Developing Writers of Argument Tools and Rules That Sharpen Student Reasoning 1st Edition Michael W. Smith

Full download ebook at ebookname.
com
Developing Writers of Argument Tools and Rules

That Sharpen Student Reasoning 1st Edition Michael
W. Smith
https://ebookname.com/product/developing-writers-of-
argument-tools-and-rules-that-sharpen-student-reasoning-1st-
edition-michael-w-smith/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Developing Young Writers In The Classroom 1st Edition

Gail Loane
https://ebookname.com/product/developing-young-writers-in-the-
classroom-1st-edition-gail-loane/
Grammar Troublespots A Guide for Student Writers 3rd

Edition Ann Raimes
https://ebookname.com/product/grammar-troublespots-a-guide-for-
student-writers-3rd-edition-ann-raimes/
The New Rules of Green Marketing Strategies Tools and

Inspiration for Sustainable Branding 1st Edition
Jacquelyn A. Ottman
https://ebookname.com/product/the-new-rules-of-green-marketing-
strategies-tools-and-inspiration-for-sustainable-branding-1st-
edition-jacquelyn-a-ottman/
Handbook of Fluoropolymer Science and Technology 1st

Edition Smith Dennis W. (Ed.)
https://ebookname.com/product/handbook-of-fluoropolymer-science-
and-technology-1st-edition-smith-dennis-w-ed/
Mind Tools E Book New Edition Helena Smalman-Smith
https://ebookname.com/product/mind-tools-e-book-new-edition-
helena-smalman-smith/
Stock Market Rules 3rd Edition Michael D. Sheimo
https://ebookname.com/product/stock-market-rules-3rd-edition-
michael-d-sheimo/
Developing Student Graduateness and Employability

Issues Provocations Theory and Practical Guidelines 1st
Edition Melinde Coetzee
https://ebookname.com/product/developing-student-graduateness-
and-employability-issues-provocations-theory-and-practical-
guidelines-1st-edition-melinde-coetzee/
Astrophysical Jets and Beams 1st Edition Michael D.

Smith
https://ebookname.com/product/astrophysical-jets-and-beams-1st-
edition-michael-d-smith/
Creative colleges a guide for student actors artists

dancers musicians and writers Fourth Edition Loveland
https://ebookname.com/product/creative-colleges-a-guide-for-
student-actors-artists-dancers-musicians-and-writers-fourth-
edition-loveland/
What Your Colleagues Are Saying . . .
Smith and Imbrenda care about deep and meaningful learning. In this book, they show
how argument can be taught in ways that develop tremendous engagement and deep
understanding through a process that is in service of critical literacy and social imagination
and responsibility. There are a lot of books about argument out there. I’d argue that this
one is the best and most transformative I’ve ever read. The “so what” lessons on reasoning/
warranting alone will transform your teaching of argument and of much else.
—Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Distinguished Professor of English Education at
Boise State University, Author of “You Gotta BE the Book!” and
Diving Deep Into Nonfiction and 35 other books about literacy
I was impressed with how Smith and Imbrenda’s approach helped students who are usually
passive learners become so engaged in discussions about readings. Our test scores reflected
that passion.
—Matthew Record, Principal, Pocomoke Middle School,
Pocomoke City, MD
In just a few weeks, Smith and Imbrenda’s approach to instruction transformed my classroom.
My students and I became passionate about our reading, writing, and discussions; our state
assessment scores went up. This stuff works. I wish I had known about it my whole career.
—Hanna Poist, Language Arts Teacher, Pocomoke Middle School,
Pocomoke City, MD
Developing Writers of Argument is not only a practical guide for teaching students, but also
a practical guide for educating teachers in the art of argument made simple. Instead of
throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the authors draw upon years of research-based
strategies and methodologies to make lessons real and relevant for today’s learner. Reading
the lessons provided me that “aha” moment and helped me to internalize the need for the
three R’s (relevance, responsibility, and respect) in teaching and learning.
—Kym Sheehan, Teacher/Curriculum Specialist,
Charlotte County Public Schools, FL
The lessons in this book are unique and engaging. My students can relate to the art of
argument and have learned to respond using skills that have greatly enhanced their ability
to express an argument persuasively. The ideas in this book have enabled a larger percentage
of my students to write effectively and efficiently, and using them as a model has helped me
design my own lessons that have proven equally effective. I highly recommend this writing
program!
—Philadelphia Pathways Teacher
DEVELOPING
WRITERS of
ARGUMENT
To all of the students, teachers, student teachers, administrators, and
colleagues who have made our work on the Pathways project so rewarding.
DEVELOPING
WRITERS of
ARGUMENT
TOOLS & RULES 20
That Sharpen Ready-to-Use
Lessons
STUDENT REASONING
online
resources resources.corwin.com/writersofargument
Michael W. Smith
Jon-Philip Imbrenda
Foreword by Jim Burke
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright  2018 by Corwin
Corwin All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are included, their use
A SAGE Company is authorized only by educators, local school sites, and/or noncommercial or
nonprofit entities that have purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part of
2455 Teller Road
this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
(800) 233-9936 and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
www.corwin.com
All trademarks depicted within this book, including trademarks appearing as
part of a screenshot, figure, or other image, are included solely for the purpose
SAGE Publications Ltd. of illustration and are the property of their respective holders. The use of the
1 Oliver’s Yard trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by, the
55 City Road holders of said trademarks.
London EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Printed in the United States of America
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
ISBN 978-1-5063-5433-0
India
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Publisher and Senior Program Director: Lisa Luedeke This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Editorial Development Manager: Julie Nemer
Editorial Assistants: Nicole Shade and Jessica Vidal
Production Editor: Melanie Birdsall
Copy Editor: Lana Arndt
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Christine Dahlin
Indexer: Kathy Paparchontis
Cover and Interior Designer: Gail Buschman
Marketing Manager: Rebecca Eaton 18 19 20 21 22 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
DISCLAIMER: This book may direct you to access third-party content via web links, QR codes, or other scannable technologies,
which are provided for your reference by the author(s). Corwin makes no guarantee that such third-party content will be available
for your use and encourages you to review the terms and conditions of such third-party content. Corwin takes no responsibility
and assumes no liability for your use of any third-party content, nor does Corwin approve, sponsor, endorse, verify, or certify such
third-party content.
Contents
Foreword by Jim Burke ix

Acknowledgments xi
PART I. THE ARGUMENT FOR ARGUMENT 1

1 Introduction 2
Argument Cultivates Critical Thinking 3
Argument Fosters Collaborative Reasoning 5
Argument Promotes a Sense of Social Responsibility 6
What This Book Can Offer 7
2 A Classroom Culture of Argumentation 10

Revisiting the Three R’s10
Conversation as a Metaphor for Learning 13
Staging Conversations in Your Classroom 14
So What, Exactly, Is an Argument, Anyway? 16
Claims17
Data17
Warrants18
3 Our Instructional Approach 20

Transferable Classroom Tools 20
Essential/Enduring Questions 21
Gateway Activities 23
Semantic Differential Scales 24
Paragraph Frames 27
So Do They Work? 29
PART II. LESSONS 31

4 Everyday Arguments 32
Introducing the Elements of Argument 32
Lesson 1: Apple Music vs. Spotify 33
Lesson 2: Taco Bell vs. Chipotle 39
Lesson 3: Who Is the Better Superhero? 44
Lesson 4: Which Video Streaming Service Is the Best? 51
Lesson 5: Heinz’s Dilemma 58
Lesson 6: To What Extent Am I Responsible to Others? 63
5 Practicing Three Elements of Argument 70

Lesson 7: Crafting Controversial Claims 71
Lesson 8: What Makes an Effective Claim? 77
Lesson 9: What Makes Effective Data? Part 1 82
Lesson 10: What Makes Effective Data? Part 2 87
Lesson 11: How Do Warrants Relate to Claims and Data? 92
Lesson 12: Practice Writing Warrants 97
6 Applying What They’ve Learned About Argument to Texts 102

Lesson 13: Who Is Going to Bounce Back? 103
Lesson 14: Using Three Key Questions to Understand a Poem 109
Lesson 15: Applying What We’ve Learned to a Literary Argument 115
Lesson 16: Learning the Reader’s Rule of Rupture 122
Lesson 17: Applying Argumentative Strategies to Respond to a Well-Known Theory 127
Lesson 18: Bringing Together All of the Elements of Argument: The Minnesota Twins Study 133
7 Putting It All Together: Applying Argument to Life Choices 140

Lesson 19: Should I Choose a 2-Year or 4-Year College? 141
Lesson 20: What Career Has the Best Potential for Me? 147
8 How to Use This Book 158

Using the Lessons Directly 159
Using the Tools 159
Using Our Lessons as Templates 161
References162
Index163
Visit the companion website at

online resources.corwin.com/writersofargument
resources
for downloadable lesson handouts.
Foreword
I learn something interesting, new, useful, and important every time I talk with Michael Smith, hear him
speak at a conference, or read anything he writes. As with the best writers and thinkers, his ideas stem from
careful and sustained attention, the results of which he has distilled down to their essence. As Michael
said to me once when I expressed my frustration about the page limits imposed on a certain book I was
writing, “Great! More thinking, less writing!” This passing remark sums up so much of the work Michael
has done for so many years: a career spent thinking about the work we do every day as teachers with no
greater aim than to help us do it a little better, a little deeper, a little more easily, so that we can enjoy the
work and feel we have room to grow. These qualities are very much in evidence in the book you’re holding,
which Michael wrote with Jon-Philip Imbrenda, who, Michael told me, pushed him to do more and deeper
thinking throughout their collaboration. Perhaps this newest book should be titled Developing Teachers of
Argument.
While reading their work, I thought often of another book, Jack Schneider’s From the Ivory Tower to the
Schoolhouse: How Scholarship Becomes Common Knowledge in Education. In the book, Schneider identi-
fies four “key characteristics” of scholarly work that achieves an enduring place in teachers’ curriculum and,
perhaps more important, their practice. All four of these characteristics are present in Michael and Jon-
Philip’s book and offer me what they would call a useful “frame” for discussing their ideas about argument.
First, according to Schneider, the ideas and the book that contains them must possess what he calls “per-
ceived significance,” which is another way of saying that the ideas offer a solution to something the reader
sees as a real and pressing problem. Few subjects in recent years have presented more challenges to teachers
than understanding and teaching students how to read for and write academic arguments. What Michael
Smith and Jon-Philip Imbrenda do here is demystify not just argument but the larger subject of critical
thinking and how they are related, why they matter, and, most important to our own work as teachers,
how to teach them. Throughout this book, Michael and Jon-Philip “send a practitioner-friendly signal”
(Schneider, 2014, p. 8) to their readers of the value and importance of critical thinking and argument, illus-
trating at every turn how to do or teach what they are discussing.
Schneider’s second characteristic, “philosophical compatibility,” suggests that for teachers to embrace and
add some tool or technique to their practice, it must “clearly jibe with closely held beliefs” that validate what
the teacher already knows and does, while promising to help them do it a little better. As I read this book,
I felt at every turn as though I were reading about some aspect of what I already do, but I was learning new
things—about argument, teaching, critical thinking, reading, and writing—that deepened my understand-
ing and ability to teach these complex processes. This notion of philosophical compatibility is reflected in
the “different set of three R’s” that Michael and Jon-Philip suggest should inform our classroom culture and
practice: relevance, responsibility, and respect.
The third characteristic Schneider proposes is one all teachers value and which we often use to evaluate the
ideas an author or presenter suggests we adopt; it is an idea Schneider calls “occupational realism” (p. 8).
In short, it refers to the degree to which we can put another’s ideas (in this case, the ideas from this book)
into immediate use within the constraints of our teaching situation. So, for example, I necessarily read this
ix
book and wonder if the ideas would work in my classes of 35 seniors, whose abilities and needs stretch out
across a pretty wide array, all of whom I must do my best to teach within our 51-minute periods and, when
possible, while incorporating the computers we have in my classroom. Would the ideas here work just as
well in a class that was 40 minutes or 90 minutes? Absolutely. Does one need a class set of Chromebooks to
teach anything in this book? No, not at all. In other words, all the ideas I found here were realistic for me
and any other teacher I know within the constraints of our teaching situation.
Finally, Schneider rounds out his list of characteristics of useful and enduring work by stressing the impor-
tance of what he calls “transportability.” The typical teacher teaches more than one prep, grade level, or
class, all of which make so many demands on the teacher that the teacher cannot often afford to invest
the time it would take to learn a strategy or technique they can use in only one class or a few times a year.
Transportability, in other words, refers to how well a tool, technique, or teaching strategy works across these
different classes, throughout the year, or across the units one teaches in the course of a year. Here, again,
Michael and Jon-Philip’s ideas offer all of us useful resources we can use in August as well as April, in our
freshman classes as well as in our AP English classes. Whether it is the templates or the idea of paragraph
frames, the different types of analytical scales or the 20 different lessons themselves, the treasures in this
book will spend as easily and well in one class as they will in another.
Schneider argues that if a book or theory has these four attributes I have outlined above in abundance,
teachers will “notice, accept, use, and share it” with their colleagues and students (p. 7). Indeed, I find these
attributes throughout this book, as I have in so much of the work Michael Smith has done over the years
on his own, through his collaboration with Jeff Wilhelm, and now with Jon-Philip Imbrenda. So much of
his work could be summed up in those four words above: he notices things he knows we want to learn or do
better, frames them in language we can both accept and use in our own classrooms, and shares it with us in
books like this that we cannot wait to share with our colleagues who are grappling with the same questions
and challenges.
Whether you read this book for five minutes or five hours, you will find here the answers to questions you
have asked about argument (“What is Toulmin’s model of argument again?”), critical thinking (“How do
you get students to think analytically about different types of literary and nonfiction texts?”), or instruc-
tional design (“How do you create a unit or a lesson about argument that students can grasp and apply to
their own lives or the world at large?”). You will find here lessons for developing writers of argument, but
you will also find this book is essential reading for developing teachers of argument.
—Jim Burke, Author of Academic Moves for College and

Career Readiness and The Common Core Companion
x Developing Writers of Argument

Acknowledgments
In this book, we share the words of students who inspired and informed our teaching. IRB requirements
keep us from mentioning them by name, but we owe them a debt of gratitude. Likewise, many thanks to
their teacher and her principals, who also must remain nameless. Their openness to innovation, hospital-
ity, and collaborative spirit have been crucial to the project’s success. None of our work would have been
possible without the support, financial and otherwise, of Chris Bruner, Dave Burkavage, Devin Cahill,
Darin Hardy, Mike Shields, and all of their colleagues at Ernst & Young. Lisa Luedeke, our editor and the
publisher at Corwin Literacy, helped us imagine the shape of the book and kept us on track as we worked
to bring it to life. Julie Nemer, Nicole Shade, Melanie Birdsall, Gail Buschman, and the entire production
and design team at Corwin have been a pleasure to work with. In addition, a team of teacher reviewers
whom Corwin enlisted provided very valuable feedback as we were developing and refining our ideas.
Hugh Kesson has been instrumental both in continuing the work of the Pathways program and in encour-
aging us to develop and refine our thinking.
Michael would also like to thank the late great George Hillocks, Jr., who taught him so much about teach-
ing writing, and all of his University of Chicago friends with whom he has spent so many hours arguing
about argument, especially Joe Flanagan, Steve Gevinson, Larry Johannessen, Betsy Kahn, Steve Littell,
Tom McCann, and Peter Smagorinsky. Jeff Wilhelm is always a voice in Michael’s ear when he thinks
about teaching. Thanks also to Gregory M. Anderson, Michael’s dean, who allowed him to carve out the
time he needed to do the work we report here. Finally, thanks to his wife, Karen Flynn, for her ongoing
encouragement to do the kind of work that matters in the lives of kids.
Jon-Philip adds his thanks to the faculty of the College of Education at Temple University who appren-
ticed him into the many conversations that have shaped his professional life: Carol Brandt, Wanda Brooks,
Maia Cucchiara, Avi Kaplan, Kristie Newton, Frank Sullivan, and Barbara Wasik. He is also grateful for
the advice and feedback, always apt and readily given, of Eli Goldblatt and George Newell. Above all, he
thanks his family for their tireless optimism, encouragement, and support.
Publisher’s Acknowledgments
Corwin gratefully acknowledges the following reviewers:
Lynn Angus Ramos Andy Schoenborn

