VOCABULARY FOR Sept. 29-October 3

For Tuesday: Clean Copy of Synthesis Essay
For Friday: Two Arguments (291-294) Do Qs #1, 292 & #3, 294
For Friday: Vocabulary Quiz
For Monday: NO HOMEWORK (Take a Break or the SAT!!!)

"Myth of the Cave" for TUESDAY!!!

VOCABULARY Sept. 29-Oct. 3

BANDWAGON APPEAL – The belief that something should be done because the majority of people do it (or wish to do it). Ad populum is the original Latin term, meaning “to the people,” suggesting that a person yields his opinion to the will of the public majority rather than to logic. Bandwagon appeals are arguments that urge people to follow the same paths that others do. In old-time political campaigns, politicians used to travel literally on horse-drawn bandwagons, urging citizens to “jump on the bandwagon” — or join the crowd — to vote for them.
-- Peer pressure is a type of bandwagon appeal – you may do something that others are doing simply because others are doing it. “Because everyone else does it” is a favorite reason cited by young teens who are looking for reasons to do something more grown up. Exanmple: TV Ad: “Four out of five dentists surveyed preferred Crest toothpaste.”
BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY: Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle. Example of Begging the Question:
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: Cognitive Dissonance Theory argues that the experience of dissonance (or incompatible beliefs and actions) is adversive and people are highly motivated to avoid it. In their efforts to avoid feelings of dissonance, people will avoid hearing views that oppose their own, change their beliefs to match their actions, and seek reassurance after making a difficult decision. Example: "severe initiation leads to liking." (ibid., at p. 43) Research has shown that people exhibit greater liking of an organization that subjects them to severe initiation than to one that subjects them only to a mild initiation. This result can be explained by cognitive dissonance theory. There is conflict between the negative affect that the person experiences in response to the initiation, since the person has chosen to go through the initiation to gain entrance to the organization. This conflict produces discomfort and tension. The person can resolve this tension by justifying the initiation as "worth it" because of the positive things he or she will gain from the benefits of membership. The more effort put into the justification process, the more attachment the person has to the organization. The more difficult the initiation, the greater the need for justification. Thus the stronger the commitment to the organization.
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC: The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim. Example: The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.
ROGERIAN ARGUMENTATION: It focuses on building bridges between writer and audience, and places considerable weight on the values, beliefs, and opinions the two share, a Rogerian argument doesn’t emphasize an "I win–you lose" outcome as much as classical or Toulmin arguments do. Rather it emphasizes a "You win and I win too" solution, one where negotiation and mutual respect are valued. Thus, it is particularly useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos rather than logos and strict logic predominate.
SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY: The metaphor here is of a snowball which starts down a hill and gathers mass until it forms into a destructive, unstoppable boulder. While it is true that an action in the present does have consequences for the future, the slippery slope appeal distorts the connection, stretching to unreasonable limits the predicted impact of future events. The NRA might fallaciously argue, for instance, that a ban on assault rifles is one step away from negation of the Second Amendment's right-to-bear arms clause. The slippery slope appeal can thus be tied to the strategy of scare tactics, for it is designed to exaggerate beyond reasonable evidence feelings of fear and threatening (but totally unrealistic) consequences.
TOULMIN SCHEMA: Stephan Toulmin developed a method of argumentation that requires the writer to use logical structure, not in an attempt to prove any point, but in the hopes of convincing one’s readers of the validity of the points used in the argument. Using claim, because clause, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers, the writer hopes to convince the reader to accept the claim of the argument.
REBUTTAL: (n) the act of refuting by offering a contrary contention or argument.
WARRANT: The assumptions, the general principles, the conventions of specific disciplines, widely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, or appeals to human motives that are an important part of any argument.
VOCAB WORD: ENERVATE (v.) to weaken or destroy the strength or vitality of: "The heatenervated everyone." (adj: enervating)

ASSIGNMENTS FOR September 22-26

ASSIGNMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22-26
For Tuesday: Clean copy of Synthesis Essay & Mukherjee (262) + Q. 2
For Wednesday: Clean Copy of Art Essay (We will have another practice exam on Wednesday.)
For Thursday: Ali (265) + Q. 2
For Friday: Study for Vocabulary Quiz
For Monday: Read and Annotate Case Study for Recent Immigrants (267-280) and then write a synthesis essay based on Q. 5 on page 281.

