(in Polish) Logical, rethorical and erstical argumentation

elementary

enter learning outcome code/codes

List of topics:

1. Introduction to the subject of the monographic lecture.

2. Truth-tabular and non-truth-tabular characteristics of certain connectives.

3. Grice's maxims of conversation. Implicatures.

4. The notion of ”argument” and “argumentation”.

5. Factual and non-factual division of discourse.

6. Defining notions.

7. Aristotle’s syllogism. Fallible and infallible syllogistic modes. Rhetorical syllogisms.

8. Mistakes in argumentations

9. Division of reasoning. Conditions of reasoning accuracy. Ways of fallacy.

10. Criteria of discourse correctness.

11. Three rhetorical impact areas: logos, ethos and pathos.

12. Eristic devices and ways of refuting.

Bibliography:

1. Aristotle, Rhetoric, ReadaClassic.com, USA 2010.

2. Epstein R.L., Critical thinking, Thomson Wadsworth, Canada 2006.

3. Klinedinst N. and Rothschild D. , Connectives without Truth Tables, Natural Language Semantics, 20 (2),137-175 (2012).

4. Levinson S.C., Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1983.

Learning outcomes:

By the end of the course, after the attainment has been confirmed, students will have:

EK1: Known basic notions of argumentation, rhetoric and eristic.

EK2: Gained knowledge of classical rhetoric and modern argumentation theories.

EK3: Recognized mistakes in discourse (especially in argumentations) and eristic devices.

EK4: Analyzed utterances (made discourse analysis) according to three impact areas: logos, ethos and pathos.

EK5: Used the knowledge gained to take part in arguments.

EK1 assessment criteria:

To get grade 2: Student does not have the basic knowledge of the subject matter.

To get grade 3: Student understands definitions of basic notions from the content of the course.

to get a 4: Student understands definitions of basic notions from the content of the course and, working independently, makes an agreed number of mistakes interpreting the definitions.

To get a 5: Student understands definitions of basic notions from the content of the course and, working independently, makes barely any mistakes interpreting the definitions.

EK2 assessment criteria :

To get a 2:

Student does not have the basic knowledge of classical rhetoric and modern argumentative theories.

To get a 3: Student has the basic knowledge of selected aspects of classical rhetoric and most basic notion of modern argumentative theories.

To get a 4: Student knows the characteristics of classical rhetoric and modern argumentative theories and knows basic argumentative techniques and methods of classical rhetoric.

To get a 5: Student knows the characteristics of classical rhetoric and modern argumentative theories and knows most of the basic argumentative techniques and methods of classical rhetoric.

EK3 assessment criteria:

To get a 2: Student is not able to recognize basic mistakes or unfair devices in argumentation.

To get a 3: Student is able to recognize basic and obvious mistakes and unfair devices in argumentation.

to get a 4: Apart from the basics, Student is able to recognize less obvious mistakes and unfair devices in argumentation.

to get a 5: Student is able to recognize most mistakes and unfair devices in argumentation.

EK4 assessment criteria

To get a 2: Student does not recognize rhetorical dominants in discourse.

To get a 3: Student generally recognizes rhetorical dominants in discourse.

to get a 4: Student generally recognizes rhetorical dominants in discourse and is able to indicate text fragments referring to agiven area of rhetorical impact (logos, ethos or pathos).

to get a 5: Student always recognizes rhetorical dominants in discourse, is able to indicate text fragments referring to a given area of rhetorical impact and recognizes rhetorical devices used in these fragments.

EK5 assessment criteria:

To get a 2: Student is not able to use the knowledge given to take part in arguments

to get a 3: Student is able to use limited aspects of classical rhetoric and modern argumentative theory to take part in arguments.

to get a 4: Student is able to use limited aspects of classical rhetoric and modern argumentative theory to take part inarguments, as well as to properly respond to eristic devices used against them by interlocutor.

To get a 5: Student is able to use most aspects of classical rhetoric and modern argumentative theory to take part in arguments, as well as to properly respond to all basic eristic devices used against them by interlocutor.