K–12 English Language Arts Coordinator English Teacher
DeKalb County School District Mt. Pleasant Public Schools
Stone Mountain, GA Mt. Pleasant, MI
Lydia Bowden Kym Sheehan

Assistant Principal Teacher/Curriculum Specialist
Pinckneyville Middle School Charlotte County Public Schools
Peachtree Corners, GA Port Charlotte, FL
xi
PART I
The Argument for Argument

Chapter 1
Introduction
In one of our favorite Monty Python skits, a man, played by Michael Palin, enters
a clinic and explains to the receptionist that he would like to pay for a 5-minute
argument. The receptionist directs him to a room down the hallway. When he
enters the room, he finds another man, played by John Cleese, sitting at a desk.
“Ah, is this the right room for an argument?” Palin’s character asks.
Cleese’s character brusquely responds, “I’ve told you once.”
“No, you haven’t,” says Palin.
“Yes, I have,” replies Cleese.
The back and forth continues for a few more seconds as Palin’s character becomes
increasingly frustrated and eventually proclaims, “Look, this isn’t an argument!
It’s just contradiction.”
Cleese’s character answers, “No, it isn’t.”
As the repartee continues, it evolves into an argument about the very definition of
argument. Palin’s character asserts, “An argument’s not the same as contradiction.”
Cleese’s character rebuts, “Well, it can be.”
“An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposi-
tion,” Palin’s character continues.
Cleese’s character ripostes, “Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary
position.”
Palin’s character elaborates his position further. “Argument is an intellectual
process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other
person says.”
Just as time runs out, Cleese’s character offers up a final rebuttal, “No, it isn’t.”
We sometimes show this clip to our students and ask them to evaluate the quality
of the argument that takes place between the two characters. Their responses
vary, but for the most part what we find is that their understanding of argument is
most closely reflected in the attitude of Cleese’s character. They generally think
2 Developing Writers of Argument

of argument as an analog for debate or disagreement. While we certainly agree
that debate and disagreement can sometimes be very effective classroom tools,
we also try to honor the position that Palin’s character emphasizes: Argument is
not just debate and disagreement. It’s a process—an intellectual process, a social
process, a cultural process. Argument is reasoning. Argument is literacy.
Think of five different arguments you’ve seen on TV or

in movies. You might consider legal arguments from
courtroom dramas, political debates on news shows,
family disputes on sitcoms, or disagreements among
CONSIDER
co-workers. How are arguments typically portrayed in
popular culture? Do they reflect the points of view of
THIS
both characters from the Monty Python skit?
Luckily, we’re not alone in our appreciation for the value of argument. In recent
years, literacy scholars have taken up the importance of argument as the basis for Argument is not just
quality instruction in classrooms spanning grade levels and subject areas. Michael debate and disagreement.
has previously written about the usefulness of argument as a way to address
the Common Core State Standards for Language Arts (Smith, Wilhelm, &
Fredricksen, 2012). Jon-Philip has designed and implemented an entire cur- Argument is reasoning.
riculum for college-bound high school students that is based on argument Argument is literacy.
(Imbrenda, in press). Since the focus of this book is on providing teachers with
ready-to-use lessons and activities, we’re not going to get into a lengthy review of
all the literature around the role of argument in secondary classrooms. Instead,
we want to highlight and discuss briefly three primary reasons for teaching argu-
ment to all our students:
1. Argument cultivates critical thinking.

2. Argument fosters collaborative reasoning.
3. Argument promotes a sense of social responsibility.
Let’s think about each of these goals in a little more detail.
Argument Cultivates Critical Thinking

We make arguments every day of our lives. Whether we’re choosing the best
restaurant to eat at, the right smartphone to buy, or the podcasts we want to listen
to on our commutes to work, we’re taking into account many different factors
and making a judgment based on how we evaluate those factors. We probably
wouldn’t refer to these everyday situations as examples of critical thinking. Most
of the time these arguments take place internally, and the thought processes
involved happen so fast we’re barely aware of them.
Chapter 1. Introduction

3
Yet we probably all know a few people who seem to go a step further when it
comes to certain kinds of everyday decisions. People who are very tech-savvy
and carefully compare products based on complex hardware specifications.
People who are particularly mindful of the nutritional quality of the foods
Critical thinking is they eat. People who are keenly discerning about the kinds of media they
about getting beyond choose to consume. They’re the people whom we go to for suggestions when
“Here’s what I think,” we’re not so sure what we want. Jon-Philip’s brother, an engineer, spent nearly
2 months doing research before he purchased a new laptop. He compared
and into the realm
dozens of pre-built models and even went a step further in comparing the
of “Here’s what I think. specific components inside those pre-built models to decide if he wanted to
Here’s what makes me go ahead and build one himself. His comparisons were richly informed by his
think that. And here’s expertise in the field of electrical engineering and by his understanding of the
exact things he needed his laptop to be able to do effectively. We might be
why it matters.” more inclined to refer to his decision-making process as an example of critical
thinking because we have a clear sense of how his decision was influenced
by information available to him and the deep knowledge needed to under-
stand and interpret that information. In fact, part of what makes so-called
critical thinking different from just plain old thinking is that critical thinking
requires that we have some degree of awareness of what’s happening when we
make decisions, consider evidence, generate interpretations, and act upon our
judgments. Critical thinking is about getting beyond “Here’s what I think,”
and into the realm of “Here’s what I think. Here’s what makes me think that.
And here’s why it matters.” In this respect, we agree with Michael’s mentor,
George Hillocks, when he argues that the kind of critical thinking we often
champion as an essential goal of education is, in fact, sound argumentation
(Hillocks, 2010). Simply put, thinking critically and arguing effectively are
the same thing!
When we shift the focus of our instruction onto argumentation through
lessons like the ones in this book, and give our students frequent opportunities
to build arguments across a variety of situations, we’re cultivating the kind of
explicit awareness of their own thinking that characterizes Jon-Philip’s brother’s
meticulous efforts to select the best laptop computer. We’re helping them
to move beyond their tacit judgments and into the deeper and often much
more complex inner workings of those judgments. If we do so over time,
we help our students become flexible and strategic in their academic lives.
This kind of thinking becomes a habit, and with encouragement, they are
able to transfer their new skills to the reading, writing, and range of other
tasks they are frequently expected to carry out for school. We hope that the
lessons and tools we present in this book will serve as good examples of how
argumentation cultivates the kind of critical thinking we want our students
to engage in on a regular basis in our classrooms—and will provide practice
for your students to do the same. Our lessons are designed to teach students
to carefully consider the knowledge and information available to them, while
providing them with questions that are relevant to their lives both inside and
outside of the classroom.

While teachers widely agree that critical thinking is an
important goal of learning, there is not always as much
agreement around what we mean by the term critical
thinking. What are your criteria for critical thinking in CONSIDER
your classroom? How do your criteria compare with
our criteria of thinking that involve explicit awareness THIS
of how we consider evidence, generate interpretations,
and make judgments?
Argument Fosters Collaborative Reasoning

Much of what we just discussed in the previous section reflects fairly common
understandings about the value of argument as in the development of individ-
ual learners. However, an equally valuable yet frequently overlooked aspect of
argumentation is its inherently social nature. Newell and his colleagues (2011)
proclaim the benefits of argument as a social practice carried out by groups of
people across many different contexts as opposed to viewing it only as a reflection
of an individual’s cognitive ability. Such benefits are particularly important for us
as educators to understand, as research has shown that the kinds of collaborative
reasoning that characterize socially directed arguments can become powerful
contributors to deep and meaningful learning (Clark et al., 2003; Nussbaum,
2008). Recognizing argument as a social practice helps us get beyond debate and
disagreement and into the kinds of collaborative conversations that impact the
world in important ways.
As a social practice, argument is paramount to the cooperative efforts of pro-
fessionals in many fields. For example, Hagler and Brem (2008) examined
the ways that professional nurses in critical care environments relied on argu-
mentative reasoning to provide care for people with very serious medical
conditions. Through ongoing series of polite informal exchanges of both infor-
mation and interpretations of that information, nurses were able to combine
their knowledge and expertise when reaching agreements about how to handle Research has shown
specific patients. This study is but one of many instances in which argumenta- that the kinds of
tive reasoning is shown to be central to the kinds of collaboration involved in collaborative reasoning
people’s professional lives.
that characterize socially
Moreover, evidence has shown that students who participate consistently in col- directed arguments
laborative arguments in the classroom can develop powerful habits of reasoning
as they adopt the successful strategies of their peers (Clark et al., 2003). Students
can become powerful
who struggled to generate effective arguments on their own showed tremendous contributors to deep and
improvement once argument was placed in the forefront of the social activity in meaningful learning.
the classroom. Much as the nurses in the critical care centers, students in class-
rooms became active participants in their own learning as they worked together
to reach agreements. Due to its inherently social nature, argument bridges the

5
important divide between the individual learner and the social dynamic of the
classroom. We hope that the tools and lessons we present in this book will serve
as good examples of how placing argument at the center of instruction can trans-
form a classroom dynamic into one that is rich with talk and other forms of
cooperative activity.
Can you think of a recent experience where you and

CONSIDER one or more colleagues had to “argue” to come to a
consensus around an important issue in your school?
THIS Did you think of what you were doing as an argument?
Was the discussion ultimately beneficial?
Argument Promotes a
Sense of Social Responsibility
In January of 2015 the Pew Research Center published a report on the findings
from a study in which they examined Americans’ attitudes toward the importance
of science and the value of scientific findings (Kennedy & Funk, 2015). They
administered surveys to a representative sample of 2,002 adults and compared
their responses to the responses of 3,748 members of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). What the report found is somewhat
alarming: While Americans largely value the importance of science and believe
that scientific endeavors should be funded by the government, they are far less
likely to embrace the understandings that scientific research generates. For exam-
ple, despite the fact that 88% of the AAAS scientists reported that genetically
modified foods are safe to eat, 57% of the American public reported that they
believed genetically modified foods to be unsafe to eat. In short, Americans like
the idea of science, but they seem less willing to take scientific research into
consideration when it conflicts with their personal values and lifestyle choices.
Why do we care about these findings, and what do they have to do with argu-
ment? Well, we’re concerned that studies such as this reflect a cultural pheno
menon that is dangerous for our students. Large-scale efforts to evaluate students’
reading and writing have consistently shown that students at all grade levels strug-
gle to reason carefully from evidence and data (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2012). Consistent with the implications of the Pew study, our
students seem to be drifting into a malaise of anti-intellectualism and unwilling-
ness to engage deeply and critically with the world around them. In an era where
people have unprecedented access to information, our culture seems to be more
willing than ever to remain complacent in its often-misguided assumptions.
If we view this as a strictly academic problem, then the previous two sections
should hint at how argument can address that problem. But we don’t view it as a
strictly academic problem. We view it as a social problem, though it’s a problem
that involves education. Yet reform efforts such as the Common Core and other state

standards seem to have no explicit interest in confronting this social problem.
The majority of standards focus on college and career readiness. But what about
readiness for responsible citizenship? What about fostering the social conscience
needed to assume important roles in the future of America? As educators, we’re
very much concerned with not just the colleges and careers our students matricu-
late into, but also with the kinds of people they become. We hope that the lessons
and tools we provide in this book will demonstrate how our emphasis on argument
also contributes to how students read and respond to the world around them, and
how they develop identities as responsible members of society.
Recently, concerns around the increase in so-called fake

news have begun to permeate our classrooms. How
do you help your students navigate the wealth of
media that surround them? Can you think of a recent
CONSIDER
experience with a student or colleague that gave
you some concern for how people determine what is
THIS
truthful or accurate?
What This Book Can Offer

The chapters ahead are intended to serve as a resource for teachers who want to
introduce argument into their classrooms. Chapter 2 provides a brief overview
of the framework that guides our instructional approach and an explanation of a
model of argument that has proved useful to us in our classrooms. In Chapter 3, we
give detailed explanations of a few specific instructional tools that we have had
great success with in helping students to approach reading, writing, and talking
argumentatively.
Chapters 4–7 provide 20 ready-to-go, stand-alone lessons. Each chapter focuses
on a different kind of lesson. Chapter 4 shares six lessons designed to introduce
the model of argumentation by engaging in everyday arguments. Chapter 5 pres-
ents six lessons that focus more precisely on the three elements of that model.
Chapter 6 comprises six lessons that focus in some way or another on textual
analysis. Chapter 7 presents two lessons that require students to apply what
they’ve learned to important life decisions.
We chose our lessons for a number of reasons:
•• They illustrate a wide range of topics that promote argumentation.

•• They demonstrate different ways of using some of our tools.
•• They can stand as the basis for entire units or fit snugly into
pre-existing units.

7
•• They feature an array of different types of data from which arguments
can be generated.
•• They represent a diversity of argumentative contexts and situations.
As educators who have worked in many different environments, we deeply

appreciate the many significant variations that characterize different classrooms,
regions, school systems, and pedagogical approaches. With this in mind, we’ve
also designed our lessons using a flexible format. While we will give suggestions
as to how a teacher might want to implement our topics and tools, there is also
a great deal of room for individual variation. Our lessons and tools can accom-
modate many different formats—full class, small group, peer-to-peer—as well
as mediums for communication—talking, formal and informal writing, visual
and multimedia presentations, etc. We want our materials to be as adaptable
as possible.
Each lesson also includes examples of student writing we’ve collected through
our work in a comprehensive urban high school. As you’ll see, our students, like
many in America, struggle with the complex kinds of reasoning we ask them to
carry out, and with the many challenges that come with trying to communicate
their ideas in writing. We chose the student work here not because it was repre-
sentative of the “best,” but because it was representative of the range of students’
struggles with the demands we placed on them and the high expectations to
which we held them. Therefore, we’ve also included examples of how we might
respond to each student’s work in the hope that our efforts will prove insightful to
teachers who will likely find that their students experience very similar struggles.
And perhaps more importantly, we’ve added a few notes to make visible our
own reasoning as educators who want to reflect on and improve our practice in
response to the emergent needs of our students. We think of this as an example
of how data can be used to drive instruction—a distinct kind of argumentative
reasoning in itself!
Although the 20 lessons that we share provide a clear illustration of our approach
and although we think that you could use them effectively with your students,
we realize that 20 lessons do not a curriculum make. We’ll close, therefore, with
a brief discussion about how you might use the lessons as your year goes on.

Notes


9
Chapter 2
A Classroom Culture of Argumentation
Revisiting the Three R’s

In the previous chapter, we outlined three primary reasons we believe argument
should be taught to all our students:
1. Argument cultivates critical thinking.

2. Argument fosters collaborative reasoning.
3. Argument promotes a sense of social responsibility.
Here we want to give a clear account of how we see these things at work inside
our classrooms. Consider the following scenario:
Over the past few weeks, students have been reading The Kite Runner (Hosseini,
2003) and considering the question “To what extent am I responsible to others?”
To accompany their readings of the novel, they have also been reading about
people whose lives raise interesting questions about the extent of our personal
responsibilities. One such person is Pat Tillman, an all-pro safety for the Arizona
Cardinals who, just after the events of September 11, 2001, abandoned his NFL
career to enlist in the army. Tragically, Tillman was killed in Afghanistan 2 years
later. Tillman’s life introduces some really powerful questions around the extent
to which a person is responsible: Was Tillman’s decision to join the army an
example of noble sacrifice, or reckless idealism? To examine this question, stu-
dents read two short editorials offering contrasting views of Tillman’s life. They
also read a short news article reporting on some of the controversy around his
death. The news report included testimony from his bereaved loved ones.
In class, the students are discussing their responses to the set of readings. The
conversation goes something like this:
Teacher: Okay, so we’ve been reading some about Pat Tillman, and it’s
pretty clear that people have different positions on him. Where do
you stand?
Student 1: I think Tillman was a hero.

