Nonfiction, Argument, and Evaluating Sources

The debatable statement an author wants you to accept. It must be arguable — "The city should double bus funding" is a claim; "The city runs 40 routes" is just a fact.

The logic — stated or unstated — that connects the evidence to the claim, the "so what?" It's where most weak arguments break, since evidence can be true while the reasoning is shaky.

Claim (the arguable position), evidence (facts, stats, expert testimony, examples), and reasoning/warrant (the logic linking evidence to claim).

Naming the strongest objection to your own position and answering it. An essay that never acknowledges the other side is usually preaching to believers or hiding something.

Ethos = credibility (credentials, fair tone, accurate citation). Pathos = emotional appeal. Logos = logic and data (statistics, studies, cause-and-effect).

When emotion *replaces* evidence instead of illustrating it. Similarly, ethos becomes a con when the 'expert' is credentialed in an unrelated field.

Word choice that carries built-in judgment, like "bureaucrats" vs. "public servants." Calling a plan a 'blank check' frames it as reckless before any numbers appear.

Straw man refutes a weakened, distorted version of the opponent's view; ad hominem attacks the person instead of their argument.

Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B — confusing correlation with causation.

Bias is perspective; it becomes a problem through selective evidence, omitted context, or slanted language. SIFT = Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims to the original.