Winning an Argument: Argument Reading and Writing

Susan Stevens

English & Literature

October 1st November 16th 90 minutes a week until Lightning Thief is finished and then 180 minutes a week (rest of time is focused on independent reading).

Key: Yellow highlight indicates focus standards.

READING

RI.6.1 Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

RI.6.2 Determine a central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details: provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgments.

RI.6.3 Analyze in detail how a key individual, event, or idea is introduced, illustrated, and elaborated in a text (e.g., through examples or anecdotes).

RI.6.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings.

RI.6.6 Determine an authors point of view or purpose in a text and explain how it is conveyed in the text.

RI.6.7 Integrate information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as understanding of a topic or issue.

RI.6.8 Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not.

RI.6.9 Compare and contrast one authors presentation of events with that of another (e.g., a memoir written by and a biography on the same person.)

WRITING

W.6.1 Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.

a) Introduce claim(s)and organize the reasons and evidence clearly;

b) Support claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence, using credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text;

c) Use words, phrases, and clauses to clarify the relationships among claim(s) and reasons.

d) Establish and maintain a formal style;

e) Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from the argument presented.

W.6.5. With some guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.

W.6.7 Conduct short research projects to answer a question, drawing on several sources and refocusing the inquiry when appropriate.

W.6.8 Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources; assess the credibility of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and providing basic bibliographic information for sources.

Big Ideas

Argument reading & writing requires logical, critical thinking.

There are three types of argument writing: fact, judgment, and policy.

Essential Questions

Why is argument writing important?

CONTENT

3 types of arguments: fact, judgment, and policy. Teach elements of argument (see above)

Claims (e.g., He died 10 days ago.)

Evidence (data, such as lividity, body temperature, degree of decomposition)

Warrants (generally true principles, such as: After 10 days in a 70 degree apartment, decomposition of the organs is well begun.)

Backing (support for warrants: Insect studies show that the bugs on the body were hatched ten days ago.)

Qualifications and Counter Arguments (Of course, if the temperature were higher that 70 degrees, the death could have taken place as early as 7 days ago.)

Vocabulary: fact argument, judgment argument, policy argument, claims, evidence, warrants, backing, qualifications and counter-arguments, data, probably, very likely, as a rule, beyond reasonable doubt, opinion, relevant, conclusion, argument of probability. (Make vocabulary review on Quizlet)

SKILLS

Students will be able to carefully read and analyze argument writing.

Analyze what are the claims, evidence, warrants, backing, qualifications, and counter-arguments)

Students will be able to write arguments that are well structured and thought out.

Students will use appropriate vocabulary as they discuss.

ASSESSMENT

Pre-Test: Teachers College Reading and Writing Project Performance Assessment

Summaries of argument writing that will be grading using TCR&WP rubric.

Written arguments graded using TCR&WP rubric and presentation and conventions portion of 6 Traits.

Post-Test: Teachers College Reading and Writing Project Performance Assessment

Text-Based Discussion Rubric

Expectation

Exceeds Standard

4

Meets Standard

3

Nearly Meets Standard

2

Below Standard

1

Conduct

Demonstrates respect for the learning process by showing patience with different and complex ideas.

Shows initiative by asking for clarification and bringing others into the conversation.

Speaks to all participants to deepen understanding of the topic.

Shows respect and patience for a range of individual ideas by participating in group discussions.

Makes insightful comments and brings others into the conversation by utilizing logical organization and language appropriate to audience, context, and purpose.

Addresses most comments to other participants to encourage further discussion.

Shows little respect and patience for individual ideas when participating in group discussions.

Makes relevant comments and attempts to bring others into the conversation but is too forceful or shy and does not contribute to the progress of the conversation.

Most comments are directed toward the teacher; most comments do not encourage further dialogue.

Shows no respect and patience for ideas when participating in group discussions.

Uses inappropriate language. Does not contribute to and/or limits dialogue (for example, argumentative)

Speaking & Reasoning

Supports thesis with many well-chosen details and provides an insightful conclusion by making many connections between ideas and resolves contradictory concepts.