Teacher: Okay, well, what makes you say so?
Student 1: He gave his life for his country.
Teacher: Right. But so what?
Student 1: The author here gives the dictionary definition of what
hero means. Tillman is definitely a hero because he fits
the definition.
Student 2: I don’t agree. All he did was hurt the people who matter
most to him.
Teacher: Hmmm, that’s interesting. What makes you say so?
Student 2: You can read right here how his mom and his brother feel like he
died for no reason.
Teacher: Of course his family was devastated by the loss. But so what?
Student 2: Well he was responsible to them, too. He wasn’t thinking about
them when he joined up to fight. You can’t be a respectable
or responsible or heroic person if you don’t care about the
people closest to you.
Student 3: And what about all of his fans from the NFL? He was already a
role model to many people, a lot of them probably kids.
Teacher: What makes you say so?
Student 3: Well, you know how fans feel about sporting figures.
Teacher: Nope. I’m not much of a sports fan.
Student 3: Just look at the article. It says in the article that he turned down
an offer from the Rams just to stay with the Cardinals.
Teacher: Right, he did. So what?
Student 3: Well that means he must have really loved his fans, and he didn’t
want to let them down.
You can probably imagine how this discussion could proceed from here.
Students 1, 2, and 3 could continue to press their positions. Other students
could join in to defend or refute any of those positions. Or another student
could propose an alternative, equally viable way of thinking about the extent
of Tillman’s responsibility. Of course, at some point, we might try to steer
the discussion back to the novel the students have been reading, since it also
offers a range of perspectives regarding the extent of the characters’ respon-
sibilities. Even though the characters in the novel may face different cir-
cumstances than Tillman faced, the dimensions of the question are still the
same: Are we most responsible to our close loved ones? To our local com-
munities? To our nation? To all people? Or perhaps we’re most responsible
only to ourselves?
Chapter 2. A Classroom Culture of Argumentation

11
The argument taking place in this scenario is clearly not of the yes-or-no variety
so poignantly satirized by the Monty Python crew. There is no winner or loser.
There is no obvious right or wrong position. Yet the conversation taking place
We like to think about meets our criteria for the kind of learning we want to promote in our class-
rooms. We’re sure you’re familiar with the age-old three R’s of school. Well, we
our classrooms in terms
like to think about our classrooms in terms of a different set of R’s: Relevance,
of a different set of R’s: Responsibility, and Respect. Let’s talk about how each of these R’s is evidenced
Relevance, Responsibility, in the scenario above:
and Respect.
•• Relevance: Students in our classrooms are hardly surprised when we
ask them to read things. The problem is, they don’t often see how the
things they have to read are relevant to their lives, both now and in the
future. We confront this problem head-on by treating the texts students
read as turns in an ongoing conversation. Moreover, we make sure
those conversations involve topics and themes that are important to
adolescents who are at a stage in their lives where they must confront
many different existential issues. For example, by using the question
“To what extent am I responsible to others?” as a staging ground that
unites the things they read into an ongoing conversation, students can
see how the things they do in school are connected to their immediate
lives. Furthermore, they are also practicing with the kinds of reasoning
and problem-solving that will aid them in their futures both in and out
of the classroom.
•• Responsibility: When students understand how the things they do
in class are relevant to their immediate lives and their futures, they
start to participate in their schooling in new ways. These new ways of
participation involve developing a sense of responsibility toward both
the quality of their arguments, as well as to the moral and ethical
subtexts of the things we ask them to generate arguments around. For
example, by examining the life of Pat Tillman in the context of the
question “To what extent am I responsible to others?” the students
begin to understand how they are accountable for supporting their
positions through specific forms of reasoning. Expectations for what
counts as a good argument become the shared responsibility of the
entire classroom. Moreover, the positions they generate are also
reflections of their own existential growth—they are giving deep
consideration to how they, too, must become responsible participants
within many domains of their lives: home, school, workplace,
community, and so forth.
•• Respect: Assuming the responsibilities that come with being a relevant
participant in classroom conversations requires that students become
careful readers, active listeners, and conscientious contributors to the
ongoing spoken and written dialogue around them. The classroom is
no longer a collection of individual learners; rather, it is a community
of aspiring intellectuals who are preparing to enter into the larger
conversations of their lives. Through this preparation, students develop

a deep sense of respect for others, for the need to ascertain the quality
of the messages conveyed to them through peers and popular media,
and for the ways in which their roles as classroom participants both
shape and are shaped by the ways in which they are able to participate
in the classroom community. In short, they are not just learning what
they need to know, but they are also learning how to contribute to the
generation of knowledge. This kind of learning, we believe, engenders a
considerable degree of respect.
Conversation as a Metaphor for Learning

By now, you’ve probably noticed that our view of learning is firmly rooted in
a particular metaphor: We see learning as participating in a series of ongoing We see learning as
conversations. At times these conversations are spoken. At times they’re written. participating in a series
At times they are carried out through a wide range of media and modes of expres- of ongoing conversations.
sion. And at times they’re entirely internal—they are the conversations we have
within ourselves that Vygotsky (1987), one of our intellectual heroes, so focused
on in his extremely influential work. Sometimes these conversations are situated
within a particular domain as when we learn about cells in biology class, or
when we study chains of events from U.S. history; at other times, they cut across
domains as when we examine the impact of carbon monoxide on the atmosphere,
or when we try to unravel the complex phenomenon of human intelligence. In
all cases, learning is about becoming a more and more capable participant in an
ever-expanding variety of conversations.
Think about five different conversations you’ve participated in

over the last week. Perhaps you browsed the news online
before work, discussed dinner options with a spouse
or partner, exchanged lesson ideas with a colleague,
read a few chapters from a novel before bedtime, CONSIDER
etc. What kinds of knowledge and experiences
informed your capacity to participate in each of these
THIS
conversations? How were they similar or different?
As much as we would like to lay claim to the conversation metaphor, admit-

tedly, it is not our own. It is borne out of our appreciation for some of our most
important intellectual influences—appreciation we developed through the con-
versations we participate in. As we mentioned above, it is rooted in the work of
Vygotsky (1987), who first theorized the extent to which learning was a function
of our social encounters as opposed to innate cognitive processes. It is rooted
in the work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991), an unlikely duo (Lave is
a social anthropologist, and Wenger is a computer scientist!) who studied how
people learn in a wide range of informal contexts to show how learning is deeply

13
situated in our immediate contexts and interactions with others. And, of course,
we have to give credit to Arthur Applebee (1996, p. 3) who so eloquently argues
for a vision of curriculum as “knowledge-in-action,” arising out of “participation
in ongoing conversations about things that matter.”
Such conversations, when held to Applebee’s vision, are powerful both within
and across classrooms and other settings. Above, we used the example of “To
what extent am I responsible to others?” as a way to unify the things students
do in class under a common purpose that promotes relevance, responsibility,
and respect. Think about how that conversation could carry into a social studies
classroom where students are learning about the central tenets of democracy, or
a science classroom where students are learning about the impact of pollution
on the regional ecology. And beyond the classroom, the conversations will surely
carry into our students’ lives when they are ready to vote in local and national
elections or make informed decisions about their career paths.
Another favorite unit of ours is built around the question

“What does it mean to be smart?” What kinds of
CONSIDER cross-curricular connections can you think of that this
THIS unit would benefit from? In what ways do you think

participating in the conversation around that question
would aid students outside of school?
Staging Conversations in Your Classroom

Embracing the conversation metaphor so as to establish relevance, responsibility,
and respect as the governing principles in the classroom allows for argumenta-
tion to become the basis for how shared purposes and understandings are negoti-
ated by the students themselves. Argumentation becomes a distinct kind of social
activity—a collective set of practices that allow for conversations to be carried
out on a daily basis. Setting the stage for these conversations is not as difficult as
it may seem. It does require some planning, but it is also a function of how we
frame and present things to our students.
Let’s take a very prototypical example: reading Romeo and Juliet with a group
of ninth graders who are dealing with the transition into high school. Consider
three possible prompts that could invite reflection and discussion, both oral and
written, once students have completed their readings of the play:
1. Explain how the prologue of Romeo and Juliet sets up the ending
of the play.
2. To what extent does Romeo and Juliet’s relationship resemble other
relationships that you’ve experienced, seen, or read about?

3. Which of the three works we’ve read—Romeo and Juliet, Oedipus the
King, or The Crucible—most effectively responds to the question “To
what extent can we control our own destiny?”
We would argue that, as the basis for promoting a culture of conversation, these
three prompts do not work equally well. Let’s consider each one:
•• Prompt 1: The prologue of Romeo and Juliet, while an excellent

example of Shakespeare’s stylistic acumen, is rather straightforward
insofar as it prepares the audience for the ending of the play. We’re
told that amidst the feuding between two noble families, a pair of
young lovers will enter into an ill-fated affair that will end in their
deaths. There’s not much subtlety or ambiguity here. The first
prompt gives students very few options for developing a sustainable
interpretation. In fact, if we think about it, the first prompt calls
for little more than a perfunctory summary of the plot of the play.
Don’t get us wrong: the reasons that teachers might cite for favoring
the first prompt are usually quite valid. They want to make sure
their assignments have clear expectations that can be fairly assessed.
They look at that first prompt, and they see something that is easy to
manage, while still placing appropriate demands on their students. We
respect their concerns, but we’re far less willing to settle for the kinds
of conversations that prompt could generate.
•• Prompt 2: This one is definitely a step in the right direction. It has
some good potential to invite ongoing conversations within culturally
relevant domains. However, when we think about it in terms of
a conversation that can unfold according to shared practices and
understandings, we’re a little less enthusiastic. We appreciate the
range and variety of responses it could elicit from our students, and
we like how an important work of literature stands at the center of
the conversation, but we don’t see many opportunities to shape those
responses into academically sanctioned arguments. The problem is
that the question of whether or not Romeo and Juliet exemplifies other
kinds of relationships doesn’t reflect the kinds of questions that are
taken up in the communities of practice we’re preparing our students
to enter. Except for some very specialized sub-fields in philosophy or
anthropology, we’re not aware of any disciplines that have developed
agreed-upon ways to investigate that question. We wouldn’t really
know how to shape our students’ responses into academically
sanctioned modes of reasoning and forms of communication.
Although the question certainly calls for an argument, it’s not quite
the kind of argument we want to apprentice them into. So, while
we would endorse asking Question 2, we don’t think a steady diet of
Question 2’s provides the kind of practice students need to become
relevant participants in a wide range of conversations both inside and
outside of school.

15
•• Prompt 3: This one calls for the right kind of argument. First, it is
framed in the context of a broad question that has existential value to
our students (and to us, for that matter!). Second, it involves multiple
texts, and each of those texts offers a different commentary on the
question. Third, it invites many possibilities for sustainable responses.
Fourth, to develop an effective argument in response to the prompt,
our students will have to practice argumentative strategies that are
common across many academic disciplines. The prompt initiates a turn
in an ongoing conversation within a culturally relevant domain, and
that domain is one in which there are agreed-upon ways of reasoning
and modes of communication. The prompt provides our students with
an opportunity to participate legitimately in the activity of classroom
life. We can work backward from that prompt and prepare our students
to take it on by providing them with clear strategies and opportunities
to practice those strategies. In short, it reflects a classroom approach
guided by conversation in which argument is central to how that
conversation is carried out.
CONSIDER Take a look at a couple of your most recent writing

prompts. Which one works best as the basis for
THIS promoting a culture of conversation?
So What, Exactly, Is an Argument, Anyway?

Both of us come from, shall we say, boisterous households in which arguments
bear greater resemblance to the Monty Python skit than they do to the kind of
reasoned written or oral argumentation we want our students to be able to engage
in. Michael’s mom, for instance, was known to say, “You can’t care about your
side as much as I care about mine because you never yell.” We suspect that the
same is true for many of our students. And the airwaves are full of shows, be
they focused on sports or politics, in which bombast rather than reasoning is the
order of the day. So, we have to help our students understand that academic argu-
mentation requires something else of them. We have found that the thinking of
Stephen Toulmin helps us do just that.
Unlike the classical rhetoricians before him, whose interest in argument was
focused on the formal logic used to ascertain universal principles, Toulmin’s
(1958) work looked closely at the kinds of arguments that actually happen in the
world. He analyzed arguments across many different settings—from highly for-
mal courts of law right down to everyday arguments around the dinner table—
and compared these different arguments in order to describe elements that were

universal to all of them. We’re going to focus on just a few of those elements
here as we have found that they give us what we need for our classrooms without
letting things get too complicated.
Claims
According to Toulmin’s model, the origin point for an argument can be traced
back to one or more claims. A claim is a position a person asserts and expects to
be accepted on its merit. Claims come in many varieties. Oftentimes they are
statements of agreement or disagreement. Someone may disagree with a certain
new policy that has been implemented in their workplace, for example. Claims
assert a position with respect to the immediate circumstances in which an argu-
ment is taking place. As you saw in the classroom conversation we shared at the
beginning of this chapter, when we prompt our students to generate claims, we
ask, “Where do you stand?”
In order for a claim to be effective, it has to be both debatable and defensible.
A claim is hardly worth supporting if no reasonable person would object to its
merit. Nor is it worth asserting a claim if it can’t reasonably be supported. The
reason we selected Pat Tillman as a case for our students to consider is that we
found such divided opinions about him. If everyone agreed that Tillman was a
hero, there would be no need to support that argument. After making that claim,
Student 1 would be greeted with nods rather than questions that called for her
to spin out her reasoning.
We think this is an important quality of claims to understand because it con-
tributes heavily to our thinking when we’re designing our lessons and activities. In order for a claim to
We want to make sure we’re giving our students materials that invite them to be effective, it has to
develop effective claims that demand careful support. All too often we see stu- be both debatable and
dents making arguments around claims that aren’t both debatable and defensi-
ble. No one would disagree that Harper Lee portrays a prejudiced society in To
defensible.
Kill a Mockingbird, yet we’ve seen students compose entire essays around such
a claim. At the same time, there is simply no way to defend the claim that Bob
Ewell really did die by falling on his knife. But the claim “Our readings on social
change convince me that Harper Lee is wrong in suggesting that lasting
social change has to come very slowly” provides the grist for an essay that will
both require and allow a writer to fully develop his or her argument.
Data
If claims form the basis of an argument, what forms the basis of a claim? The
answer, according to Toulmin, is data. Data refers broadly to the knowledge and
experience that we appeal to as the foundation for a claim. It answers the ques-
tion “What makes you say so?” or “What have you got to go on?” In conventional
use, the term data conjures up images of spreadsheets and binary code, but the
way we use the term here includes much more than empirical measurements or
statistical formulations. Many things can count as data depending on the context
of an argument. In the Tillman example, students drew on evidence from the
texts that the class read. Imagine a unit focused on the question “What makes