VOCABULARY FOR WEEK September 22-26

ALLEGORY – The device of using character and/or story elements symbolically to represent an abstraction in addition to the literal meaning. In some allegories, for example, an author may intend the characters to personify an abstraction like hope or
freedom. The allegorical meaning usually deals with moral truth or a generalization about human existence.
ANTECEDENT – The word, phrase, or clause referred to by a pronoun. The AP language exam occasionally asks for the antecedent of a given pronoun in a long, complex sentence or in a group of sentences. A question from the 2001 AP test as an example follows:
“But it is the grandeur of all truth which can occupy a very high place in human interests that it is never absolutely novel to the meanest of minds; it exists eternally, by way of germ of latent principle, in the lowest as in the highest, needing to be developed but never to be planted.” The antecedent of “it” (bolded) is...? [answer: “all truth”]
DIDACTIC – From the Greek, didactic literally means “teaching.” Didactic words have the primary aim of teaching or instructing, especially the teaching of moral or ethical principles.
METONYMY – (mĕtŏn′ ĭmē) A term from the Greek meaning “changed label” or “substitute name,” metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is substituted for that of another closely associated with it. For example, a news release
that claims “the White House declared” rather than “the President declared” is using metonymy; Shakespeare uses it to signify the male and female sexes in As You Like It: “doublet and hose ought to show itself courageous to petticoat.” The substituted term generally carries a more potent emotional impact.
SYNECDOCHE – a figure of speech in which a part of something is used to represent the whole or, occasionally, the whole is used to represent a part. Examples: To refer to a boat as a “sail”; to refer to a car as “wheels”; to refer to the violins, violas, etc.
in an orchestra as “the strings.” **Different than metonymy, in which one thing is represented by another thing that is commonly physically associated with it (but is not necessarily a part of it), i.e., referring to a monarch as “the crown” or the President as “The White House.”
SYNESTHESIA – when one kind of sensory stimulus evokes the subjective experience of another. Ex: The sight of red ants makes you itchy. In literature, synesthesia refers to the practice of associating two or more different senses in the same image. Red Hot Chili Peppers’ song title,“Taste the Pain,” is an example.
SEMANTICS – The study of meanings: The historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development.
HOMILY – This term literally means “sermon,” but more informally, it can include any serious talk, speech, or lecture involving moral or spiritual advice.
CARICATURE – a verbal description, the purpose of which is to exaggerate or distort, for comic effect, a person’s distinctive physical
features or other characteristics.
Vocabulary Word:
ASSUAGE: (v.) to make less severe; to appease or satisfy

VOCABULARY FOR SEPTEMBER 15-19

I would like you to become familiar with the six terms that follow: Argument, Claim, Evidence, Counterargument, Audience and Critical Reading. I will be testing you on the ideas that apply to each one.
ARGUMENT
Arguments are everywhere
In fact, making an argument—expressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with evidence—is often the aim of academic writing. Most material you [will read] is or has been debated by someone, somewhere, at some time. Even when the material you read or hear is presented as simple "fact," it may actually be one person's interpretation of a set of information. In your writing [for AP] you may be called on to question that interpretation and defend it, refute it, or offer some new view of your own. In writing assignments, you will almost always need to do more than just present information that you have gathered or regurgitate facts that were discussed in class. You will need to select a point of view and provide evidence (in other words, use "argument") to shape the material and offer your interpretation of the material.
If you think that "fact," not argument, rules intelligent thinking, consider these examples. At one point, the great minds of Western Europe firmly believed the Earth was flat. They assumed this was simply an uncontroversial fact. You are able to disagree now because people who saw that argument as faulty set out to make a better argument and proved it. Differences of opinion are how human knowledge develops, and scholars spend their lives engaged in debate over what may be counted as "true," "real," or "right."
CLAIM—Making a Claim
What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a "claim" or "thesis statement," backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In your papers, you will make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and your ability to do this well will separate your papers from those of students who see assignments as mere accumulations of fact and detail. In other words, gone are the happy days of being given a "topic" about which you can write anything. It is time to stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a thinking person to hold.
Claims can be as simple as "Protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged," with evidence such as, "In this experiment, protons and electrons acted in such and such a way." Claims can also be as complex as "The end of the South African system of apartheid was inevitable," using reasoning and evidence such as, "Every successful revolution in the modern era has come about after the government in power has given and then removed small concessions to the uprising group." In either case, the rest of your paper will detail the reasoning and evidence that have led you to believe that your position is best.
EVIDENCE
Do not stop with having a point. You have to back up your point with evidence. The strength of your evidence, and your use of it, can make or break your argument. You already have the natural inclination for this type of thinking, if not in an academic setting. Think about how you talked your parents into letting you borrow the family car. Did you present them with lots of instances of your past trustworthiness? Did you make them feel guilty because your friends' parents all let them drive? Did you whine until they just wanted you to shut up? Did you look up statistics on teen driving and use them to show how you didn't fit the dangerous-driver profile? These are all types of argumentation, and they exist in academia in similar forms.