Insightful analysis considers multiple alternative viewpoints (anticipates and addresses potential problems, mistakes, or misunderstandings that might arise for the group.

Supports thesis with well-chosen details and provides a coherent conclusion by making some connections between ideas and/or resolving contradictory concepts.

Analysis is logical and considers some alternative viewpoints (anticipates and addresses potential problems, mistakes or misunderstandings that might arise for the group).

Attempts to support thesis with some details and provide a coherent conclusion but makes few connections between ideas and fails to resolve contradictory concepts.

Uses limited logical analysis and/or fails to consider alternative viewpoints.

Does not support thesis and makes no connection between ideas and fails to resolve contradictory concepts.

No analysis evident and fails to consider alternative viewpoints.

Listening

Consistently demonstrates active listening by effectively summarizing, paraphrasing, questioning, or contributing to information presented (piggy-backing).

Points out faulty logic and ignores all distractions.

Reaches a consensus with the group to solve a problem, make a decision, or achieve a goal.

Consistently demonstrates active listening by accurately summarizing, paraphrasing, questioning, or contributing to the information presented.

Maintains consistent focus by identifying and evaluating the essential elements of the discussion and pointing out some faulty logic and ignoring most distractions.

Demonstrates some active listening, but may contain inaccuracies or contribute to misunderstandings.

Attempts to maintain a consistent focus by identifying and evaluating the essential elements of the discussion, but fails to point out some faulty logic and appears distracted.

Attempts to reach a consensus, but is unable to agree with all aspects of the solution of the group.

Limited responses demonstrate little listening.

Unaware of faulty logic and is inattentive and distracted.

Does not reach consensus with group.

Reading

Demonstrates thorough familiarity with the text by drawing insightful inferences, including ones about authors purpose.

Demonstrates exceptional comprehension strategies by making multiple, accurate references to specific parts of the text to answer questions, to state the main/central ideas, and/or to provide supporting details.

Demonstrates familiarity with the text by drawing inferences, including one about the authors purpose.

Demonstrates comprehension strategies by making accurate references to the text to answer questions, to state the main/central ideas, and/or to provide supporting details.

Demonstrates limited familiarity with the text with limited inferences concerning authors purpose.

Demonstrates limited comprehension strategies by making few references to the text.

Demonstrates no familiarity with the text.

Demonstrates no comprehension strategy with no references to the text.

READING/Writing

Before doing anything else, model good and bad discussion skills for the class.

ARGUMENTS OF FACT (Charts graded for reading, papers graded for writing)

Goals

Analyze evidence critically in light of existing knowledge

Interpret the evidence to explain what it shows

Develop warrants that explain what it shows.

Use the evidence and the explanations to solve the problem.

Read Slip or Trip

At five-feet-six, and a hundred and ten pounds, Queenie Volupides was a sight to behold, and to clasp. And when she tore out of the house after a tiff with her husband, Arthur, she went to the country club where there was a party going on.

She left the club shortly before one in the morning and invited a few friends to follow her home and have one more drink. They got to the Volupides= house about ten minutes after Queenie, who met them at the door and said, "Something terrible happened-Arthur slipped and fell on the stairs. He was coming down for another drink---he still had the glass in his hand--and I think he's dead. 0h, my God--what shall I do?"

The autopsy concluded that Arthur had died from, a wound on the head, and confirmed the fact that he'd been drunk. Do you think Queenie is telling the truth?

Assume that you are a member of the investigative team. Your team must determine what may have happened. Find evidence that indicates whether Queenie is telling the truth and what may have happened. If you and other members of your team disagree, find evidence that will convince them. Be prepared to explain why your evidence makes your case. Eventually you will write a report to convince the others in the class that your analysis makes the most sense.

*adapted from Lawrence Treat. Crime and Puzzlement 2.

Boston: David R. Godine, Publisher, 1982.

Create graphic organizer:

Evidence

Rule

Conclusion/ Claim

Arthur still has the glass in his hand.

As a rule, when people fall down stairs, they drop what they are saving to save themselves.

