Politics and Interviews

Share your Rogerian Argument field test. Proceed in this order:

1. First, what was the occasion of the disagreement (context, background)?

2. Second, describe how you employed these four steps of Rogerian argument with your “adversary” (I prefer the term “partner”). Again, here are the steps you must follow during your conversation with the person:

a. Summarize the grievance between you and your partner.

b. State your partner’s position. Make sure he or she agrees that you’ve stated correctly his/her position.

c. Grant the validity of his or her position.

d. Show how his or her position will be improved if he or she also accepts your position.

3. Finally, how did your partner in the discussion respond? Was the grievance resolved, stayed same, escalated?

For full points, follow the directions above and write clear, grammatically correct sentences, and then reply meaningfully to at least two classmates

Learning outcomes: Demonstrate ability to apply critical thinking and analysis. Use effective communication and interpersonal skills.

Rogerian field test rubric
/3 one grammatically correct, developed post relaying the four steps and outcome
/2 two meaningful, grammatically correct replies to classmates and/or Prof. Davis
/5 TOTAL

See the Rogerian model below.

TABLE SHOWS FALLACIES
ambiguity	division	composition	equivocation
non sequitur	distorting the facts	post hoc ergo propter hoc	many questions
hasty generalization	slippery slope	parade of horrors	false analogy
straw man	special pleading	begging the question	false dichotomy
oversimplification	red herring	tu quoque	genetic
poisoning the well	appeal to ignorance	appeal to authority	appeal to fear
death by a thousand qualifications	protecting the hypothesis	or any other fallacy in the lecture notes or readings!

1. Pick one of these fallacies or any other (try to pick one different from your classmates’) and write a brief example of it and a brief explanation of its fallaciousness. Your sentence should have a false premise, factual error, or logical inconsistency making it invalid or unsound.

Example 1:

The governor was an action movie star, all brawn and no brains. How can we expect him to lead?

–> This is an ad hominem fallacy because it impugns a person’s character (“no brains”) without any evidence while also associating that purported trait with an unrelated attribute (being unable to lead).

2. Create either an unsound or a sound syllogism based on anything you want. An unsound syllogism must be logically invalid, factually untrue, or both. A sound syllogism must be both logically valid and true. After you write your unsound or sound syllogism, state why the conclusion, major/minor premises, facts, etc., are flawed or flawless.

Example 2:

write an unsound syllogism here…

Davis is a sub-par rhythm guitarist.
Davis is an English teacher.
Therefore, all English teachers are sub-par rhythm guitarists.

–> Untrue factually about Davis 🙂 Moreover, opinions can’t be proved. This is also invalid logically, as it commits the fallacy of composition wherein something true of one thing is spuriously applied to all similar things. Therefore, this syllogism is “unsound.”

3. What’s a real world example of a time when you’ve seen ethos, pathos, and logos in effect at the same event or location? Think politics, interviews, the mall… Share your example with the class.