| << Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
It is with this in mind that we turn to the five parts of the problem statement. LRS encourages thinking about the parts of argument in order to produce logic that is both easy to understand and easy to acknowledge or accept. By understanding what a given audience will be looking for in the presentation of a problem, we can begin to map out the criteria for what will count as a successful solution.
Your Turn:
Before we move on, take a moment to construct a problem statement using the Craft of Argument formula.
The parts of a good problem statement are linked by logical connections. Those parts break down into the five main elements of
Each part of the Problem Statement fulfills key expectations of the audience you hope to persuade. The parts of your problem statement are related to each other in predictable ways, and each part establishes important information upon which your audience will base its judgments.
The Status Quo refers in general to things as they are . To persuade people to change their minds or their actions, you must first convince them to reexamine the Status Quo. Stating the Status Quo creates common ground between the writer and the reader and
establishes certain shared information and assumptions. It also helps readers and listeners to place the problem you introduce in the context of your larger argument and their larger experience.
In general terms, the Destabilizing Moment
The Destabilizing Condition varies slightly in pragmatic and conceptual problems. For a pragmatic problem, the destabilizing condition often introduces a tangible cost. Examples include unforeseen events, changing conditions, or new situations. You can often find the destabilizing condition introduced by words like “but,” “however,” “actually,” “in fact,” “alternatively,” etc. In the case of a conceptual problem, the destabilizing condition takes the form of something your audience doesn’t know or would like to understand better. For readers to care about a conceptual problem, they have to perceive a cost to not thinking or understanding differently. Because conceptual costs are abstract as opposed to tangible, Williams and Colomb refer to them as “consequences.”
Questions motivate argument by raising relevant costs. Imagine facing a topic or issue like the one below:
“Light absorbers available at present provide far from optimal black-body performance” (Teperik, T.V. et al.).
You might respond:
“So what? I’m not particularly concerned with “optimal black-body performance.”
“Why is that my problem?”
The search for a persuasive and relevant approach to the problem in relation to the needs of a given audience is guided by just such a voice as that which intones the reader’s persistent “So What?” In this case, the writer responds:
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'Three modules on clear writing style: an introduction to the craft of argument, by joseph m. williams and gregory colomb' conversation and receive update notifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|