or as they're sometimes called

The mind has certain set ways of organizing information in order to understand situations and issues, evaluate proposals, and make judgments. These are covered in the section called "Developing Paragraphs" in your Handbook. In the fifth edition, this section spans pages 83-94. Your Handbook lists them as giving examples and illustrations, narration, description, process analysis, comparison and contrast, analogy, cause and effect analysis, classification and division, and definition.

The presentation in your Handbook creates the misperception that we use these strategies in isolation from one another. In reality, though, we're more likely to use different ones of them in combination with others. More often than not, we're using 2-4 of them at once.

For example, Eugene Boe's descriptive paragraph about an invasion of grasshoppers (page 86) uses two different analogies to liken the grasshoppers to a rolling ocean wave and then again to a weather front. Then he uses process analysis or narration to present the sequence of their actions.

In another example, Nelson Aldrich's definition of envy (page 92) can be said to contrast the meaning of "envy" to the meaning of "desire" or to classify envy as a type of desire. Aldrich also uses the description of an empty heart "sucking on air" to convey a sense of envy's special power. He then describes envy as caused (cause/effect analysis) by blindness to good.

Most of the writing we'll be doing in this class will be persuasive rather than informative in character. Two of the most important patterns of development for persuasive writing are analogy and cause/effect analysis. But since these often figure in arguments, it's also possible to misuse these strategies. For that reason, your Handbook also refers you to a discussion of errors in reasoning, section 7g, pages 168-75. Faulty cause/effect reasoning is discussed on pages 173-4. False analogy is discussed on page 172.

Faulty cause/effect reasoning can take many forms. But in general, remember that two events or problems aren't necessarily related by cause and effect just because they occur at close to the same point in time. They may be related in other ways.

To begin with, they may both be effects of another cause. For example, your minister may tell you that an increase in teen pregnancy has been caused by a decrease in teen church attendance. But he's probably wrong. What's probably the case is that an increase in teen pregnancy and a decrease in teen church attendance have both been caused by a broader shift in cultural values.

There's also the famous question asked about the chicken and the egg: Which came first? This question suggests that even when two events or problems are related causally to one another, it's often surprisingly difficult to tell which came first. This kind of question figures into many hot social debates. Here are some examples: Which came first, lots of guns or lots of violent crime? Which came first, a lax moral culture or lots of entertainment reflecting a lax moral culture? Which came first, lack of voter involvement in politics or superficial campaigns that depend on huge contributions from corporate sources and PACs?

Just as cause-effect reasoning must be used with care, so analogies must be created with care. Here's an example of a false analogy: "The budget of the federal government is just like the budget of an individual household or person. If you or your family go on spending more money than you earn, you'll eventually go bankrupt. So too will the federal government." Despite the popularity of this analogy in political campaigns of the 1980s, it's a profoundly misleading comparison. Why? Because there are so many things the government of a nation can do, and individuals cannot do, to control debt. A government prints money and decides how much is in circulation. People don't. A government can control prices. People don't. A government can control interest rates on loans. People don't. A government can collect taxes from citizens. People don't. A government can find legal ways of increasing revenue from those who pay its salary, its citizens. You can't legally compel your boss to increase your salary. In fact no national government has ever "gone broke" the way many people have. Creditors often simply have to write off such debts. The consequences to the debtor nation are complex, and are often social and political rather than economic in the strict sense of the term.

While these two patterns of development are the most easily abused, any thought process can be, well, less than accurate or legitimate. People are also apt to make false assumptions involving definition or process, and these can blow an argument right out of the water. For example, take a look in your Handbook at the errors in reasoning labelled "non sequitur" (page 172), "either/or fallacy" (page 173) and "circular reasoning" (page 174). The "non sequitur" on page 172 involves a false assumption about process; you don't learn to be a great cook by eating a lot. The false dichotomy on page 173 also involves a false assumption about process; you don't get a good job by and only by learning to program a computer; nor will learning to program a computer by itself assure you of getting a good job. And the piece of circular logic on page 174 involves a screwed-up definition of the term "student council meeting." Even if we assume that student councils are run primarily by students, who said that nobody who isn't a student can comment, advise, or even get in the door?

The moral is a simple one. Be careful how you use the patterns of development when you're trying to persuade people of something, as you'll usually be doing in this class. This doesn't mean that you can't make your own assumptions about process, definition, comparison, or cause and effect. But it DOES mean that you should acknowledge your assumptions as assumptions. It also means that if possible, you should mention alternative interpretations and indicate why you don't credit them as much.

Below I'll list links to specific discussions using the patterns of development. I have only one link so far. It's on presidential sexual misconduct. Patterns of development will also figure into the discussion of the directions for some future assignments, such as my famous (upcoming) platitude assignment. (If that's not posted when you access this file, I hope to have it up before the next class.)