Bigfoot Outline

INTRO

Attention Getter: Today I’m going to be talking about a species that is composed of wild savages and undomesticated creatures. And no, I’m not talking about sasquatches, I’m talking about businessmen. 

Thesis: This article is not credible because it uses fallacies and arguments to justify the sighting, rather than describing the event and letting the story and “facts” speak for themselves.  

Credibility: I have been to Jefferson County several times and have never seen Bigfoot there also my analysis of the report

Preview: Arguments Repetition & Waste, Fallacies Appeal to Authority & Cum Hoc

References: Vrooman’s fallacies chart and Perelmen’s argument chart

MAIN POINT: Waste

Preview: Other than this article being a waste of my time, it is using the rhetorical device waste by showing us the effort these two men have put into their Bigfoot endeavours 

Point: The two men are planning on spending more time in the area, so you should trust them that they will get to the bottom of this because they are invested

TRANSITION: Next, we’re going to look at another argument from the Perlmen chart

MAIN POINT: Repetition

Preview: A lot is repeated, but we are going to look at one instance in particular

Point: The repetition of the mule deer situation is the author’s way of clinging onto the one real instance of possibly convincing evidence, so he really drives it into his audience

TRANSITION: Speaking about clinging to this evidence, we’re going to look at a fallacy that is related to the whole mule deer topic

MAIN POINT: Cum Hoc

Preview: Because deer pick and choose the creatures they’re afraid of, we’re going to talk about how we know this was a Bigfoot sighting

Point: Because the mule deer were not startled and there was a tall creature that crossed the road at the same time, the create was definitely Bigfoot

TRANSITION: For my last section, we’re going to discuss an appeal to authority

MAIN POINT: Appeal to Authority

Preview: These two men… excuse me, outdoorsmen, really want you to believe them and they definitely have the credentials to back up their claim

Point: The author includes any sort of credibility to be able to show the audience why they are correct in what they saw, even if their argument includes the convincing claim of “I’m absolutely positive what we saw was authentic.” 

CONCLUSION:

Summary: In conclusion, we talked about how waste, repetition, cum hoc, and appeal to authority add a layer of falseness to this narrative because they are overselling this story to its audience

Thesis: The story is then not credible because it is trying way too hard to prove itself, rather than describing what happened and details about the event. 

Clencher: When women are offered equal pay instead of 78 cents to the dollar compared to men in the workplace, maybe then I’ll listen to what two businessmen tell me what I should believe