17
a good teacher?” If a student made the claim that “The most important charac-
teristic of a good teacher is content knowledge,” he or she might turn to findings
from research on effective teaching. If a student made the claim that “the most
It answers the question important characteristic of a good teacher is being caring” he or she might share
an anecdote about how a caring teacher improved his or her achievement in a
“What makes you say difficult subject area.
so?” or “What have you
What’s crucially important to understand is that data have to form a safe starting
got to go on?” point to support a claim. If the audience for an argument is not willing to stip-
ulate to the data, there is no sense advancing the argument any further. In fact,
if the audience is not willing to stipulate to the data, the data are really a claim.
Let’s turn once again to the argument at the beginning of the chapter. Student 1
defends her claim that Tillman was a hero by offering a fact that’s beyond dispute
(“He gave his life for his country”). Student 2, on the other hand begins his argu-
ment with this statement: “All he did was hurt the people who matter most to
him.” The teacher is not willing to stipulate to that datum and so says, “Hmmm,
that’s interesting. What makes you say so?” Only when Student 2 says, “You can
read right here how his mom and his brother feel like he died for no reason” does
the argument move beyond a demand for data.
Warrants
We’ve discussed how claims have to be both debatable and defensible, and we
demonstrated how data have to provide a safe starting point to support those
claims. But effective arguments also require the audience or interlocutor to
accept the bigger assumptions underlying our claims and data. Toulmin (1958)
calls those assumptions warrants. Warrants are perhaps the most novel contribu-
tion of Toulmin’s model for argument, and they’re also one of the trickier con-
cepts to grasp. A warrant is a general rule or principle that authorizes someone
to move from data to a claim or claims. In everyday situations, warrants are often
tacit. For example, when we choose a television show to watch among the many
options available, we’re probably not going to elaborate on the reasons for our
selection. We know what we like. However, if we’re trying to convince a friend to
watch a show, we’re probably going to supply some data—we might tell her that
the show is historically accurate, or that it features a favorite actor of hers. Those
data will make our case more convincing only if they match with her personal
criteria for what makes a good television show. If our friend responds by saying,
“Well, I learn enough about history from the books I read so I prefer my television
A warrant is a general
shows to take me out of the real world!” our argument is ineffective not because
rule or principle that of the claim or the data, but because of disagreement over the warrant at play.
authorizes someone Student 2 in our sample argument at the beginning of the chapter provides an
to move from data excellent illustration when he says, “You can’t be a respectable or responsible
to a claim. or heroic person if you don’t care about the people closest to you.” He explicitly
states a general rule that connects his data to his claim.
Public policy debates provide a great illustration of the importance of warrants.
As we write this paragraph, debate rages on over the American Health Care

Act (AHCA), the proposed Republican replacement for President Obama’s
Affordable Care Act. Proponents of this act point to the fact that it eliminates the
individual mandate. That fact is beyond dispute, but it only matters if you share
proponents’ belief that ensuring freedom of choice is an essential element of leg-
islation. On the other hand, opponents of the American Health Care Act point
to the fact that the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis has it that the AHCA
would insure 14 million fewer Americans. But if you accept that fact, it only mat-
ters if you agree that health care is a right that the government needs to insure.
Take a look at a current public policy debate. Examine

the claims and sub-claims of that debate. What kinds
of data do proponents and opponents draw upon?
Consider whether they articulate the underlying
CONSIDER
principles (warrants) that inform their selection of
data. How were the proponents’ arguments similar?
THIS
How are they different?
We want our students to be able to engage the arguments that matter most in
their homes, schools, and communities. And we want them to engage in those
arguments in ways that will prompt them to think differently, to challenge their
own assumptions, and to appreciate the view of someone whose assumptions
may be different than theirs. Our hope is that this book will provide you with
some tools to foster a similar appreciation for arguments among your students. It
is to a description of those tools that we now turn.

19
Chapter 3
Our Instructional Approach
In Chapter 1, we talked about why we value the teaching of argument. In Chapter 2,

we offered conversation as a metaphor for the kind of learning we try to foster,
and we detailed the elements of the kind of arguments we try to generate through
conversations in and across settings. But simply being able to articulate the target
of our teaching pales in comparison to the difficulty of hitting that target. That’s
Simply being able to why the rest of this book will focus on what we think are transferable tools that
articulate the target will help you enact classroom conversations that will apprentice students into
being able to employ the elements of Toulmin’s model effectively.
of our teaching pales
in comparison to the
difficulty of hitting Transferable Classroom Tools
that target. Indeed, our work in Chapter 2 introduced the first of those tools: the questions
derived from Stephen Toulmin’s discussion of the essential elements of argu-
ment. We think those questions are very useful tools, in part because questions
are one of the primary methods of instruction ELA teachers employ, so using
them doesn’t require significant changes to teachers’ practice. These questions
demonstrate how questions relate to Toulmin’s model:
•• A claim is the answer to the question “Where do you stand?”

•• Data are the answer to the question “What makes you say so?”
•• Warrants are the answer to the question “So what?”
Stein and Albro (2001) note that children as young as 3 can produce all of the
elements of an effective argument in interaction with a conversational partner.
Of course, in writing, there is no conversational partner. That’s why we continu-
ally repeat the Toulmin questions in our classrooms in the hope that our students
will internalize them, becoming, in effect, their own conversational partner as
they write. The questions also help our students understand and operationalize
the elements of Toulmin’s model. Indeed, our students regularly refer to their
data as “What makes you say so?” and their warrants as “So whats?” We establish
the notion of data as a safe starting point by illustrating it through classroom
conversations. Data that are safe earn a “So what?” from us. Data that aren’t safe
act as claims, so they get another “What makes you say so?”

As you’ll see in the lessons we will soon be presenting, we introduce the ele-
ments of argument by engaging students in the kind of everyday arguments kids
are likely to have as a matter of course in their daily lives. Consider, for exam-
ple, this discussion of whether someone looking for a phone should buy Apple
or Android.
Student: People looking for phones should buy Apple!

Student: They’re the coolest.
Student: People wait in line to buy them.
Teacher: So what?
Student: So that means they’re popular.
Teacher: So what?
Student: Well, if they’re popular, they must be good.
As you can see, the repeated “What makes you say so?” cues the student that the
teacher would not stipulate to the data provided. Once the data were safe, the
teacher cued the need for the warrant with a “So what?”
Do you have any specific phrases or questions you like CONSIDER

to use to prompt students to talk in your classroom?
THIS
Essential/Enduring Questions
If you want to make argument central to your work with students, you have to
create a context that supports it. In our view, the best way to do so is to struc-
ture your instruction in units that are built around essential (Michael’s preferred
term) or enduring (Jon-Philip’s preference) questions. (We’ll use EQ to refer to
these questions through the rest of the book. You can choose which E you prefer.)
EQs are questions of deep personal or social importance, the kind of questions
you discussed long into the night during your first year of college. Most English
teachers we know came to the profession at least in part because their read-
ing (and sometimes writing) helped them think about those questions. We’re
talking about questions like “What makes me me?” or “Do people get what they
deserve?” They’re the kind of questions that people have been talking about for
years, generations, even epochs.
Chapter 3. Our Instructional Approach

21
By their very nature, EQs are complex and unsettled. Multiple positions in
response to them are sustainable. Multiple kinds of data can be offered to sup-
port those positions. The general rules that link the data and claims can come
from a variety of domains. EQs, therefore, provide the perfect context in which
to teach argument.
We worked together at a neighborhood high school here in Philadelphia in the
Pathways Project, a Temple College of Education initiative supported by Ernst &
Young, whose goal is to better prepare students for the rigors of college read-
ing and writing. (The Pathways Project also has a quantitative reasoning com-
ponent.) The curriculum we devised is built around EQs. We developed the
questions in three primary ways.
1. We developed some EQs because the questions are ones we wanted

our students to think about. As we were beginning our initial planning,
we read an article in the New York Times Magazine titled “Who Gets
to Graduate?” which details the success the University of Texas had
improving the persistence of first-generation college students by making
a part of students’ first-year orientation a short online program designed
to challenge the entity view of intelligence, that is that intelligence is
simply a trait one is born with as opposed to one that’s affected by a
person’s behavior. So, the first EQ we asked is, “What does it mean to
be smart?”
2. We developed some EQs because they mapped on to reading or writing
we wanted students to do. The teacher with whom we worked wanted
students to read The Kite Runner, so we asked, “To what extent are
people responsible for each other?,” the primary question we think
animates that book. For a unit on the writing of college essays, we used
the EQ, “What makes me me?”
3. We developed other EQs by paying attention to issues and ideas we
heard students talking about. It didn’t take us long to realize just how
important music is to the students we were working with, so we asked,
“On balance, has hip-hop had a positive or negative effect on American
society?” All of these questions were able to sustain students’ interest for
weeks of ongoing argument-centered conversation.
In order to make sure that those conversations stayed focused, we thought

through the dimensions of each of the questions. For example, we took up the
question “What does it really mean to be smart?” by asking two subquestions:
“Where can the causes of smartness be found?”

“How is smartness manifested?”
Then we selected texts that answered those questions in different ways. The follow-
ing outline illustrates the planning we did for the smartness unit. Using the read-
ings, we determined possible positions to help give students a safe starting point.

UNIT: What does it mean to be smart?
SUBQUESTION: Where does intelligence come from?

•• Position #1: Intelligence is an innate or genetic construct.
•• Position #2: Intelligence is a product of individual agency,
determination, and willfulness.
•• Position #3: Intelligence is a social construct that reflects the values
of dominant groups.
SUBQUESTION: How does intelligence manifest?

•• Position #1: Intelligence is best understood as a function of how
successful a person is with traditional academic subjects such as
reading, writing, and math.
•• Position #2: Intelligence is a reflection of how skilled or talented a
person is within a particular domain.
•• Position #3: Intelligence is a function of how resourceful a person is,
how well a person can interact with others, and how well a person can
solve practical problems.
Thinking through the question and subquestions in this way guaranteed that we
could have focused conversations about questions to which there were no easy
answers. Our students had to understand that whatever positions they ended up
taking would have to be defended.
Can you think of any EQs you might like to use to CONSIDER
organize ongoing conversations in your classroom?
THIS
Gateway Activities
Another tool we use is what Hillocks (1995, p. 166) calls gateway activities.
Hillocks notes that gateway activities for the teaching of argument require a
dataset “in which a problem lurks” and in which students will take an immedi-
ate interest. As you’ll see, some of our datasets involve comparisons of products/
services that kids care about. Others relate to life choices they’ll soon be facing.
Still others are sets of scenarios we’ve designed ourselves to give visibility to the
problems that often lurk inside conventional attitudes toward things like intel-
ligence and responsibility. Lessons 11 and 13 in this book provide examples of
these problematic scenario sets.

23
These scenarios are especially useful for introducing EQs. We try to make them
complex. They’re of little use if every student would rank them in the same way.
When rankings are different, discussion ensues, providing the opportunity not
only for students to begin thinking about the dimensions of the EQ, but also
for the teacher to employ the Toulmin questions to help students produce the
elements of effective argumentation.
Gateway activities for

Semantic Differential Scales
the teaching of argument
Another tool we employ is the semantic differential scale (SDS). SDSs were devel-
require a dataset “in oped by a group of educational psychologists led by Charles Osgood as a way
which a problem to measure how people make meaning (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957).
lurks” and in which At the time, it was already understood that language was central to meaning-
making, but researchers were not always able to get at the full complexity of the
students will take an processes by which meaning is made. Such research tended to focus on typical
immediate interest. patterns of language use rather than variations across individuals. So the SDS
was used as a tool to allow for researchers to capture the wide variations across
individuals and groups in how meaning was made. We use the tool similarly to
help our students make meaning out of the things we present to them.
An SDS is a scale that positions words or phrases in bipolar relationships. To
illustrate its use as an instructional tool, consider the following scenario:
A student is asked to respond to an argumentative text. The text presents an
author’s case for “the most intellectual rapper” and also includes excerpted song
lyrics from the rapper’s work. After reading the text, the student begins by marking
the “6” on the following scale in response to the quality of the author’s argument:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Convincing Unconvincing
Once the student has marked the scale, the student has, in fact, made a claim,
so the teacher can employ the Toulmin probes to help the student develop the
underlying reasoning behind that claim. The conversation then might go some-
thing like this:
Teacher: Okay, so where do you stand?

Student: I marked a 6.
Teacher: A 6 is pretty close to unconvincing. What makes you say so?
Student: Here in the lyrics are a bunch of words that I don’t even know what
they mean. Words like “celestial,” “diasporic,” and “consciousness.”
Teacher: Hmm, so there are some fancy words in the lyrics. So what?
Student: Well a bunch of big words doesn’t make something smarter. You
still have to be able to connect to it and understand the message.

The student’s explanation makes visible the underlying assumptions that have
guided the student’s evaluation of the argument. You can see how the scale
helped drive the discussion forward, attending to each element of Toulmin’s
model of argument along the way. Once students have made their reasoning
explicit in this manner, we can now push them further. We can ask them to
describe some alternatives that would make them change their marks, or we
can press them to elaborate further on their data or warrants. What’s important
is the central role the scale played in both prompting students to generate their
responses and in shaping those responses toward the kind of critical thinking we
value in our classrooms.
We like using scales for a number of reasons. First, the student’s initial response
is streamlined into a simple process of selection. We like to think of this as giving
our students an “easy in” to a complex conversation. Second, once our students
have made that initial selection, they have a clear and visible model to guide them
as they are called upon to support and extend their thinking. Third, scales provide
the occasion for the repeated use of the Toulmin questions, increasing the likeli-
hood that those prompts will be internalized and called upon in new situations.
Many of our lessons feature examples of SDS to guide students in their responses
to texts and other forms of data. Sometimes, we design our scales to scaffold stu-
dents’ readings of challenging texts. Sometimes, we design them to cue students
toward important details in the data. As teachers, it can be very helpful to think
about these different uses for scales to prepare ourselves for the various ways
students may respond to them. Let’s briefly go over a few examples to illustrate
these different uses.
In one activity, we ask students to read an excerpt from a well-known book,
The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). The excerpt is taken from the
chapter titled “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability,” and it begins with the
following passage:
Despite the forbidding air that envelops the topic, ethnic differences
in cognitive ability are neither surprising nor in doubt. Large human
populations differ in many ways, both cultural and biological. It is
not surprising that they might differ at least slightly in their cognitive
characteristics. That they do is confirmed by the data on ethnic
differences in cognitive ability from around the world. One message
of this chapter is that such differences are real and have consequences.
Another is that the facts are not as alarming as many people seem
to fear. (p. 269)
After reading this passage, students are asked to respond to the following scale.
The authors will argue that the basis of intelligence is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Completely genetic Completely learned

25
This scale, designed to scaffold students’ reading of a challenging text, allows
for a range of possible responses. However, given the argument set forth in the
text, there are a few places on this scale that would be difficult, if not impossible,
to support. A student who marks Position 6 or 7 (or perhaps even Position 5) is
probably struggling to comprehend the argument here. In this respect, the scale
gives us both valuable feedback into that student’s reading, as well as a visible
tool with which we can help that student to see where he or she may be missing
something important in the passage.
In the previous example, the SDS is designed in such a way that every position
on the scale cannot be reasonably supported. Sometimes SDSs are designed to
elicit a somewhat different kind of response. For example, the scenario above,
where the student is asked to respond to an author’s entire argument by marking
the convincing–unconvincing scale, offers the full range of potential marks on
the scale. What matters in this case is both how the student is able to support
and justify the mark, and how mindful the student is about the strength or mag-
nitude of his or her commitment to the mark. A student who marks Position 1,
for example, adopts a fully committed stance. As that student sees it, the author’s
argument is absolutely flawless and beyond dispute. On the other hand, a stu-
dent who marks Position 4 is taking a middle ground. That student must account
for both strengths of the argument as well as ways in which it could be chal-
lenged. In this respect, the scale gives us an opportunity to press the student’s
reasoning and prompt the student to consider possible weaknesses or potential
counterarguments.
Think of a favorite text you have used with students on a
CONSIDER
number of different occasions. Has teaching the text ever
caused you to understand or respond to it differently
THIS based on how your students have responded? How

might SDSs help students to understand their own
changing relationships with the texts they read?
Much like Osgood and his colleagues, we appreciate the ways that SDSs help
us and our students get a glimpse into the processes by which they are making
meaning. SDSs provide a helpful model for students as they respond to texts and
other forms and data, and they also give us valuable insights into their thinking
so that we can provide them with clear and useful feedback (Imbrenda, 2016).
SDSs are a flexible tool. Students can write out their responses, share them out
loud in full-class discussions, or share them in small groups or pairs. We most
often use 7-point scales, but we might use a 6-point scale in order to force stu-
dents to be at least somewhat positioned as there is no middle ground. Or we
might use a 5-point scale to restrict the range of options and make it easier to
jump in. We adapt them to meet our needs, our students’ preferences, and the
circumstances of our classrooms on any given day.

