discourse of argumentation...
If ever you were wondering what English Majors learn, this is what we learn to do in a module in school. Basically, in this module, we learn how to argue, properly. All words in bold are technical jargon. If the jargon are not explained in the text, they will be explained at the end of the entry.
We will be looking at a letter written to the Straits Times Forum, STForum, from the Ministry of Education, MOE. The exigence of the letter were 3 recent letters written into the STForum regarding the Gifted Education Programme, GEP. The 3 letters' main gist was to ask the MOE if the GEP was successful in achieving what it was originally set up to do.
In terms of timeliness and significance, the letter by MOE is both timely and significant. It is timely as the letter was replied soon after the 3 letters were posted and while the topic (whether the GEP was successful) still interested the readers of the STForum. It is significant as we expect that the readers of the STForum is still interested in the success of the GEP.
The letter begins with the writer thanking the 3 letters that have triggered the need to write this reply. And, of course, it continues with the history of the GEP and in this part, the letter also states the number of GEP students that have gone through the GEP. Though the number is not explicitly stated, there are numbers given which would allow the readers to make their own calculations. If my calculations are accurate, there should be 7500 GEP graduates from 1984 to 2007. The letter did choose to emphasize that there are 1000 graduates that are 30 years and older, with the oldest at 36 years. They then go on to state that the GEP is a lifelong programme and that it is too early to see any substantial effects of the programme.
The letter then goes on to state that in 2005, MOE has surveyed 6 cohorts of GEO graduates. Though the letter did not state which 6 cohorts MOE surveyed, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they surveyed the 1000 graduates that are 30 years and older. From this survey, MOE has found out that the graduates are now in diverse fields (academia, education, engineering, finance, law and medicine) of the public and private sectors. They then stated that some of the graduates are holding leadership positions emphasizing on 2 which have become principals. I guess this might be due to availability of information.
The letter then goes on to another survey the MOE conducted. They did not state which cohort or how large the sample was. This survey was suppose to give an insight into how the GEP graduates have continued to contribute to society. In this survey, MOE found out that 1 in 5 GEP graduates, in mid-20s, were involved community work. The letter states that it is a higher proportion than other graduates of comparable intellectual ability. However, they did not state the percentage of "other graduates" that were involved in community work, nor did they state if this proportion was comparable to the national average. While the letter claims to compare the results to a benchmark, the benchmark is not explicitly stated. The letter also states that GEP students are required to do more community service than the required 6 hours. Is this an effort to rationalise the higher involvement in community work?
They then go on to give 3 instances of GEP graduates who have received international and local awards for their various fields. None of the 3 examples are in the education field.
Having gone through the letter, now lets see if the letter serves it purpose of answering the question of, "Is the GEP successful?" I would say it did to an extent of about 20ish%. The letter did attempt to answer the question while it did try to skirt the issue by stating that it is too early to see the lifelong impacts of the GEP. The use of surveys did raise the ethos appeal of the letter. But I felt that if they had been more specific with how and who they surveyed, it might have given the letter more credibility. The letter also compared the proportion of GEP graduates that are still involved in community work. This definitely raised the logos appeal of the letter. Similarly, if the benchmark that the figures are compared to were stated, it would have made the figures much more credible. Lastly, the use of 3 real life examples was a great use of the pathos appeal. It gives readers a real picture of how the GEP graduates have contributed to society. Also, as the examples are not form the teaching industry, the letter is not seen as biased.
For the full letter, please go here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_193458.html
The comments are interesting.
ethos - credibility based on the writer's own expertise in the matter or credibility derived from the well structured argument.
logos - arguments that appeal to the logical facet of the reader by use of figures and facts.
pathos - arguments that appeal to the shared experiences of the arguer and reader.
We will be looking at a letter written to the Straits Times Forum, STForum, from the Ministry of Education, MOE. The exigence of the letter were 3 recent letters written into the STForum regarding the Gifted Education Programme, GEP. The 3 letters' main gist was to ask the MOE if the GEP was successful in achieving what it was originally set up to do.
In terms of timeliness and significance, the letter by MOE is both timely and significant. It is timely as the letter was replied soon after the 3 letters were posted and while the topic (whether the GEP was successful) still interested the readers of the STForum. It is significant as we expect that the readers of the STForum is still interested in the success of the GEP.
The letter begins with the writer thanking the 3 letters that have triggered the need to write this reply. And, of course, it continues with the history of the GEP and in this part, the letter also states the number of GEP students that have gone through the GEP. Though the number is not explicitly stated, there are numbers given which would allow the readers to make their own calculations. If my calculations are accurate, there should be 7500 GEP graduates from 1984 to 2007. The letter did choose to emphasize that there are 1000 graduates that are 30 years and older, with the oldest at 36 years. They then go on to state that the GEP is a lifelong programme and that it is too early to see any substantial effects of the programme.
The letter then goes on to state that in 2005, MOE has surveyed 6 cohorts of GEO graduates. Though the letter did not state which 6 cohorts MOE surveyed, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they surveyed the 1000 graduates that are 30 years and older. From this survey, MOE has found out that the graduates are now in diverse fields (academia, education, engineering, finance, law and medicine) of the public and private sectors. They then stated that some of the graduates are holding leadership positions emphasizing on 2 which have become principals. I guess this might be due to availability of information.
The letter then goes on to another survey the MOE conducted. They did not state which cohort or how large the sample was. This survey was suppose to give an insight into how the GEP graduates have continued to contribute to society. In this survey, MOE found out that 1 in 5 GEP graduates, in mid-20s, were involved community work. The letter states that it is a higher proportion than other graduates of comparable intellectual ability. However, they did not state the percentage of "other graduates" that were involved in community work, nor did they state if this proportion was comparable to the national average. While the letter claims to compare the results to a benchmark, the benchmark is not explicitly stated. The letter also states that GEP students are required to do more community service than the required 6 hours. Is this an effort to rationalise the higher involvement in community work?
They then go on to give 3 instances of GEP graduates who have received international and local awards for their various fields. None of the 3 examples are in the education field.
Having gone through the letter, now lets see if the letter serves it purpose of answering the question of, "Is the GEP successful?" I would say it did to an extent of about 20ish%. The letter did attempt to answer the question while it did try to skirt the issue by stating that it is too early to see the lifelong impacts of the GEP. The use of surveys did raise the ethos appeal of the letter. But I felt that if they had been more specific with how and who they surveyed, it might have given the letter more credibility. The letter also compared the proportion of GEP graduates that are still involved in community work. This definitely raised the logos appeal of the letter. Similarly, if the benchmark that the figures are compared to were stated, it would have made the figures much more credible. Lastly, the use of 3 real life examples was a great use of the pathos appeal. It gives readers a real picture of how the GEP graduates have contributed to society. Also, as the examples are not form the teaching industry, the letter is not seen as biased.
For the full letter, please go here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_193458.html
The comments are interesting.
glossary
exigence - the trigger.ethos - credibility based on the writer's own expertise in the matter or credibility derived from the well structured argument.
logos - arguments that appeal to the logical facet of the reader by use of figures and facts.
pathos - arguments that appeal to the shared experiences of the arguer and reader.
Labels: school
posted by alvin_c at 12:11 pm
1 Comments:
Hi there (:
Actually, you don't know me.. I stumbled onto your blog when i googled "discourse of argumentation".
Your blog entry screams "Sunita Abraham" all over..so i'm guessing she's still teaching this module? I think I took it 4 to 5 yrs back and I don't know of anyone whom this module has not benefitted.
So..kudos to a fellow E-lang major! And have a blast with the term paper for this module! (:
Post a Comment
<< Home