Every field has slightly different requirements for acceptable evidence, so familiarize yourself with some arguments from within that field instead of just applying whatever evidence you like best.
Be consistent with your evidence. Unlike You can often use more than one type of evidence within a paper, but make sure that within each section you are providing the reader with evidence appropriate to each claim. So, if you start a paragraph or section with a statement like "Putting the student section closer to the court in the Dean Dome will raise player performance," do not follow with your evidence on how much more money the university could raise by letting more students go to games for free. Information about how fan support raises player morale, which then results in better play, would be a better follow-up. Your next section could offer clear reasons why undergraduates have as much or more right to attend an undergraduate event as wealthy alumni—but this information would not go in the same section as the fan support stuff. You cannot convince a confused person, so keep things tidy and ordered.
COUNTERARGUMENT
One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a deep understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or objections. By considering what someone who disagrees with your position might have to say about your argument, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. Recall the discussion of student seating in the Dean Dome. To make the most effective argument possible, you should consider not only what students would say about seating but also what alumni who have paid a lot to get good seats might say.
You can generate counterarguments by asking yourself how someone who disagrees with you might respond to each of the points you've made or your position as a whole. If you can't immediately imagine another position, here are some strategies to try:
Do some research. It may seem to you that no one could possibly disagree with the position you are arguing, but someone probably has. For example, some people argue that the American Civil War never ended. If you are making an argument concerning, for example, the outcomes of the Civil War, you might wish to see what some of these people have to say.
Consider your conclusion or claim and the premises of your argument and imagine someone who denies each of them. For example, if you argued "Cats make the best pets. This is because they are clean and independent," you might imagine someone saying "Cats do not make the best pets. They are dirty and needy."
Once you have thought up some counterarguments, consider how you will respond to them—will you concede that your opponent has a point but explain why your audience should nonetheless accept your argument? Will you reject the counterargument and explain why it is mistaken? Either way, you will want to leave your reader with a sense that your argument is stronger than opposing arguments.
When you are summarizing opposing arguments, be charitable. Present each argument fairly and objectively, rather than trying to make it look foolish. You want to show that you have seriously considered the many sides of the issue and that you are not simply attacking or caricaturing your opponents. It is usually better to consider one or two serious counterarguments in some depth, rather than to give a long but superficial list of many different counterarguments and replies.
Be sure that your reply is consistent with your original argument. If considering a counterargument changes your position, you will need to go back and revise your original argument accordingly.
AUDIENCE
Audience is a very important consideration in argument. A lifetime of dealing with your family members has helped you figure out which arguments work best to persuade each of them. Maybe whining works with one parent, but the other will only accept cold, hard statistics. Your kid brother may listen only to the sound of money in his palm. It's usually wise to think of your audience in an academic setting as someone who is perfectly smart but who doesn't necessarily agree with you. You are not just expressing your opinion in an argument ("It's true because I said so"), and in most cases your audience will know something about the subject at hand—so you will need sturdy proof. At the same time, do not think of your audience as clairvoyant. You have to come out and state both your claim and your evidence clearly.
CRITICAL READING
Critical reading is a big part of understanding argument. Although some of the material you read will be very persuasive, do not fall under the spell of the printed word as authority. Remember that the author of every text has an agenda, something that he or she wants you to believe. This is OK—everything is written from someone's perspective—but it's a good thing to be aware of.
Take notes either in the margins of your source or on a separate sheet as you read. Put away that highlighter! Simply highlighting a text is good for memorizing the main ideas in that text—it does not encourage critical reading. Part of your goal as a reader should be to put the author's ideas in your own words. Then you can stop thinking of these ideas as facts and start thinking of them as arguments.
When you read, ask yourself questions like "What is the author trying to prove?" and "What is the author assuming I will agree with?" Do you agree with the author? Does the author adequately defend her argument? What kind of proof does she use? Is there something she leaves out that you would put in? Does putting it in hurt her argument? As you get used to reading critically, you will start to see the sometimes hidden agendas of other writers, and you can use this skill to improve your own ability to craft effective arguments.
( http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/argument.html)