Paragraph Frames
The final tool we employ is the paragraph frame. We use these frames to help
students put the talking they have been doing into effective written expression.
Because the frames are an essential part of our practice, we think they merit a
little bit of explanation.
Jon-Philip began his career teaching freshman composition at a small college.
In his department, there were often debates about how to best teach incoming
students how to write academic arguments. The debates centered on a single
idea: Should we be teaching language or should we be teaching content? Those
who embraced the former position argued that in order to become a writer of
academic arguments, instruction needed to focus on the formal and stylistic fea-
tures of academic texts. Those who embraced the latter position argued that in
order to become a writer of academic arguments, instruction needed to focus on
exploring bold ideas, generating discussion around those ideas, and then sending
the students off to communicate their ideas in writing. These debates happened
over a decade ago, and since that time Jon-Philip, guided by the work of many
literacy scholars, has come to understand that the two sides of the debate are
actually expressions of two different dimensions of a single, integrated process.
Understanding the formal features of academic arguments and understanding
the things you need to fit into those formal features are the same thing.
Graff and Birkenstein (2010), in their immensely popular book They Say/I Say:
The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, demonstrate a similar understanding.
They introduce a vast array of sentence templates designed to focus students’
attentions on both what they’re saying as well as how they’re saying it. The tem-
plates represent many of the linguistic constructions common to academic
argumentation. Furthermore, they reflect an explicit appreciation for the ways
in which academic writing enters into ongoing conversations within culturally
relevant domains.
As you’ve already seen, we share Graff and Birkenstein’s (2010) appreciation for
the conversation metaphor, and we admire the ingenuity of the templates they
present. Although they have been an important influence on our instructional
thinking, we also take things a step further by expanding their single or dual sen-
tence frames into complete paragraphs, making the linguistic cues we provide
students with more consistent with Toulmin’s model of argument, and designing
templates that are specific to the texts or data students are working with. We call
these expanded templates paragraph frames.
Our paragraph frames have a dual function. They give students clear scaffold-
ing to help them communicate their ideas in the unique language of academic
writing. At the same time, they also apprentice students into the ways of reason-
ing that are most valued in academic communities of practice. For some of us,
that language and the underlying ways of reasoning it conveys may not seem so
strange. But for many of our students, including the ones we’ve been working
with these past few years, the language and modes of reasoning that characterize
academic discourse seem quite strange and impractical. Our paragraph frames
are designed to help them gradually acculturate into the linguistic conventions

27
as well as the habits of thinking those conventions are meant to maintain. As we
said above, we believe the two are inextricably related. That’s why we like using
the frames! They give students a good amount of structure to guide their writing
without doing any of the heavy lifting for them.
Our frames typically map on closely to the elements of argument we described
in the previous chapter. In completing a frame, students are prompted to gen-
erate one or more claims, supply data to support those claims, and give explicit
warrants to connect the data to the claims. We also design them with a concern
for certain strategies—such as clearly identifying sources or providing succinct
and accurate summaries—that we know are important hallmarks of successful
academic writing. Throughout the school year, as students consistently com-
plete frames, they gradually internalize the linguistic structures and find them-
selves calling upon them on their own when they are asked to compose extended
arguments with less explicit guidance.
Here’s a frame we use early in our “What Does It Really Mean to Be Smart?”
unit. We introduce it after students have read a short article by a clinical psychol-
ogist staking out the position that intelligence is a function of how resourceful a
person is, how well a person can interact with others, and how well a person can
solve practical problems:
Dr. Ben Michaelis offers a view of intelligence that is [similar to/

different from] what many people expect. The central argument of
his view is [state the author’s main CLAIM in your own words]. He
supports this position by [briefly describe the DATA from which his
claim is drawn]. The general belief behind his position can be summed
up as [in your own words, explain how the author WARRANTS his
position]. I [agree/disagree] with Dr. Michaelis [completely/to a certain
extent] because [summarize why you agree or disagree.]
Because it’s early in the unit, we’re focusing on having students analyze some-
We see these one else’s argument as a way to scaffold the production of their own, something
short writings as they’ll do increasingly as the unit progresses. We’re also providing practice in
developmental practice summarizing and forcing students to attend to the text. Finally, the frame makes
for them and as formative clear that the argument is genuine. Whereas students’ summaries should resem-
ble each other, their responses to those summaries will vary, requiring them to
assessment for us. produce fully formed arguments in order to be persuasive.
You’ll see other examples of paragraph frames throughout this book, each of
which was part of students’ ongoing “writing portfolios.” We use this designation
to make it clear that we see these short writings as developmental practice for
them and as formative assessment for us. We don’t introduce the writing portfo-
lios right away, nor do we use them all the time. Most of our lessons have some
kind of writing portfolio activity, though, and many of those activities are strate-
gically designed paragraph frames.
Once again, our tools are consistent with our metaphor of conversation.
Paragraph frames help students become legitimate participants in the kinds of

conversations that take place in academic communities of practice. In this case,
they are focused on the written conversations that are central to the ways that
participants in academic communities generate and share knowledge, critique
one another’s understandings, and contribute to the breadth and depth of their
respective disciplines.
So Do They Work?
One of the things that we’ve come to realize in our work at the urban compre-
hensive school at which we taught the lessons we’re sharing here is that teachers
face a paradoxical challenge. It is our job to prepare students for tomorrow, but
we can only do so by engaging them today in issues that matter in the here and
now (cf. Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). Many of the students with whom we work see
the academy and academic argumentation as something foreign and distant. We
try to bridge the gaps by introducing argumentative reasoning and the writing of
arguments through activities that are close to home. For instance, our students
were thinking about their college options when we taught Lesson 19, which asks
them to apply argumentative reasoning as they consider the benefits and con-
sequences of choosing 2-year or 4-year colleges, so we were teaching for tomor-
row with materials that matter today. The 20 lessons in the coming chapters are
designed to apprentice students into the kind of academic conversations in which
we want them to be able to participate. Each of our lessons has a brief introduc-
tion, a step-by-step plan, a dataset of some sort or another, a tool we used, and an
example of students’ work and our commentary on that example. It is our job to prepare
We’ve tried all of these lessons in the Pathways project to great effect. We have students for tomorrow,
2 years of data now and have achieved a statistically significant growth both years but we can only do so by
for both the eleventh and twelfth graders with whom we worked. We’re espe-
engaging them today in
cially pleased with the magnitude of the change. The magnitude of the impact
of an intervention is assessed with a statistic known as the partial eta squared. We issues that matter in the
won’t bore you with the details except to say that the threshold for large effects is here and now.
0.138 (Cohen, 1992). In both years of our project, our effect size was over twice
that threshold (0.381 in Year 1 and 0.395 in Year 2). In short, the lessons we will
be sharing worked for us. We think they will work for you as well.

29
PART II
Lessons
Chapter 4
Everyday Arguments
Introducing the Elements of Argument

As we’ve explained in Chapter 2, we base our instruction in argument on Stephen
Toulmin’s (1958) model. Toulmin appeals to us because he focuses on everyday
argumentation, so we think his work provides a great way to link what students
already do outside of class to what we want them to do in class. The purpose of
the lessons in this chapter is to engage students in conversations that require
them to produce the three essential elements of any argument:
1. Claim (what you’re arguing for)

2. Data (the evidence you use)
3. Warrant (an explanation of the principles that link the data
to the claim)

LESSON 1
Apple Music vs. Spotify
UNIT CONTEXT:
LESSON PLAN
Arguments in our everyday
Purpose/Learning Intentions: Engage in everyday arguments to learn the lives. We suggest using this
relationship between data and warrant. Use data to make an everyday argument, as the first lesson in the
everyday argument section.
explain the significance of data by articulating a warrant, and practice evaluating
the importance of details.
LESSON BACKGROUND:
Length: Approximately 45 minutes (two class periods or one block)
By comparing two similar
music streaming services,
Materials Needed students must attend
• A class set of Handout 1.1, “Apple Music vs. Spotify” to details in the data to
highlight what they view
• A class set of Handout 1.2, “Planning Your Argument” as key differences. Their
warrants, therefore, will
• Whiteboard, chart paper, or other means of recording reflect the reasons why they
students’ responses see certain details as being
more important than others.
Lesson Steps Making comparisons then
becomes not just a matter of
Step 1: Introduce students to the idea of everyday argument. noticing details in the data,
but also of evaluating the
• Explain to students that much of their success in school, especially importance of those details
as they go on to college, will depend on their ability to write with respect to the student’s
effective arguments. personal values and
assumptions. By examining
• Explain that the good news is that they are all expert arguers already. their warrants, students will
begin to understand that
• Explain that whether we’re deciding which new smartphone to upgrade arguments often represent
to, or deciding what outfit to wear to school that day, we’re engaging in a kind of reasoning in
a process of argumentative reasoning. which personal values and
interests influence the
• Give a personal illustration. For example, explain that when you’re choices we make.
choosing a restaurant, you have to determine the cost, quality, and
location before making a choice.
Chapter 4. Everyday Arguments Apple Music vs. Spotify 33

Step 2: Engage students in planning for an argument about which
music streaming service is a better choice: Apple Music or Spotify.
• Distribute Handout 1.1.

• Emphasize that you will expect students to build their argument using
the data you provide. If students ask what you mean about data, explain
that it’s just another word for evidence.
• To guide students in examining the data, instruct them to work
individually to do as follows:
➝➝ First, lightly cross off details that will be irrelevant to their
argument. They should start by crossing off similarities. For
example, both Apple Music and Spotify allow users to share
playlists so that detail from the data will not be relevant to
their argument.
➝➝ Then, tell them cross off additional details that are different across
both options but unimportant.
➝➝ Finally, have them circle three to five key details in the data that
they feel are essential to their decision.
Step 3: Have a whole-class discussion about their choices.
• Get a sense of the whole class by asking students to indicate which

streaming service they chose by raising their hands.
• Choose one student and ask him or her to explain why.
• Be consistent in the prompts you use to generate the elements
of the model:
➝➝ Where do you stand? (claim)
➝➝ What makes you say so? (data)
➝➝ So what? (warrant)
• Ask a student who took a different position to explain why. Once
again be consistent in the prompts you use to generate the elements
of the model:
➝➝ Where do you stand? (claim)
➝➝ What makes you say so? (data)
➝➝ So what? (warrant)
• Continue discussion until the arguments start to get repetitious.
Step 4: Have students transfer their oral work into writing.
• Distribute Handout 1.2.

• Instruct students to work individually to plan their brief arguments by
using Handout 1.2.
• As they work, circulate. If students have difficulty, prompt them by
referring back to the whole-class discussion.
• Once they have finished their planning on the graphic organizer, have
them write a brief paragraph. Once again, make sure to circulate as
they are doing their work.
Step 5: Have students share their work in pairs.
• Ask them to circle their partner’s claim, that is, the answer to the
“Where do you stand?” question, on their partner’s work.
• Ask them to put in brackets each piece of data, that is, the answer to the
“What makes you say so?” question.
• Ask them to underline each warrant, that is, the answer to the “So
what?” question.
• Have partners discuss what elements of their arguments work best and
which ones might need improvement.
Step 6: Summarize key points from the class.
• Remind students that they make arguments all the time in their
everyday life.
• Explain that these arguments require them both to think about data
and to think about why those data matter, what we call a warrant.
Extension: Have students consider what data that’s not on the table might be
important and to fill out Handout 1.2 to develop an argument from those data.

Apple Music vs. Spotify
Handout 1.1
APPLE MUSIC SPOTIFY
What devices can use it? Mac computers with OS 10.9.5 Web-based streaming is
or newer; PC with Windows 7 compatible with any PC
or newer. Computers must have or Mac computer.
iTunes 12.2 Spotify App is compatible with
iPhone 4 or newer any Android or iPhone as well
as Windows 8 phones, iPad,
iPad 2 or newer
PlayStation 4, and XBOX One.
iPod Touch 5 or newer
Retailers offer a wide range of
Spotify-ready devices such as
portable music players and home
stereo systems.
How can you try it out? 3-month trial streaming with ads 30-day trial shuffle streaming
with ads
What does it cost? $10/month for a $10/month for a

single subscription single subscription
$15/month for a family plan $5/month per additional person
of up to 6 people $5/month for students
How much music does it offer? Unconfirmed as of now, but Apple Over 30 million tracks
has promised that the song library
will be comparable to Spotify.
Can I play music offline? Yes, with subscription Yes, with subscription
What social features Share playlists. Share playlists.

are included? Collaborate on playlists.
See what friends are listening to.
What other features iPhone users can search for music Listen to podcasts.
are included? using Siri voice commands. Read song lyrics.
Watch music videos.
Apple currently has an exclusive
contract with Taylor Swift to
stream her new album; similar
contracts with other artists are
promised for the future.
online Available for download at resources.corwin.com/writersofargument

resources
Copyright © 2018 by Corwin. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Developing Writers of Argument: Tools and Rules That Sharpen
Student Reasoning by Michael W. Smith and Jon-Philip Imbrenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, www.corwin.com. Reproduction
authorized only for the local school site or nonprofit organization that has purchased this book

Planning Your Argument
Handout 1.2
Make your claim!
This is pretty easy here! Just tell us which music service you’ve chosen.
Based on
1.
2.
3.
Show your data! List the key differences between the two options that have led to your claim.
Which is important because . . .
Now, you have to warrant your choice by explaining why the differences you noticed in the data are important
to you. Think about each difference individually, but look for patterns in your reasoning. Is there a general
“rule” that you could apply?
Now that you’ve done all that planning, put it all together in a short paragraph.
online Available for download at resources.corwin.com/writersofargument

resources
Copyright © 2018 by Corwin. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Developing Writers of Argument: Tools and Rules That Sharpen
Student Reasoning by Michael W. Smith and Jon-Philip Imbrenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, www.corwin.com. Reproduction
authorized only for the local school site or nonprofit organization that has purchased this book.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
talteen, niin annan sinulle kaksisataa taalaria, joilla voit täyttää
tarpeitasi; minä näet kyllä tiedän, että sinulla on niitä paljon.
— Sopisihan se tehdä; — vastasi Sancho — mutta minä en ole

ollenkaan ahne; muutenhan en olisi tänä aamuna laskenut käsistäni
virkaa, jossa olisin voinut hankkia asuntooni kultaiset seinät ja
päästä puolen vuoden kuluessa syömään hopeaisista astioista.
Senvuoksi ja myös siitä syystä, että minusta tuntuu kuin pettäisin
kuningastani, jos auttaisin hänen vihollisiaan, en lähtisi kanssasi,
vaikka antaisit lupaamasi kahdensadan taalarin asemesta tässä heti
paikalla neljäsataa käteistä.
‒ Mistä virasta sinä olet luopunut, Sancho? — kysyi Ricote.
‒ Minä olen luopunut erään saaren käskynhaltianvirasta, — vastasi

Sancho — ja se olikin semmoinen saari, ettei toista sen vertaista
hevin löydetä.
— Entä missä se saari sijaitsee? — kysyi Ricote.
— Missäkö? — virkkoi Sancho. — Kahden peninkulman päässä

tästä, ja sen nimi on Baratarian saari.
— Älä nyt joutavia, Sancho; — sanoi Ricote — saarethan ovat

meren selällä, eihän manterella mitään saaria ole.
— Kuinka niin? — virkkoi Sancho. — Minä vakuutan sinulle, hyvä

Ricote, että lähdin sieltä tänä aamuna, ja vielä eilen minä sitä
hallitsin kuin poika, ihan mieleni mukaan; mutta siitä huolimatta
minä sen jätin, sillä käskynhaltianvirka tuntui minusta vaaralliselta.
— Mitä sinä olet siinä virassa ansainnut? — kysyi Ricote.