Demonstrate how to write the evidence and create a rule.

Divide students into small groups to work on worksheet #1.

Explain how to write a police report (voice, word choice, etc.)

Whodunit #2

Argument of FACT: Whodunit?

On an otherwise uneventful Thursday afternoon police heard a shot inside Ernies Lunchroom, rushed in, and found the scene shown in the picture.They identified the body as that of a prominent racketeer

named Fannin. Ernie, who is both the owner and only employee, had only one fact to tell: the murderer had leaned against the wall while firing at point-blank range. The imprint of his hand is in clear view. The cash register has just been rung up at $8.75.

This is a difficult case. Your investigative team must attempt to determine which of the people in the lunchroom killed Fannin. You will have to observe the details carefully. There is enough evidence to help you explain most of what happened. In working out the solution, consider the following questions:

1. With what hand did the shooter fire the gun? What is the evidence? What is the warrant?

2. Did customers B, C, and D know each other? What are the evidence and warrants?

3. How do the three customers differ in their habits or ways of doing things? What is the evidence and what is the warrant?

4. Which set of footprints are Ernies? What is the evidence? What is the warrant?

5. To whom do the set of footprints marked X belong?

6. Who killed Fannin? How do you know? Write a police report in your literature/reading that tells all of the evidence and warrants necessary to support your claim.

Whodunit #3

Argument of FACT:

The Case of the Dead Musician

Anton Karazai had amassed a great fortune in his seventy years as

a world-famous pianist, performing for presidents and parliaments,

kings and queens, in all the greatest cities concert halls

and childrens hospitals. Anyone who watched Mr. Karazai perform understood immediately that he loved his music above and beyond anything else. Musicplaying the pianowas his life.

Yesterday evening, May 16, 2006, however, Mr. Karazais only son and sole heir phoned the police and reported that his father had hanged himself from the chandelier in the piano room at his estate. When the police arrived, they took several pictures of the scene. One of those pictures appears in the photo. The police noted that Karazai had been hanged by a cord taken from the set of drapes in the corner window of the room and that his feet hung about two feet above the stool beneath him. They also noted that several pieces of steel wire had been ripped from the piano.

The coroners report confirmed that Mr. Karazai died from asphyxiation. Inspection of his neck revealed a single, thin, skin breaking line with a small amount of blood across the Adams apple.

Since it is too small to read in the picture, here is Mr. Karazais last journal entry in its entirety:

May 16, 2006. Have been sad for weeks now. My strength diminishes every day. It is even difficult for me to play the

piano. Sometimes, even piano fails to cheer me. Sometimes my failing ability makes me angry. Yesterday I actually kicked my piano! But my ninety-year-old legs could hardly hurt a little bird. Only my son remains, my only son and the sole heir to all that I have earned and collected over this incredible but lonely life. I wonder if he knows what he will be getting when I die. Perhaps. But perhaps not. I will try to play something simple to cheer me before I retire for the eveningperhaps something form Debussys Childrens Corner, a wonderful collection of happy, beautiful melodies.

The Assignment

You are the investigator reading the reports above and inspecting the picture of the scene. Mr. Karazais son claims that his father hanged himself. What do you think is the truth? From the evidence available, make a case for what you think really happened. If you believe that other evidence is necessary, make a recommendation about what other evidence might need to be collected. Before you begin to write your report, list the evidence and warrants you will use in making your case.

Checklist for Revisions

1. Have you described what was found at the scene and what the autopsy revealed?

2. Have you incorporated at least three pieces of evidence?

3. Have you provided the rules or warrants that explain why the evidence is important to your claim?

4. Have you made a recommendation about should happen next or what more evidence is needed?

Argument of Judgment

The Proper Mascot

Explain about mascots.

Have students answer the following questions about their own school mascot:

How do you feel about it?

Do you like it?

Why or why not?

What comes to mind when you think about it?

How was the mascot selected?

If you were to select a different mascot, what would it be.

Show other mascots on PowerPoint and discuss.

Ask students to evaluate the merits of each mascot

Do you think its a good one?

