Unit 3: Perspectives and How Arguments Relate

Perspective

A writer’s lens on an issue, shaped by values, assumptions, experiences/identity, goals, and audience; it determines what counts as a problem, evidence, and a reasonable solution.

Stance

The position a writer takes on an issue (for/against or in favor of a particular action).

Values (in argument)

The priorities that matter most to a writer (e.g., fairness, freedom, security) and that guide what they argue and how they judge evidence.

Assumption

An unstated belief an argument depends on; something the writer treats as true without explicitly defending it.

Intended Audience

The specific group a writer is addressing; audience expectations and values influence how the writer presents and supports a claim.

Diction

Word choice that can reveal perspective and shape audience reaction (e.g., “government interference” vs. “public protection”).

Frame/Metaphor

A pattern of language or comparison that shapes how an issue is understood (e.g., taxes as “burdens” vs. “dues”).

Definition Move

A rhetorical strategy where a writer defines or redefines a key term to control how the debate is understood (e.g., “By ‘success,’ we should mean…”).

Rhetorical Situation

The circumstances shaping a text—writer, audience, purpose, and context—and how those elements influence what is said and how.

Audience (rhetorical situation element)

The readers/listeners whose values, expectations, and likely objections a writer anticipates and addresses.

Purpose

What the writer is trying to achieve (e.g., persuade, propose policy, defend a reputation, call to action, reframe a debate).

Context

The broader situation surrounding an argument (historical/cultural moment, current debates, constraints, recent events) that affects meaning and strategy.

Exigence

The urgency or problem that motivates a writer to speak; what the writer believes needs a response now.

They Say / I Say Model

A way to view argument as conversation: writers respond to other views by agreeing, extending, qualifying, complicating, refuting, or reframing.

Agree (relationship move)

A response move where a writer supports another claim or viewpoint (often to build on shared ground).

Extend (relationship move)

A response move where a writer agrees with a claim but adds new reasons, examples, or implications to strengthen it.

Qualify (relationship move)

A response move where a writer mostly agrees but adds limits or conditions (e.g., “in most cases,” “when…”).

Complicate (relationship move)

A response move showing the issue is more complex than presented, often pointing out ignored factors or hidden assumptions.

Refute/Rebut (relationship move)

A response move that directly challenges another claim, either by countering it or by showing it fails logically or evidentially.

Reframe (relationship move)

A response move that changes the underlying question or redefines what the “real issue” is (e.g., “The real issue isn’t X; it’s Y.”).

Line of Reasoning

The logical path connecting a claim to reasons and evidence, showing how the writer expects the audience to follow the argument to its conclusion.

Claim

The main assertion a writer wants the audience to accept (what the writer wants the audience to believe or do).

Reason

The “because” that explains why the claim should be accepted; a major supporting point that needs evidence and explanation.

Evidence

Specific support for a reason or claim (data, examples, anecdotes, expert testimony, observations, historical references).

Commentary

The writer’s explanation of how the evidence proves the reason/claim; interpretation that reveals what the writer thinks the evidence means.

Warrant

An often-implied principle or belief that connects evidence to a claim (the underlying logic that makes the leap make sense).

Concession

Acknowledging a valid point from another perspective to build credibility, often followed by a shift back to the writer’s main argument.

Counterargument

A reasonable opposing or alternative view that the writer anticipates and addresses to strengthen the argument.

Rebuttal

A response that offers a counter-claim or counter-reason to an opposing view (“That’s not the case; here’s why”).

Refutation

A response that attacks the opposing view’s logic or evidence by exposing flaws, contradictions, or false assumptions.

Straw Man

A fallacious tactic that misrepresents an opposing view to make it easier to defeat, rather than addressing the strongest version.

Qualifier

Words/phrases that limit a claim to make it more precise and defensible (e.g., “often,” “in many cases,” “when resources allow”).

Credibility (evidence criterion)

How trustworthy a source is (expertise, knowledge, firsthand experience, and awareness of potential bias or incentives).

Relevance (evidence criterion)

How directly a piece of evidence connects to and supports the specific claim being made; true evidence can still be irrelevant.

Sufficiency (evidence criterion)

Whether there is enough evidence and whether it is representative; a single anecdote rarely supports a broad general claim.

Hasty Generalization

A reasoning flaw where a broad conclusion is drawn from too few or unrepresentative examples.

False Dilemma

A reasoning flaw that presents only two options (either/or) when more possibilities or solutions exist.

Post Hoc (False Cause)

A reasoning flaw that assumes one event caused another simply because it happened first or occurred alongside it.

Slippery Slope

A reasoning flaw claiming one step will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes without sufficient evidence for the chain of consequences.

Ad Hominem

A reasoning flaw that attacks a person’s character or motives instead of addressing their argument or evidence.

Rhetorical Choice

Any deliberate decision about language or structure (tone, diction, organization, examples) used to achieve a purpose for an audience.

Ethos

Appeal to credibility/trust, built through expertise, fairness, moral character, or shared identity and values.

Logos

Appeal to reasoning—how claims are supported, organized, and logically connected through evidence and explanation.

Pathos

Appeal to emotion—how a writer evokes feelings to highlight stakes and motivate agreement or action (not automatically “weak”).

Cause-Effect Method

A development strategy that explains how causes lead to effects, often to show consequences and support logical reasoning.

Narrative Method

A development strategy using storytelling/personal experience to illustrate a point and make abstract stakes concrete.

Attribution

Clearly indicating which ideas or information come from a source; helps avoid plagiarism and clarifies relationships between arguments.

Citing References

Properly acknowledging sources with specific identifying information (e.g., author/report/date) to improve clarity, ethics, and credibility.

Plagiarism

Using someone else’s words or ideas without giving proper credit; it undermines credibility (ethos) and is academically unethical.

Synthesis

Putting multiple perspectives into conversation to create a more nuanced position (e.g., extending, qualifying, complicating, or reframing), not just summarizing sources.