— Minä olen ansainnut, — vastasi Sancho — että olen tullut
tietämään, etten kelpaa käskynhaltiaksi, jollei kysymyksessä ole
karjalauma, ja että ne rikkaudet, joita semmoisissa hallitusviroissa
ansaitaan, vaativat ihmistä luopumaan levosta ja unesta, vieläpä
ravinnostakin, sillä käskynhaltioitten täytyy saaressaan tyytyä vähiin
ruokiin, varsinkin, jos heillä on lääkäreitä, jotka pitävät huolta heidän
terveydestään.
— Minä en ymmärrä, mitä tarkoitat, Sancho, — sanoi Ricote —

mutta minusta tuntuu, että kaikki, mitä sanot, on hullutusta, sillä
kuka sinulle antaisi saaria hallittaviksi? Eikö maailmassa ollut miehiä,
jotka kelpaavat käskynhaltioiksi paremmin kuin sinä? Älä nyt
jaarittele joutavia, Sancho, vaan käytä järkeäsi ja harkitse, haluatko
lähteä kanssani, kuten sinulle sanoin, auttaaksesi minua kaivamaan
ylös piilottamaani aarretta (se on toden totta niin suuri, että sitä
sopii aarteeksi nimittää), niin minä annan sinulle niin paljon, että
sinulla on mistä elää, kuten jo sanoin.
— Sanoinhan jo sinulle, Ricote, — vastasi Sancho — etten halua;

ole iloinen, etten ilmianna sinua, jatka matkaasi Jumalan nimeen ja
salli minun jatkaa omaa matkaani; minä näet tiedän, että oikein
saatu menee niinkuin on tullutkin, mutta väärin saatu vie hiireen
saajankin.
— En viitsi inttää, Sancho — sanoi Ricote. — Mutta sanohan

minulle: olitko kotona kylässämme, kun sieltä lähti vaimoni, tyttäreni
ja lankomieheni?
— Olinpa niinkin, — vastasi Sancho — ja voin sinulle sanoa, että

tyttäresi oli niin kaunis, että koko kylän väki lähti häntä katsomaan,
ja kaikki he sanoivat, että hän oli sorein olento koko maailmassa.
Hän itki ihan yhtenään ja syleili kaikkia ystävättäriään ja tuttaviaan
ja kaikkia, jotka tulivat häntä näkemään, ja kaikkia hän pyysi, että
sulkisivat hänet Jumalan ja pyhän Neitsyen suosioon, ja pyysi niin
hartaasti, että sai minutkin itkemään, vaikka en minä tavallisesti ole
kovin herkkäitkuinen. Ja olipa siinä totisesti useita semmoisia, joiden
teki mieli piilottaa hänet ja ryöstää hänet matkalla, mutta siitä heitä
pidätti se, että pelkäsivät rikkoa kuninkaan käskyä. Kaikkein
kiihkeimmältä näytti Don Pedro Gregorio, se nuori rikas
tilanomistaja, jonka hyvin tunnet; hänen sanotaan tyttärestäsi paljon
pitäneen, ja tyttäresi lähdettyä ei häntäkään ole enää näkynyt
kylässämme, ja me kaikki luulemme, että mies lähti hänen jälkeensä
ryöstääkseen hänet; mutta toistaiseksi ei ole saatu siitä mitään
varmaa tietoa.
— Minä jo aina pahoin pelkäsin, — sanoi Ricote — että tuo nuori

herra rakasti tytärtäni, mutta luotin Ricotan kunnollisuuteen enkä
ollut enempää huolissani, vaikka tiesin hänen tyttäreeni kiintyneen;
olethan näet sinäkin, Sancho, varmaan kuullut sanottavan, että
moriskotytöt ovat harvoin, jos milloinkaan, suostuneet
lemmensuhteisiin vanhojen kristittyjen kanssa, ja minun tyttäreni,
joka luullakseni pyrki enemmän olemaan kristitty kuin rakastunut, ei
suinkaan ole välittänyt tuon herra tilanomistajan liehittelystä.
— Jumala sen suokoon, — vastasi Sancho — sillä muuten kävisi

molempien huonosti. Mutta päästä minut nyt tästä lähtemään, hyvä
Ricote; minä näet aion ehtiä vielä tänä iltana sinne, missä herrani
Don Quijote oleskelee.
— Jumalan haltuun, parahin Sancho; kumppanini alkavat jo

liikahdella, ja meidänkin on aika lähteä jatkamaan matkaa.
He syleilivät toisiaan, Sancho nousi harmonsa selkään, Ricote

tarttui vaeltajansauvaansa, ja niin he erosivat.
Viideskolmatta luku.
Seikoista, joita Sancholle sattui matkalla, ja muista asioista, jotka

ovat niin merkillisiä, ettei paremmasta apua.
Sancho oli viipynyt Ricoten seurassa niin kauan, ettei hän

mitenkään voinut ehtiä samana päivänä herttuan linnaan, vaikka
saapuikin puolen peninkulman päähän siitä. Silloin näet hänet yllätti
yö, joka tuli sangen pimeänä. Oli kumminkin keskikesä, joten Sancho
ei ollut tuosta huolissaan, vaan poikkesi tieltä aikoen odottaa aamua.
Mutta hänen onneton ja kova kohtalonsa sääti niin, että hän,
etsiessään paikkaa, mihin voisi parhaiten sijoittua, putosi
harmoineen päivineen syvään ja aivan pimeään luolaan, joka sijaitsi
muutamien ikivanhain rakennusten jäännösten keskellä. Pudotessaan
hän huusi sydämestään avuksi Jumalaa luullen, ettei pysähtyisi
ennenkuin kadotuksen syvimmässä pohjassa. Niin ei kumminkaan
käynyt, sillä harmo mäiskähti maahan noin kolmen sylen syvyydessä,
ja Sancho istui sen selässä nyrjähdyttämättä mitään jäsentään ja
muutenkaan vahingoittumatta. Hän tunnusteli koko ruumistaan ja
pidätti henkeään saadakseen selville, oliko jäänyt terveeksi, vai oliko
jokin kohta murskautunut, ja huomattuaan olevansa eheä, että
kaikki jäsenet olivat tallella ja terveys aivan moitteeton, hän kiitti
kiittämistään Herraa Jumalaa siitä armosta, jota hän oli hänelle
osoittanut; hän näet oli varmasti uskonut särkyneensä tuhansiksi
sirpaleiksi. Hän tunnusteli käsillään myös luolan seinämiä
saadakseen selville, oliko mahdollista päästä sieltä toisten
auttamatta, mutta huomasi, että ne olivat joka puolelta ihan sileät ja
ettei niissä ollut yhtään kohtaa, mihin olisi voinut tarttua kiinni. Siitä
Sancho kovin huolestui, varsinkin, kun kuuli harmon surkeasti
valittavan, mikä ei ollutkaan ihmeteltävää, sillä se ei suinkaan
valittanut suotta, vaan oli totisesti pahoin loukkaantunut. »Voi
onnetonta», virkkoi nyt Sancho Panza, »kuinka aavistamattomia
seikkoja voikaan sattua joka askelella niille, jotka elävät tässä
matoisessa maailmassa! Kuka olisi voinut arvata, että mies, joka
vielä eilen istui valtaistuimellaan saaren käskynhaltiana, komentaen
palvelijoitaan ja alustalaisiaan, joutuisi jo tänään haudatuksi luolaan
kenenkään ihmisen tulematta häntä auttamaan, yhdenkään
palvelijan tai alustalaisen rientämättä vetämään häntä sieltä pois?
Tänne meidän täytyy nääntyä nälkään, minun ja juhtani, jollemme
kuole jo sitä ennen, harmo saamistaan iskuista ja minä mielipahasta.
Minä en tule ainakaan olemaan yhtä onnellinen kuin oli herrani Don
Quijote Manchalainen laskeutuessaan siihen noiduttuun Montesinon
luolaan, missä hän tapasi väkeä, joka kestitsi häntä paremmin kuin
häntä kestittiin omassa talossaan, niin että hän kerrassaan näyttää
päässeen katettuun pöytään ja pöyhittyyn vuoteeseen. Siellä hän
näki kauniita ja miellyttäviä ilmestyksiä, mutta minä saan luultavasti
nähdä täällä vain konnia ja käärmeitä. Voi minua onnetonta! Mihin
ovatkaan hullut haaveeni minut johtaneet! Täältä vedetään ilmoille
luuni, kun taivas sallii, että minut löydetään, minun paljaat, valkoiset
ja nakerretut luuni, ja kelpo harmoni luut niitten kanssa, ja siitä
kukaties havaitaan, keitä olemme, havaitsevat ainakin ne, joilla on
selko siitä, ettei Sancho Panza eronnut milloinkaan aasistaan eikä
hänen aasinsa milloinkaan Sancho Panzasta. Sanon vielä kerran: voi
meitä poloisia, että kova kohtalomme ei ole sallinut meidän kuolla
kotipaikallamme ja omaistemme luona; vaikka siellä ei olisi ollut
mitään apua onnettomuuteemme, olisi sentään ollut joku, joka olisi
sitä surrut ja olisi kuoleman hetkellä silmämme sulkenut! Voi sinä
kumppanini ja ystäväni, kuinka huonosti olenkaan palkinnut sinun
hyvät palveluksesi! Anna minulle anteeksi ja rukoile kohtaloa niin
hyvin kuin suinkin osaat, että se pelastaisi meidät tästä surkeasta
ahdistuksesta, johon olemme yhdessä joutuneet, niin minä lupaan
panna päähäsi laakeriseppelen, jotta olet aivan kuin seppelöity
runoilija, ja antaa sinulle kaksinkertaisen määrän apetta.»
Niin valitti Sancho Panza, ja hänen aasinsa kuunteli häntä

vastaamatta sanaakaan; niin suuressa tuskassa, ja ahdistuksessa se
raukka oli. Kun sitten oli kulunut koko yö surkeassa itkussa ja
valituksessa, koitti vihdoin päivä, jonka valossa ja loistossa Sancho
havaitsi, että oli kerrassaan mahdotonta päästä tästä luolasta toisten
auttamatta. Hän alkoi jälleen valittaa ja huutaa nähdäkseen,
sattuisiko joku kuulemaan, mutta hän oli kuin huutavan ääni
korvessa, sillä koko siinä seudussa ei ollut ainoatakaan ihmistä, joka
olisi voinut huutoja kuulla, ja nyt hän piti itseään lopullisesti
menneenä miehenä. Harmo makasi kuono pystyssä, ja Sancho Panza
auttoi sitä niin, että sai sen jaloilleen, vaikka se tuskin kykeni
seisomaan; sitten hän otti eväspussista, joka oli joutunut saman
kovan kohtalon alaiseksi, kappaleen leipää ja antoi sen aasilleen,
joka ei ollut siitä pahoillaan. Sancho sanoi sille, ikäänkuin se olisi
hyvinkin puhetta ymmärtänyt:
— Ei hätää kovaa käsissä, jos viel' on leipää säkissä.
Samassa hän havaitsi luolan toisessa päässä aukon, joka oli niin
suuri, että ihminen mahtui siitä kulkemaan kumartuen ja ryömimällä.
Sancho Panza kiiruhti sinne, kyyristyi kokoon, ryömi aukkoon ja näki,
että sen takana oli avara onkalo, ja hän voi sen nähdä, koska
katosta, jos sitä katoksi voi sanoa, lankesi sisään auringonsäde,
jonka valossa sen voi selvästi havaita. Hän näki myös, että aukko
laajeni ja johti toiseen avaraan luolaan, ja sen huomattuaan hän
palasi takaisin aasinsa luo ja alkoi kivellä raivata pois maata aukosta
saaden sen aivan pian niin laajaksi, että aasi siitä helposti mahtui,
kuten sitten tapahtuikin. Sancho tarttui aasin marhamintaan ja alkoi
vaeltaa eteenpäin luolassa nähdäkseen, löytäisikö ulospääsyn
joltakin suunnalta. Toisinaan hän liikkui pimeässä, toisinaan valossa,
mutta ei milloinkaan pelkäämättä. »Jumala kaikkivaltias minua
auttakoon!» lausui hän itsekseen. »Tämä minulle onneton seikkailu
olisi paremmin sopinut isäntäni Don Quijoten mainioksi seikkailuksi.
Hän olisi varmaan pitänyt näitä kuiluja ja luolia kauniina
kukkatarhoina ja Galianan[45] palatseina ja olisi toivonut pääsevänsä
tästä pimeydestä ja ahdingosta jollekin kukkaniitylle; mutta ininä
onneton, neuvoton ja pelonalainen ajattelen joka askelella, että
jalkojeni alle avautuu yhtäkkiä toinen vielä syvempi kuilu, joka
kerrassaan minut nielaisee. Mutta tervetuloa vain, onnettomuus, jos
yksin tulet.» Sillä tavalla ja näissä mietteissä hän otaksui
kulkeneensa hiukan enemmän kuin puoli peninkulmaa, kun vihdoin
havaitsi himmeää valoa, joka näytti päivänvalolta ja lankesi sisään
jostakin aukosta osoittaen hänelle, että tämä tie, jota hän oli jo
pitänyt tienä haudantakaiseen elämään, sittenkin johti lopulta ylös
maan pinnalle.
Siihen hänet jättää Cide Hamete Benengeli palaten kertomaan