If you like it, what makes it a good mascot?

If you dont like it, what makes it a bad mascot?

Have students to make four or five rules, or warrants, that a school could use as criteria to guide their selection of a mascot. Have groups report and agree upon a common set of criteria for judging a good mascot.

Task: Use criteria to select a mascot for a new school. (Copy p. 47 in Hillocks Teaching Argument Writing)

1. Students identify attributes of each finalist.

a. What features or characteristics do you associate with manatees, gorillas, miners, and lemurs.

b. How do these characteristics fit the criteria you created?

Teacher models writing a judgment article using mascot of CDS: 1) a claim, 2) its appealing characteristics, 3) why those characteristics make the mascot a good one, which is the warrant in the argument.

Have students write their own argument paragraph, choosing a mascot for the new school.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Years (Judgment Writing)

Ask students what they think of the man. Discuss etching. Mention vomitorium, unpaid bills, debts of honor (gambling debts, drips for stinking breath,

Voluptuary = one who is addicted to sensuous pleasures or given up to indulgence in luxury or the gratification of the senses.

Have students answer one of these two questions:

1) What details in the picture indicate that the prince is a voluptuary?

2) What details does Gillray (the artist) use to portray the prince as a voluptuary?

Students must learn that every expression, whether in words or visual images, is an intentional construction and implies the creators attitudes and agendas.

Create a list of criteria for a good king.

Apply the criteria to the etching.

Claim

Evidence

Warrant (explanation)

The prince is not a good money manager.

Theres a book on the floor called Debts of Honor, which means gambling debts.

Anyone who has gambling debts is probably not a good manager of money because spending on gambling results in debts. It is common knowledge that you lose money in gambling. Everyone knows that, even gamblers.

Do this work in groups.

Write argument beginning with the definition of a good king, apply at least three criteria to the Prince of Wales, present evidence for each criterion, along with warrants showing how the evidence supports the judgment of whether or not the prince meets the criteria.

Finding Good Evidence (How do you know?)

Present a few fake websites

http://www.fvza.org/index.html (The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency)

http://www.buydehydratedwater.com/ (Buy Dehydrated Water)

http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ (Save the Tree Octopus)

Take students through http://www.saskschools.ca/~ischool/tisdale/integrated/wysiwyg/students.htm, a website designed for student inquiryto determine their own evaluation characteristics or reliability rules.

1. Create a short report about the web sites listed below. Every person in your group will write their own report but you should share your ideas with each other.

Which sites did you visit?

Were they reliable?

How could you tell if they were reliable?

2. As a group, create a list of "Reliability Rules."

What things should you look for on web pages?

What other ways can you tell if a web site is reliable?

Reading , Discussing, &Writing Simple Arguments of Judgment

Teach: Read Like a Detective

Look at word choice (If I say fight instead of disagreement you get a totally different picture)

Look for claims. Are they debatable or factual? (I am 59 years old v. I am a senior citizen).

Ask these three questions in your group as you read:

What purpose?

What audience?

What genre?

Practice this using the article: Bottled or From the Tap? https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtcnNzdGV2ZW5zNnRoZ3JhZGV8Z3g6NTg0YzljNzM1MTk1MTA3Zg

Read and discuss in small groups the pros and cons of social networking. http://socialnetworking.procon.org/

Write summary of pro position.

Write summary of con position.

Choose a personal position and write a short article about social networking.

Make a claim

Defend that claim

Reading , Discussing, &Debating Simple Arguments of Judgment

Read and discuss in small groups the pros and cons of video games

http://videogames.procon.org/

Assign students to pro or con teams (we will have two debates).

Teach debate format.

Schedule debates.

Writing Simple Arguments of Policy

(Using real data)

Students identify problem/policy area they would like to change at school.

Plan investigation. Where do you find data? How do you collect data?

Conduct detailed investigation.

Introduce argument of policy components:

Introductionwhat is the problem to be evaluated

Research design and methods (Argument of fact)

Results/findings (Argument of judgement)

Conclusions and recommendations (Argument of policy)