Bigfoot Outline

INTRO

Attention Getter: My sister told me when I was younger that she saw Bigfoot, and that it was the most terrifying, humongous, hairiest beast she ever saw. She asked if I wanted to see it too, and I said yes, of course, so she hurried me to the other side of the house, pointing in the direction I was to look and all I saw was a mirror reflection of myself. Sisters are mean.

Thesis: Though my sister and I were young at that time, the author of this article is 67 and could be going delusional, but this article seems credible because she vividly describes what she saw and heard and uses her experience as an RN and former pilot to support her credibility as well as uses exact numbers which are often associated with facts.

Credibility: I’m Rachel and apparently I’m Bigfoot so I must know a thing or two about this topic.

Preview: Fallacies and P-OT

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

MAIN POINT (3): Including 3 Fallacies

TRANSITION: Next, we’re going to look at arguments using Perelmen’s chart

MAIN POINT (3): P-OT

CONCLUSION:

Summary: In conclusion, we talked about how these fallacies enhanced this article and can be seen as credible because it is able to use data, and describe what is happening.

Clencher: Plus, I would know that bigfoot is real since I’m here now. Thank you.

Bigfoot Slides Outline

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

Bigfoot outline/ slides

Intro: 

-attention getter

-name and credibility: the person who wrote the bigfoot story and the people who made the charts

-thesis: this apparent “bigfoot sighting” is just another story that was made by someone who claims they saw something they WANTED to see but in reality probably saw something else

Body:

-wishful thinking: “because I was using the tree line as cover.”......”Well now that I was within good sight of the creature. It was easy to see what it was.” He couldn’t see very well because of the tree line, but he claims he could tell what the creature was, in reality he wanted it to be bigfoot

-hasty generalization: “I had a roommate who was 6'7” and this creature would have easily stood over him. At the best guess I would have to say that it was 7'6” tall” He was at least 75 ft away from the creature so it would be hard for him to compare it to something just from memory

-red herring: “I had talked to two local fishermen about what was in these rivers, and what to use.” In this paragraph he was talking about his surroundings and the environment he was in

-unrepresentative sample: “At first I thought that it was just a stump, seeing that I had left my glasses in the truck. Now my vision isn’t that bad, but I still need them for driving. But, I started feeling a little uneasy due to an earlier encounter” He couldn’t see well so he couldn’t be  sure of what he saw

-fact, supposed: “Now, I had a roommate who was 6'7” and this creature would have easily stood over him. At the best guess I would have to say that it was 7'6” tall” He’s assuming that the creature was 7’6” but there’s no way for him to be completely sure considering he was about 75 yds away

-presence, time: “After the creature had left, I did the same, once I could get my feet working again.“ When he saw the  creature leave he didn’t know where it was going so he wanted to get somewhere safe as soon as possible, especially because it  had seen him too

-presence, space: “I got to within about 75 yards, because I was using the tree line as cover. That was as close as I wanted to get.” 75 ft being close can be subjective, but being 75 ft from an unusual huge creature can feel a little too close

-succession: “Well now that I was within good sight of the creature. It was easy to see what it was. It finally stood up, and I didn’t know up until that point how big it really was.“ Since he decided to get  fairly close to the creature it helped to better make out what it probably was and some details of it

Conclusion: 

-restate thesis

-summary

-clincher

Bigfoot Outline

Outline:

Introduction:

Attention Getter: Story about time I lied to my parents and tried to seem credible.

Credibility: I’m Ally, and I don’t know much about bigfoot, but this “encounter” took place in my

hometown.

Thesis: These people are desperately trying to sound credible when they’re actually not because

Bigfoot isn’t real.

Preview: We’re going to look at the ways it almost succeeds and how it obviously fails.

***Credit: Vrooman’s fallacy and P-OT charts

Body:

1. Almost succeeds - mostly witness encounter
1. Fallacies: appeal to misleading authority, bandwagon
2. P-OT: facts, interpretation

2. Obvious fails - mostly follow up report
1. Fallacies: hasty generalization, anecdotal, cum hoc
2. P-OT: metaphor, illustration

Conclusion:

Summary: Just some yee yee people who didn’t understand what they saw, and bigfoot people try to

make it seem super credible.

Clincher: If you want 5 seconds of fame from the bigfoot community, do what these people did.

Bigfoot slide samples

Some alignment issues, but this is a sample of my bigfoot slides.

Bigfoot outline

Introduction:

Attention getter: Ever see a hairy leg and think its bigfoot? Well join the club, there is one, apparently.

Thesis: The person providing the bigfoot account is establishing and driving home their credibility as it pertains to wilderness experience as well as experience in that area.

Introduction/credibility Just trust me, I’ve been analyzing arguments with Vrooman’s charts for a couple of weeks I’m practically an expert!

Preview: We will be looking at these fallacies (Name them) as well as some argument forms (name them) and how they function to build this credible argument?

I.                    Fallacies

A.    Appeal to misleading Authority

Establishing her credibility

B.     Cum Hoc

Putting together A + B = C

C.     Wishful Thinking

Something must be real to form a symbiotic relationship!

          Transition

II.                 P-OT

A.    Loci - Quantity

The amount of experience  

B.     Single

Well I saw it, it must be true!

C.     Intention

Putting it all together.

                        Transition

III.              SUMMARIZE

            IV. Conclusion

A.    Thesis: The subject in this account bolsters not only her credibility with being experienced outdoors, but also an expert on her immediate area, and having vast knowledge on 4-legged animals and uses that to make her account more credible.

B.     Clincher If we all run around in the forest in Chewbacca costumes, we have great potential of creating solid content for next year’s rhetoric class!

BigFoot Slides