You will also have these three rhetorical vocabulary words:
ANALOGY: compares two things, which are alike in several respects, for the purpose of explaining or clarifying some unfamiliar or difficult idea or object by showing how the idea or object is similar to some familiar one. While simile and analogy often overlap, the simile is generally a more artistic likening, done briefly for effect and emphasis, while analogy serves the more practical end of explaining a thought process or a line of reasoning or the abstract in terms of the concrete, and may therefore be more extended.
. . . For answers successfully arrived at are solutions to difficulties previously discussed, and one cannot untie a knot if he is ignorant of it. --Aristotle
Notice in this example that the analogy is used to establish the pattern of reasoning by using a familiar or less abstract argument which the reader can understand easily and probably agree with. Some analogies simply offer an explanation for clarification rather than a substitute argument.
CLICHÉ: It is a traditional form of human expression (in words, thoughts, emotions, gestures, acts) which--due to repetitive use in social life has lost its original, often ingenious heuristic (serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving) power.
JARGON: The term "jargon" refers to any in-group or specialized language used by small groups of like-minded individuals. This terminology is usually specialized to the function of the group, and will be used by and among group members as a sign of belonging, status, and for keeping out outsiders.
For example, individuals who study linguistics will use words like quantifier, voiceless labiodental fricative, diglossia, intensifier, minimal pair and metonymy. To non-linguists, these words have different meanings or no meanings at all. When making the choice of what vocabulary to use, you should first and foremost consider the audience that you are addressing:
If you are writing for a general audience (even an general academic audience) you should avoid using in-group jargon without explanations. Overloading your audience with words they do not understand will not help you achieve your purpose.

Beginning this week, I will also include one word that will increase our general vocabulary.
This week it is:
UBIQUITOUS: Main Entry: ubiq·ui·tous/Pronunciation: \yü-ˈbi-kwə-təs\ /Function: adjective/Date: 1830: existing or being everywhere at the same time : constantly encountered : widespread — ubiq·ui·tous·ly adverb — ubiq·ui·tous·ness noun

ASSIGNMENTS FOR September 15-19

Vocabulary Words!!!!!
For Tuesday: Read and Annotate Tsao (221) and Tan (232)
DOUBLE EVENS on Wednesday!
For Thursday: Read and Annotate Naylor (223) + Q. 1 on 226 and Rodriguez (226) + Q. 1-2 on 232
For Friday: Study for Vocabulary Quiz
For Monday: Read and Annotate A Casebook on Race + Write a Synthesis Essay
(You will do this in one sitting...It will take you about 60 minutes)

ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE WEEK:

For Thursday: Read and Annotate "Those Winter Sundays" (193) (make sure that you know all of the words in the poem)
For Friday: Vocabulary Quiz (Weeks 1-4 Review) Read and Annotate "Foul Shots" (200)and "How It Feels To Be Colored Me" (205)
For Monday: Read and Annotate "The Weaker Sex" (203), "Women’s Brains" (209), "Why Boys Don’t Play With Dolls" (215) and "The Male Myth" (218)

VOCABULARY

This week I have decided not to give you a NEW list of words since we do not have class on Monday or Wednesday (College Fair). HOWEVER, there will be a quiz on words from previous weeks. This will give some of you a chance to review past words.

ASSIGNMENT FOR TUESDAY:

Read and Annotate Brady & Rothenberg
Do Q. 1, 181 and Q. 2, 191

ASSIGNMENT FOR FRIDAY:

Vocabulary Quiz and Read and Annotate “The Heterosexual Revolution” & “Scenes from an Intermarriage”

Assignment for Tuesday:

“On Going Home” & “Letting Go” (no questions)
Art Essay for Thursday!!!