This weak’s reading, Section III in The Craft of Research provides an accessible and concise introduction to rhetoric (in the Aristotelian sense of the word). This is a subject that’s been on my mind a lot, lately, primarily because so much of the discourse generated by this election cycle seems to be lacking of evidence and warrants (and sometimes even reasons) because and acknowledgement of objections and alternative views often takes the form of personal or ad hominem attacks (not to mention the scapegoating of Mexicans, muslims, jews, and “the media”). Increasingly, we’re seeing public declarations by elected officials that facts (evidence) are irrelevant and can be ignored when they provide objective support for a reality that’s contrary to one’s feelings. It’s not just our elected officials, of course - I’m sure most of us have at least one Facebook friend who’s convinced that the mere existence of the recent WikiLeaks dump proves that Secretary Clinton is a criminal (because InfoWars says so and also because otherwise, why would they have bothered to hack a private citizen’s email and publicly release the stolen information?). Of course, this isn’t a new trend. It’s been going on for awhile now, and many people have been talking about America’s problem with science and critical thinking for a number of years.

As discussed in the reading, a good argument consists of four components:

1. Claims: these are statements that take a stand on something
2. Reasons: these are subsequent statements that bolseter one’s claim
3. Warrants: these are what connect the evidence to the claim
4. Evidence: facts or information provided to strengthen one’s claim