Don Quijotesta, joka iloisena ja tyytyväisenä odotti määrättyä aikaa
päästäkseen taistelemaan sen kunnottoman kanssa, joka oli riistänyt
kunnian Doña Rodriguezin tyttäreltä, aikoen kostaa sen vääryyden ja
solvauksen, joka tälle oli katalasti tehty. Sattui sitten, että hän,
ratsastettuaan eräänä aamuna ulos harjoittelemaan, mitä hänen oli
tehtävä tuona ratkaisevana hetkenä, johon otaksui joutuvansa
lähipäivinä, kannusti Rocinantea lyhyeen laukkaan tai hyökkäykseen
ja ajoi sen niin lähelle erästä kuoppaa, että ratsu olisi varmaan siihen
pudonnut, jollei ratsastaja olisi kaikin voimin kiristänyt ohjaksia. Hän
sai sentään hevosen pysähtymään, ettei pudonnut, ajoi sitten
maahan astumatta hiukan lähemmäksi, katseli tuota syvennystä ja
siinä katsellessaan kuuli sieltä kovaa huutoa. Hän kuunteli
tarkkaavasti ja kuuli huutajan sanovan: »Hoi te siellä ylhäällä! Onko
siellä ketään kristittyä ihmistä, joka huutoni kuulee tai ketään
armeliasta ritaria, joka säälii vaivaista syntistä, joka on joutunut
elävältä haudatuksi, onnetonta käskynhaltiaa, joka on hallituksensa
päättänyt?»
Don Quijote oli kuulevinaan Sancho Panzan äänen ja oli senvuoksi

kovin ihmeissään. Hän koroitti ääntään niin paljon kuin voi ja huusi:
— Kuka on siellä alhaalla? Kuka siellä valittaa?
— Kuka täällä onkaan ja kuka muu täällä valittaakaan — kuului

vastattavan — kuin kovaonninen Sancho Panza, joka syntiensä ja
onnettomuutensa tähden joutui Baratarian saaren käskynhaltiaksi,
kuuluisan ritarin Don Quijote Manchalaisen entinen aseenkantaja!
Tuon kuultuaan Don Quijote ihmetteli kaksin verroin, ja hänen

hämmästyksensä vielä lisääntyi, kun hän tuli ajatelleeksi, että
Sancho Panza varmaan oli kuollut ja että hänen sielunsa oli tuolla
alhaalla kiirastulen vaivoissa. Tätä kuvitelmaansa noudattaen hän
sanoi:
— Minä vannotan sinua kaiken sen nimessä, minkä nimessä voin

sinua vannottaa katolisena kristittynä, että sanot minulle, kuka olet,
ja jos olet kiirastulessa kärsivä sielu, niin sano minulle, mitä tahdot
minun hyväksesi tekevän; koska näet tehtävänäni on auttaa ja tukea
niitä, jotka tässä maailmassa kärsivät hätää, tahdon myös tukea ja
auttaa niitä, jotka ovat hädänalaisia toisessa maailmassa eivätkä voi
itse itseään auttaa.
— Jos niin on laita, — kuului vastattavan — niin teidän armonne,
joka minulle puhuu, on varmaan herrani Don Quijote Manchalainen,
ja äänestä päättäen te ette voikaan olla kukaan muu.
— Minä olen Don Quijote, — vastasi Don Quijote — hän, joka on

valinnut tehtäväkseen tukea ja auttaa eläviä ja kuolleita heidän
hädässään. Sano siis minulle, kuka olet sinä, joka saat minut
tällaisen hämmingin valtaan; jos näet olet aseenkantajani Sancho
Panza ja jos paholaiset eivät ole sinua vieneet, vaan olet Jumalan
laupeuden tähden kiirastulessa, niin meidän pyhällä äidillämme
roomalaiskatolisella kirkolla on riittävät keinot vapahtaa sinut
tuskista, joita nyt kärsit, ja minä puolestani koetan häntä siihen
kehoittaa niin hartaasti kuin suinkin osaan. Puhu siis suoraa kieltä ja
sano minulle, kuka olet.
— Minä vannon — kuului vastattavan — minkä nimessä ja kenen

syntymän kautta tahansa, herra Don Quijote Manchalainen, että olen
aseenkantajanne Sancho Panza ja etten ole kuollut vielä ikipäivinäni,
vaan olen heittänyt käskynhaltianvirkani semmoisten syitten ja
seikkojen tähden, joiden kertomiseen tarvitaan enemmän aikaa, ja
nyt minä tässä viime yönä putosin tähän luolaan, missä vieläkin
makaan, ja kanssani on harmo, joka varmaan todistaa puheeni
oikeaksi, sillä se on suuremmaksi varmuudeksi tässä ihan vieressäni.
Ja mitä ollakaan: näyttää siltä kuin aasi olisi ymmärtänyt Sanchon

puheen, sillä se alkoi samassa huutaa niin kovasti, että koko luola
raikui.
— Mainio todistaja! — sanoi Don Quijote. — Tuon huudon minä

tunnen kuin olisin itse sen siittänyt, ja kuulenhan minä sinunkin
äänesi, rakas Sancho. Odota, minä lähden tästä herttuan linnaan,
joka on aivan lähellä, ja tuon sieltä jonkun vetämään sinut ylös tästä
kuilusta, johon syntisi nähtävästi ovat sinut langettaneet.
— Menkää tosiaan, armollinen herra, — sanoi Sancho — ja

palatkaa pian ainoan Jumalan nimessä, sillä minä en kestä sitä enää,
että olen täällä elävältä haudattuna ja pelkoon menehtymässä.
Don Quijote jätti hänet ja lähti linnaan kertomaan herttualle ja

herttuattarelle, miten Sancho Panzan oli käynyt. Se heitä melko lailla
ihmetytti, vaikka he hyvin ymmärsivät, että hänen oli täytynyt
pudota; he näet tunsivat hyvin luolan, joka oli ollut siellä
ikimuistoisista ajoista; mutta he eivät voineet käsittää, kuinka
Sancho oli jättänyt käskynhaltianvirkansa heidän saamatta mitään
tietoa hänen tulostaan. Viimein lähdettiin paikalle, mukana köydet ja
nuorat, ja monen miehen väellä ja suurella vaivalla Sancho Panza ja
harmo vedettiin pimeydestä päivän valkeuteen. Sen näki muudan
ylioppilas, joka sanoi:
— Kaikkien huonojen käskynhaltioitten pitäisi lähteä viroistaan

niinkuin tämä syntinen nyt nousee syvyyden kuilusta, nälkään
menehtymässä, kelmein kasvoin ja luullakseni ilman yhtään kolikkoa.
Sancho kuuli sen ja sanoi:
— Siitä on nyt kahdeksan tai kymmenen päivää, hyvä veli

morkkaaja, kun minä rupesin hallitsemaan minulle annettua saarta,
ja koko sinä aikana en ole ollut hetkeäkään kylläinen, en edes
leivästä; minua ovat vainonneet lääkärit, ja viholliset ovat
murskanneet luuni, eikä minulla ole ollut tilaisuutta hankkia itselleni
mitään vääryydellä enempää kuin oikeudellakaan, ja jos on niin laita,
kuten todella onkin, en olisi mielestäni ansainnut joutua sieltä pois
tällä tavalla; mutta ihminen päättää ja Jumala säätää, ja Jumala
parhaiten tietää, mikä on kullekin parasta, ja tapahtukoon kaikki aina
ajallaan, ja älköön kukaan sylkekö liemeen, sillä moni luulee
löytävänsä kinkun, missä ei ole kinkunkoukkuakaan, ja Jumala kyllä
ymmärtää tarkoitukseni, ja riittäköön tämä, en sano enempää,
vaikka kyllä osaisin.
— Älä nyt suutu, Sancho, äläkä pahastu siitä, mitä kuulet, muuten
tästä ei tule loppuakaan. Lähde nyt vain pois hyvällä omallatunnolla,
ja sanokoot mitä tahtovat, sillä yhtä mieletöntä on yrittää sitoa
panettelijoiden kieliä kuin sulkea veräjällä vainiota. Jos käskynhaltia
poistuu virastaan rikkaana, sanotaan, että hän on ollut varas, ja jos
hän eroaa siitä köyhänä, sanotaan, että hän on ollut mitätön mies ja
vähämielinen.
— Se ainakin on varmaa, — vastasi Sancho — että niiden täytyy

tällä kertaa pitää minua pikemmin hölmönä kuin varkaana.
Näin keskustellen he saapuivat poikasten ja monien muitten

ympäröiminä linnaan, jonka parvekkeella herttua ja herttuatar jo
olivat odottamassa Don Quijotea ja Sanchoa. Sancho ei halunnut
lähteä herttuaa tervehtimään, ennenkuin oli toimittanut harmonsa
talliin, sillä se oli, kuten hän sanoi, viettänyt majapaikassaan hyvin
huonon yön. Sitten hän lähti tervehtimään herrasväkeä, painui
polvilleen heidän eteensä ja sanoi:
— Minä, armollinen herrasväki, lähdin, koska teidän ylhäisyytenne

niin tahtoi, ilman yhtään omaa ansiotani hallitsemaan teidän
saartanne Baratariaa; paljaana minä sinne tulin ja paljas olen
vieläkin, en ole menettänyt enkä voittanut. Siitä, olenko hallinnut
hyvin vai huonosti, minulla on ollut todistajia ympärilläni, jotka
saavat sanoa, mitä hyväksi näkevät. Minä olen ratkaissut
epäilyksenalaisia kysymyksiä, langettanut tuomioita ja ollut koko
ajan nälkään nääntymässä, koska niin on suvainnut asiat järjestää
tohtori Pedro Tuima, saaren ja käskynhaltian lääkäri, jonka
kotipaikan nimi on Puikipois. Viholliset hyökkäsivät meidän
kimppuumme yöllä, ja saaren asukkaat sanovat, että he,
jouduttuaan pahaan ahdinkoon, siitä selviytyivät ja saivat voiton
minun urhoollisen käsivarteni avulla, ja suokoon Jumala heille
menestystä niin totta kuin he totta puhuvat. Minä olen sanalla
sanoen saanut tänä aikana tuta niitä rasituksia ja velvollisuuksia,
jotka kuuluvat käskynhaltianvirkaan, ja olen puolestani havainnut,
etteivät minun hartiani kykene niitä kantamaan ja ettei minun selkäni
kestä niiden painoa ja etteivät ne ole semmoisia nuolia, jotka sopivat
minun viineeni, ja sentähden minä, peläten, että käskynhaltianvirka
voisi jättää minut, tahdoin jättää käskynhaltianviran, ja niin minä
eilen aamulla poistuin saaresta, missä on kaikki samassa kunnossa
kuin minun sinne tullessani, samat kadut, talot ja katot. En ole
pyytänyt rahaa lainaksi keneltäkään enkä ole yrittänyt mitenkään
hyötyä, ja vaikka ajattelin säätää muutamia hyödyllisiä asetuksia, en
kumminkaan säätänyt mitään, koska pelkäsin, ettei niitä
noudatettaisi; jos näet niin käy, on aivan sama, säätääkö ne vai
jättääkö säätämättä. Minä lähdin, kuten sanoin, saaresta seurassani
vain harmo, putosin luolaan ja kuljin sitä pitkin, kunnes tänä aamuna
auringon noustua näin ulospääsyn. Mutta asia ei ollut sittenkään
helppo; jollei taivas olisi lähettänyt luokseni herraani Don Quijotea,
olisin varmaan jäänyt sinne maailman loppuun saakka. Niinpä siis,
armollinen herra herttua ja rouva herttuatar, tässä nyt seisoo teidän
käskynhaltianne Sancho Panza, joka sinä lyhyenä kahdeksan päivän
aikana, jonka on ollut käskynhaltiana, on voittanut toimestaan sen
varman vakuutuksen, ettei hänen tee ollenkaan mieli olla
käskynhaltiana, ei saaressa eikä koko maailmassa, ja kun tämä nyt
on tapahtunut, suutelen teidän armojenne jalkoja ja niinkuin pojat
leikkiessään huutavat »hyppää pois ja päästä minut», niin hyppään
minä ulos käskynhaltianvirasta ja astun herrani Don Quijoten
palvelukseen; vaikka näet syön siinä virassa leipää pelolla ja
vapistuksella, saan ainakin syödä kyllikseni, ja kun vain olen
kylläinen, niin vähät minä välitän, olenko syönyt porkkanoita vai
peltopyitä.
Siihen Sancho lopetti pitkän puheensa, jonka kestäessä Don

Quijote oli alinomaa pelännyt, että hän lausuisi tuhansia hullutuksia;
mutta huomatessaan Sanchon pääsevän puheensa päähän niinkin
onnellisesti hän kiitti sydämessään taivasta. Herttua syleili Sanchoa
ja sanoi olevansa murheellinen, että hän oli niin pian luopunut
käskynhaltianvirastaan, mutta lupasi pitää huolta, että Sancho saisi
hänen tiluksillaan toisen viran, josta olisi vähemmän vaivaa ja
enemmän hyötyä. Herttuatarkin syleili Sanchoa ja käski kestitä häntä
hyvin, koska oli aivan ilmeistä, että hän oli joutunut kovia kokemaan
ja pahoin pidellyksi.
Kuudeskuudetta luku.
Hirmuisesta ja ennenkuulumattomasta taistelusta, johon kävivät

Don Quijote Manchalainen ja lakeija Tosilos ensinmainitun
puolustaessa kamarirouva Doña Rodriguezin tytärtä.
Herttua ja herttuatar eivät katuneet pilaa, jota olivat tehneet

Sancho Panzasta antamalla hänelle käskynhaltianviran, sitä
vähemmän, kun heidän hovimestarinsa saapui jo samana päivänä ja
kertoi heille yksityiskohtaisesti melkein kaikki Sanchon noina päivinä
lausumat ja suorittamat sanat ja teot ja lopuksi erityisellä huolella
kuvaili hyökkäystä saareen, Sanchon pelkoa ja hänen poistumistaan,
mikä heitä kelpo lailla huvitti. Sitten historia kertoo, että suunnitellun
taistelun päivä koitti, ja herttua, joka oli kerran ja monta kertaa
teroittanut lakeijansa mieleen, miten hänen piti menetellä Don
Quijoten kanssa, jotta voittaisi hänet häntä surmaamatta tai edes
haavoittamatta, käski ottaa peitsistä pois rautakärjet selittäen Don
Quijotelle, ettei kristillinen mieli, jota hän piti kunnianaan, sallinut
taistelua järjestettävän niin, että taistelevien henki joutuisi kovin
suureen vaaraan, vaan että Don Quijoten tuli tyytyä siihen, että hän,
herttua, luovutti hänelle vapaan taistelupaikan tiluksillaan, vaikka tuli
siten rikkoneeksi pyhän Kirkolliskokouksen määräystä,[46] joka
kieltää sellaiset kaksintaistelut; hän siis toivoi, ettei tätä ankaraa
ottelua kehitettäisi äärimmilleen. Don Quijote vastasi, että hänen
ylhäisyytensä sai järjestää asian yksityiskohdat aivan oman mielensä
mukaan ja että hän tulisi kaikin puolin häntä tottelemaan. Kun siis
tuo peloittava päivä oli saapunut ja herttua oli käskenyt rakentaa
linnan edustalle tilavat telineet, joille asettuisivat taistelutuomarit ja
molemmat syyttäjinä esiintyneet naiset, äiti ja tytär, oli kaikista
paikoista ja kylistä koko lähiseudulta saapunut suunnattoman paljon
väkeä katselemaan tätä ennennäkemätöntä taistelua; sellaista näet
ei tosiaankaan ollut kukaan niillä mailla milloinkaan nähnyt eikä edes
kuullut sellaisesta kerrottavan, eivät elossa olevat enempää kuin
nekään, jotka olivat jo kuolleet.
Ensimmäisenä astui kentälle ja aitaukseen turnajaisten ohjaaja,

joka tutki paikan ja kulki sen ympäri nähdäkseen, ettei siinä ollut
mitään vilppiä eikä mitään piilotettua esinettä, johon voisi kompastua
ja kaatua. Sitten tulivat molemmat naiset ja asettuivat paikoilleen,
kasvoilla hunnut, jotka ulottuivat heidän silmilleen, vieläpä
rinnoilleenkin. He näyttivät joutuvan melkoisen mielenliikutuksen
valtaan nähdessään Don Quijoten jo olevan taistelutanterella. Vähän
ajan kuluttua ilmaantui tanteren toiselle laidalle monilukuisien
torvensoittajien seuraamana kookas lakeija Tosilos ratsastaen
valtavalla hevosella, jonka alla maa vavahteli. Hänen kypärinsä
silmikko oli suljettu, ja hän oli kokonaan verhottu raskaisiin ja
loistaviin varuksiin, joissa hän tuskin kykeni hievahtamaan. Hevonen
näytti olevan friisiläistä rotua, leveärintainen tumma kimo, ja sen
etu- ja takajalkojen vuohisista riippui jokaisesta parinkymmenen
naulan painoinen karvatukko. Herra herttua oli tarkoin teroittanut
tämän urhean taistelijan mieleen, kuinka hänen piti menetellä
urhoollisen Don Quijote Manchalaisen kanssa, ja hänelle oli
huomautettu, ettei hän missään tapauksessa saanut ritaria surmata,
vaan että hänen piti koettaa välttää ensimmäistä hyökkäystä, jotta ei
joutuisi vaaraan aiheuttaa hänen kuolemaansa, joka oli varma, jos
Tosilos hyökkäisi hänen kimppuunsa täyttä vauhtia. Tosilos ratsasti
taistelutanteren ympäri ja saavuttuaan siihen kohtaan, missä naiset
istuivat, katseli vähän aikaa sitä henkilöä, joka vaati häntä
puolisokseen. Taistelumarsalkka kutsui Don Quijotea, joka oli jo
saapunut tanterelle, ja esitti lakeijan kanssa naisille kysymyksen,
suostuivatko he siihen, että Don Quijote Manchalainen kävisi
puolustamaan heidän oikeuttaan. Naiset vastasivat myöntävästi ja
vakuuttivat pitävänsä kaikkea, mitä hän tulisi asiassa tekemään,
oikeana, hyvänä ja pätevänä. Sillävälin olivat herttua ja herttuatar
sijoittuneet parvekkeelle, mistä voi nähdä taistelutanteren, jota
ympäröi suunnaton väkijoukko haluten katsella tuota hirmuista ja
ennenkuulumatonta ottelua. Taistelijat olivat sopineet, että Don
Quijoten voittaessa hänen vastustajansa täytyisi naida Doña
Rodriguezin tytär ja että hänen hävitessään hänen vastustajansa
pääsisi vapaaksi lupauksesta, jonka vuoksi häntä syytettiin,
tarvitsematta antaa mitään muuta korvausta. Turnajaisten ohjaaja
sijoitti nyt taistelijat sivuttain aurinkoon, kummankin siihen paikkaan,
missä heidän tuli olla. Rummut pärisivät, torvien toitotus täytti ilman,
tanner vapisi jalkojen alla, katselijain sydämet olivat täynnä
levottomuutta, toisten pelätessä ja toisten toivoessa asian onnellista
tai onnetonta päättymistä. Don Quijote sulkeutui vihdoin koko
sydämestään Herramme Jumalan ja neiti Dulcinea Tobosolaisen
suojelukseen ja odotti, että annettaisiin merkki hyökkäykseen. Mutta
lakeijamme oli aivan toisissa ajatuksissa; hän mietti ainoastaan sitä,
minkä tässä kohta mainitsen.
Näyttää siltä, että hänen katsellessaan vihamielistä neitiä tämä

