1. What does it mean to qualify or temper an argument, and why is this important for addressing complexity?
2. How does the O'Bannon case illustrate that arguments rarely have simple right-or-wrong answers?
3. What is the "complex middle" and how does it differ from binary thinking about arguments?
A. Acknowledging Different Perspectives
1. Why do absolute terms like "always," "never," and "completely" limit the effectiveness of an argument?
2. How can acknowledging multiple perspectives on the same issue strengthen an argument rather than weaken it?
3. What does Figure 7-1 demonstrate about how a simple binary position can break down into more nuanced perspectives?
1. What is the purpose of using modifiers in argument, and how do they help writers avoid oversimplification?
A. Finding the Complex Middle
1. Why are claims like "Shakespeare is the best playwright of all time" considered simplistic, and what makes them difficult to defend?
B. Words as Modifiers
1. What do limiting words like "arguably," "may," "possibly," and "some" accomplish when added to absolute claims?
2. How do modifying words like "sometimes," "often," and "rarely" make claims more precise and accurate?
C. Phrases as Modifiers
1. What are the three main types of phrases that can qualify claims, and how does each type function differently?
2. How do prepositional phrases, appositive phrases, and participial phrases limit the scope of a claim?
D. Clauses as Modifiers
1. What is the difference between independent and dependent clauses, and why are dependent clauses particularly useful for qualifying claims?
2. How do adverbial clauses help writers address counterarguments and alternative perspectives in their claims?
3. What role do adjectival clauses play in providing additional information that qualifies or limits a main claim?
absolute terms
clauses
complex
complexity
counterarguments
modifiers
phrases
qualify