, their
opinion on such arguments. Explain how using argument effectively is more likely to change
people's minds.
When someone is yelling about how much they hate something how likely are you
to agree?
Do you believe something just because someone who is important or you like says
something? Do you prefer to have hard evidence?
How do you feel when youre discussing something important with someone and
they say you believe something you dont, thus, you cant be trusted?
When you speak calmly, describe evidence that you can back up, and are ready to
respectfully disagree, you are arguing your position better. No matter what is is.~5
Minutes
Overview: The teacher will give out a worksheet listing different kinds of arguments,
focusing on fallacies and how to avoid them. Then she will discuss the importance of
empirical evidence and reasoning.
Reasoning- Thinking about something in a logical and sensible way
Empirical Evidence- Information acquired by observation or experimentation. Often using
numbers and science
Fallacies- Common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified
because they lack evidence that supports their claim.
Slippery Slope-: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually
through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating
A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either.
Hasty Generalization- This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence.
Genetic Fallacy- This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea,
institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.
Circular Argument- This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.
Ad populum- This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism,
religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real
issue at hand.
Red Herring- This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding
opposing arguments rather than addressing them

Susan Scott-Wright State University (2016)

Scott 3

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B'
then 'B' must have caused 'A.'
Ad Hominem- To attack the arguer instead of their argument.
Straw Man- Argument based on misrepresenting your opponents position.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

When you use logical reasoning and empirical evidence in your discussions, it is
harder for people who disagree to argue with you.
When we hold debates or discussions, this room will always be a safe place where
your opinion will be respected. We do not need to agree, but we can discuss important
ideas calmly.
When people use fallacies against you, it is often because they feel they are losing.
You need to know what fallacies they are using so you can effectively show the faults
in their argument.~10 minutes

Modeling: The teacher will use projected worksheet. The teacher will then discuss school
lunches and how she feels they should include brownies. She will talk aloud she will cite
evidence such as how brownies make people happy, how sugar can be metabolized into
energy to help students, and how brownies are cheap to make in bulk compared to other
desserts. Then she will show the other arguments side. She will then describe how brownies
made free would not be cost effective, sugar is bad for teeth, and some people do not like
brownies. ~10 minutes
Guided Practice: The class will take sides on whether sophomores should be allowed into
upper level classes, if they qualify (mostly 11th and 12th graders). Students will have a few
minutes to decide evidence and reasoning, before they will each state their case and the class
will vote on the decision based on the arguments. ~15 minutes
Application: The teacher will give the students the worksheet and describe how they will
pick a topic they feel strong on, tell them to find empirical (not Wikipedia) evidence and
reasoning. They will discuss their side of their topic with other students in sets of three
tomorrow if there is no time today. ~5 minutes
8.
Adaptations: The teacher will have the reference worksheet for students to follow. ELL
students will be allowed to use their dictionaries. Students who have trouble can be grouped with
students who have a similar topic. All IEPs will be adhered to.
9.
Possible Problems & Solutions: The teacher will provide the argument worksheet for
students so they can reference them with examples, the teacher will also during the overview
discuss respecting opinions you do not agree with. This will help to avoid the next few classes
when more controversial personal topics are used in student speeches and papers.

Susan Scott-Wright State University (2016)

Scott 4
Name:__________________________________ Pd:______ Date:_________________

Creating a Sound Argument

Pick a topic you feel strongly about that has opposing sides. List evidence and reasoning for why
you feel the way you do. On the opposite side, describe the alternate view on your topic and list
why someone might feel that way
Topic:_______________________________________________
Position:_____________________________________________

Evidence

Susan Scott-Wright State University (2016)

Reasoning

Scott 5

Opposing View:________________________________________
Describe why you feel someone might take this view versus your own.
Avoid fallacies.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Susan Scott-Wright State University (2016)

Scott 6

Dont Fall for a Fallacy

Fallacies- Common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either
illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their
claim.

Fallacy

Example

Slippery Slope-: This is a conclusion

based on the premise that if A happens,
then eventually through a series of small
steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will
happen, too, basically equating A and Z.
So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not
be allowed to occur either.
Hasty Generalization- This is a
conclusion based on insufficient or biased
evidence.
Genetic Fallacy- This conclusion is based
on an argument that the origins of a
person, idea, institute, or theory determine
its character, nature, or worth.
Circular Argument- This restates the
argument rather than actually proving it.
Ad populum- This is an emotional appeal
that speaks to positive (such as patriotism,
religion, democracy) or negative (such as
terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than
the real issue at hand.
Red Herring- This is a diversionary tactic
that avoids the key issues, often by
avoiding opposing arguments rather than
addressing them
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a
conclusion that assumes that if 'A'
occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have
caused 'A.'
Ad Hominem- To attack the arguer
instead of their argument
Straw Man- Argument based on
misrepresenting your opponents position.

If we ban Hummers because they are bad

for the environment eventually the
government will ban all cars, so we should
not ban Hummers.

Susan Scott-Wright State University (2016)

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell

this is going to be a boring course.
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car
because it was originally designed by
Hitler's army.
George Bush is a good communicator
because he speaks effectively.
If you were a true American you would
support the rights of people to choose
whatever vehicle they want.

The level of mercury in seafood may be

unsafe, but what will fishers do to support
their families?
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so
the water must have made me sick.

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective

because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.
People who don't support the proposed state
minimum wage increase hate the poor.