Gloria LaRiva Quasilogical Argument Data Table

PREMISE	QUASILOGICAL ARGUMENTS	EXAMPLE	EXPLANATION
Concrete values		“I am writing as a working woman, feminist, socialist and candidate for the United States…”	She is first standing her ground as who she is morally and what values she holds as a presidential candidate, she does this so whoever is reading can tell from the beginning, hey I have these same values, let me find our more information and will continue to read her viewpoints. It is important to her argument that she states this first, so the reader can then agree with her relating examples in the statement.
	Descriptive definition	“I am writing as a working woman, feminist, socialist and candidate for the United States…”	This is similar to the post above, however this statement is the ground support for all of her arguments that she is making in this release, if she states this at the beginning people are more likely to refer back to what she believes in and are more likely to agree with it.
	Representivity coexistence	“In a desperate attempt to reverse the growing support among young women and men for her opponents in the Democratic Party primaries, Hilary Clinton has enlisted the support of notorious war monge and advocate of mass murder, Madeline Albright”.	She then puts Hilary Clinton into a box of what she is accusing her of being a part of, which is the supporting of mass murder, and supporting the loss of many innocent women and children. By her placing this right where she did it already makes her seem as if she is the better candidate. How? Because she just stated her opinions and mirrored them with her opponents. She is showing the group that her opponents are affiliated with.
Concrete data		“On May 12th 1996, nearly six years into the US/UN sanctions, alrbight was interviewed on CBS…” “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price- we think that the price is worth it…” “We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing and that’s what they are going to get…”	She then comes with factual evidence of what Hilary and Albright have actually said during interviews to sway her supporters or readers into, wow these people are terrible, why would they say these kind of things. While she has a ton of examples she never really has context to put them in or an explanation as to why these people would say these things. Which why would she, it would then take the focus off of her being the one in the right light.
	Coexistence intention	“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”	Showing this she is showing that she is not making any sense in her own argument. If she is in support for these women to help each other out then why is she in support of bombing innocent people that are in these countries.
	Coexistence prestige	“Special place” Madeleine Albright would most assuredly be going” and along with her would be candidate Clinton.	Uses Clintons own argument against Clinton and Albright.
Presence repetition		Women, children, war, death, wounded	All of these things are affiliated with feminist views and obviously the ethics of care. She is putting an emphasis on these things because these are what people remember, death. Especially women and children who virtually are always innocent, this makes Hilary and Albright look really bad.