tuntui hänestä ihanimmalta naiselta, mitä hän oli eläessään nähnyt,
ja se pieni sokea poika, jota yleensä ja kaikkialla nimitetään
Amoriksi, ei tahtonut päästää käsistään hänelle nyt tarjoutuvaa
tilaisuutta saada haltuunsa eräs lakeijansielu ja liittää se
voitonmerkkiensä luetteloon; hän siis lähestyi miestä aivan hiljaa,
kenenkään häntä näkemättä, lasketti kahden kyynärän pituisen
nuolen lakeija paran vasempaan kylkeen ja kerrassaan lävisti hänen
sydämensä, ja sen hän voi tehdä kaikessa rauhassa, sillä Amor on
näkymätön ja kulkee ulos ja sisään mistä haluaa, kenenkään
voimatta vaatia häntä tilille teoistaan. Sanon siis, että
hyökkäysmerkkiä annettaessa lakeijamme kerrassaan
hurmaantuneena ajatteli sen naisen kauneutta, jonka oli jo tehnyt
vapautensa valtiattareksi, eikä siis ollenkaan kuunnellut
torventoitotusta, aivan toisin kuin Don Quijote, joka tuskin sen
kuultuaan kävi hyökkäykseen ja syöksyi kohti vihollistaan niin
vinhasti kuin Rocinante suinkin jaksoi juosta; ja nähdessään hänen
syöksyvän päin hänen kelpo aseenkantajansa Sancho huusi
raikuvalla äänellä:
— Jumala sinua johdattakoon, sinä vaeltavien ritarien kerma ja

kukka!
Jumala suokoon sinulle voiton, sillä oikeus on sinun puolellasi!
Vaikka Tosilos näki Don Quijoten hyökkäävän päin, ei hän

hievahtanutkaan paikaltaan, vaan kutsui kovalla äänellä marsalkkaa
ja hänen tultuaan kysymään, mitä hän tahtoi, sanoi hänelle:
— Hyvä herra, eikö tämä taistelu tapahdu sitä varten, että

saataisiin selville, pitääkö minun naida tuo neiti vai ei?
— Epäilemättä — kuului vastaus.
— No niin, — sanoi lakeija — niinä pelkään tunnonvaivoja ja

rasittaisin omaatuntoani kovin, jos lähtisin jatkamaan tätä taistelua;
niinpä sanonkin, että tunnustan itseni voitetuksi ja haluan heti naida
tuon neidin.
Marsalkka oli ihmeissään, kun kuuli, mitä Tosilos sanoi, ja vaikka

hän oli eräs niistä, jotka olivat osallisina koko tässä juonessa, ei hän
osannut vastata mitään. Don Quijote keskeytti hyökkäyksensä
nähdessään, ettei hänen vihollisensa hyökännyt häntä vastaan.
Herttua ei tietänyt, mikä oli syynä siihen, ettei taistelusta tullut sen
enempää, mutta marsalkka meni hänen luokseen ja ilmoitti, mitä
Tosilos oli sanonut, ja siitä herttua kovin hämmästyi ja suuttui.
Sillävälin Tosilos meni sinne, missä Doña Rodriguez istui, ja huusi
kovalla äänellä:
— Armollinen rouva, minä haluan naida tyttärenne enkä tahdo

riidalla ja tappelulla saavuttaa, mitä voin saavuttaa kaikessa
rauhassa ja ilman hengenvaaraa.
Urhoollinen Don Quijote kuuli sen ja lausui:

— Koska niin on laita, olen vapaa lupauksestani; menkää naimisiin
onneksenne, ja koska Herramme Jumala on hänet teille suonut,
siunatkoon hänet teille pyhä Pietari.
Herttua oli tullut alas linnan pihalle, astui lakeijan luo ja sanoi
hänelle:
— Onko totta, ritari, että tunnustatte itsenne voitetuksi ja että

haluatte mennä naimisiin tämän neidin kanssa omantuntonne
vaatimuksesta?
— On kyllä, armollinen herra — vastasi Tosilos.
— Siinä hän tekeekin aivan oikein, — virkkoi siihen Sancho Panza

— sillä parasta on antaa kissalle, minkä muuten hiiri vie, niin pääsee
siitä vaivasta.
Tosilos yritti irroittaa kypäriänsä ja pyysi, että toiset tulisivat hänen

avukseen, koska hän oli tukehtumaisillaan eikä voinut olla kauempaa
suljettuna ahtaaseen häkkiinsä. Se riisuttiin häneltä tuota pikaa, ja
hänen lakeijankasvonsa paljastuivat kaikkien katseltaviksi. Ne
nähtyään Doña Rodriguez ja hänen tyttärensä huusivat täyttä
kurkkua:
— Tämä on petosta; petostahan tämä on! Oikean sulhasen sijaan

on pantu Tosilos, armollisen herra herttuan lakeija! Jumala ja
kuningas tulkoot avuksi tämmöisessä ilkeydessä, jotta emme sano
konnamaisuudessa!
— Älkää olko huolissanne, armolliset rouvat, — virkkoi Don Quijote

— sillä tämä ei ole ilkeyttä eikä konnamaisuutta, ja jos olisikin, niin
siihen ei ole ollut syynä herttua, vaan minua vainoavat katalat
noidat, jotka, minulle tämän voiton kunniaa suomatta, ovat
muuttaneet sulhasmiehenne kasvot tämän miehen naamaksi, jonka
on väitetty olevan herttuan lakeija. Noudattakaa neuvoani ja menkää
hänen kanssaan naimisiin ollenkaan välittämättä vihollisteni
ilkeydestä, sillä te haluatte aivan varmaan saada juuri hänet
puolisoksi.
Kuullessaan tuon herttua oli vähällä antaa koko kiukkunsa

purkautua nauruksi ja sanoi:
— Seikat, joita herra Don Quijotelle sattuu, ovat niin erinomaisia,

että melkein uskon, ettei tämä minun lakeijani ole minun lakeijani;
mutta käyttäkäämme juonta ja viekkautta: siirtäkäämme häät
kahden viikon päähän, jos niin haluatte, ja pitäkäämme tätä
henkilöä, joka nyt saa meidät epäröimään, niin kauan vangittuna,
sillä voihan sattua, että hän sinä aikana saa takaisin entisen
hahmonsa; noitien karsaus Don Quijotea kohtaan ei näet voine
kestää niin kauan, varsinkaan, kun heillä ei ole mitään sanottavaa
hyötyä tällaisista muodonmuutoksista.
— Voi armollinen herra, — sanoi Sancho — noilla ilkiöillä on aivan

yleisenä tapana muuttaa toiseen muotoon asioita, jotka koskevat
isäntääni. Erään ritarin, jonka hän taannoin voitti ja jonka nimi oli
Peiliritari, he muuttivat kandidaatti Simson Carrascoksi, joka on
kotoisin kylästämme ja oli hyvä ystävämme, ja armollisen neidin
Dulcinea Tobosolaisen ne ovat muuttaneet kömpelöksi
maalaistytöksi, ja siitä syystä minä luulen, että tämä lakeija tulee
kuolemaan ja elämään lakeijana kaiken ikänsä.
Siihen virkkoi Doña Rodriguezin tytär:

— Olkoon tämä, joka pyytää minua vaimokseen — mistä olen
hänelle kiitollinen — kuka tahansa; minä tahdon mieluummin olla
lakeijan laillinen vaimo kuin jonkun ritarin petetty rakastajatar, vaikka
eihän se, joka minut petti, ollutkaan mikään ritari.
Lopulta nämä kaikki tarinat ja tapahtumat päättyivät siten, että

Tosilos päätettiin pitää tallessa, kunnes nähtäisiin, miten hänen
muodonmuutoksensa kävisi. Kaikki ylistivät huutaen Don Quijotea
voittajaksi, mutta useimmat olivat pahoillaan ja alakuloisina siitä,
etteivät nuo kaksi taistelijaa, joiden ottelua oli niin hartaasti
odotettu, olleet hakanneet toisiaan kappaleiksi, aivan kuin katupojat
ovat pahoillaan, kun heidän odottamansa hirsipuuhun tuomittu ei
tulekaan, koska hänet on armahtanut joko vastapuoli tai oikeus. Väki
lähti tiehensä, herttua ja Don Quijote palasivat linnaan, Tosilos
suljettiin tyrmään, Doña Rodriguez ja hänen tyttärensä olivat
erinomaisen iloisia havaitessaan, että juttu sittenkin tavalla tai
toisella tulisi johtamaan avioliittoon, ja Tosilos toivoi sitä samaa.
Seitsemäskuudetta luku,
jossa kerrotaan, miten Don Quijote sanoi jäähyväiset herttualle ja

mitä hänelle sattui herttuattaren kamarineidin, älykkään ja huiman
Altisidoran kanssa.
Don Quijotesta tuntui jo soveliaalta luopua linnassa viettämästään

joutilaasta elämästä, sillä hän kuvitteli, että hänen persoonaansa
kovin kaivattiin, hänen salliessaan pidättää itseään eristettynä ja
joutilaana ja ottamassa osaa niihin lukemattomiin pitoihin ja
huveihin, joita herttua ja herttuatar järjestivät hänelle, vaeltavalle
ritarille, ja hänestä tuntui kuin hän joutuisi tekemään taivaalle
ankaraa tiliä tästä joutilaisuudesta. Niin hän eräänä päivänä pyysi
herttualta ja herttuattarelta lupaa lähteä pois. He suostuivat hänen
pyyntöönsä samalla vakuuttaen, että hänen lähtönsä kovin pahoitti
heidän mieltään. Herttuatar antoi Sancho Panzalle tämän vaimon
kirjoittamat kirjeet, Sancho kuunteli niitä itkeä tillittäen ja lausui:
— Kuka olisi osannut ajatella, että semmoiset suuret toiveet kuin

ne, joita tieto minun käskynhaltiana-olostani sytytti eukkoni Teresa
Panzan poveen, sammuisivat siihen, että minä nyt palaan ottamaan
osaa isäntäni Don Quijoten surkeihin seikkailuihin? Olen kumminkin
iloinen havaitessani, että Teresani käyttäytyi niinkuin hänen tuli ja
sopi, koska hän lähetti tammenterhoja herttuattarelle; jollei hän olisi
niitä lähettänyt, olisin ollut siitä pahoillani, ja Teresa olisi osoittanut
kiittämättömyyttä. Lohdutuksenani on, että tätä lahjaa ei mitenkään
voida nimittää lahjuksiksi, sillä minä olin jo käskynhaltiana, kun hän
sen lähetti, ja on oikein ja kohtuullista, että ne, jotka saavat ottaa
vastaan jonkin hyvän työn, osoittavat kiitollisuuttaan, vaikkapa
vähäpätöisessäkin muodossa. Paljaanahan minä
käskynhaltianvirkaan rupesin ja paljaana minä siitä lähden, niin että
voin sanoa hyvällä omallatunnolla, mikä ei olekaan mikään
pikkuasia: »Alastonna minä synnyin ja alaston olen, ei ole tullut
häviötä enempää kuin voittoakaan.»
Näin puhui Sancho itsekseen lähtöpäivänä, ja Don Quijote, joka oli

edellisenä iltana sanonut jäähyväiset herttualle ja herttuattarelle,
ilmaantui aamulla varuksissaan linnanpihalle. Häntä katseli
parvekkeelta koko linnanväki, ja herttua ja herttuatarkin tulivat ulos
häntä näkemään. Sancho istui harmonsa selässä haarapusseineen,
matkalaukkuineen ja eväineen erinomaisen tyytyväisenä, sillä
herttuan hovimestari, hän, joka oli ollut Trifaldina, oli antanut hänelle
pienen kukkaron, jossa oli kaksisataa kultadukaattia
matkakustannuksia varten, ja tätä Don Quijote ei vielä tietänyt. Kun
siis kaikki, kuten sanottu, parhaillaan häntä katselivat, koroitti
herttuattaren muitten kamarirouvien ja kamarineitien keskeltä, jotka
olivat kerääntyneet lähtöä katselemaan, huima ja älykäs Altisidora
äänensä lausuen murheellisesti:
Oi kuule, ritari häijy, pidätä hiukkasen, älä kannusta

kaakkias juoksuun noin hurjasti peläten.
Kas, ethän käärmettä julmaa

sä pakene, uskoton,
ei lammaskaan sua vainoo,
— vain karitsa pieni se on.
Sinä hurmasit neidon kauniin — ei yhtään vertaista tään

Diana vuorilla nähnyt, ei Venus metsissään.
Mene hornan kuiluun, saattonas Barrabas, sinä julma

Bireno[47] ja karkaava Aeneas.
Ah hirviö, terävin kynsin sinä kannat mun sydäntäin, joka

antaunut on sulle, sun katseestas värähtäin.
Viet myssyä kolme ja sukkain

monikirjavat nauhat pois
sinä polvista, hohtoa joitten
ei marmori voittaa vois.
Kakstuhatta huokausta niin tulista myöskin sait, ett' ois ne

polttaa voineet kakstuhatta Troiaa kait.
Bireno ja karkaava Aeneas.
Asemiehesi Sanchon mieli niin kovaksi paatukoon, ett' iäksi

Dulcinea jää lumottuun olentoon.
Sun rikostes rangaistuksen

niin kärsiä saakoon hän,
kuin vanhurskasten nähdään
vuoks syntisten kärsivän.
Sinun hienot seikkailuretkes lopun kurjimman saakohon,

unennäöksi jääköön riemus, nimes olkoon: Uskoton.

Nimes olkoon mainetta vailla

Granadasta Lojaan, niin
Sevillasta myös Marchenaan
ja Lontoosta Englantiin.
Ja neljän kuninkaan kirjaa

jos joskus sä tutkinet,
sua ässä ja kuningas karttaa
ja valttia löydä et.
Kun liikavarpaitas leikkaat,

veri varpaasta vierähtää,
kun sinulta hampaita viedään,
niin juuret suuhusi jää.
Murheellisen Altisidoran tällä tavalla valittaessa tuskaansa Don

Quijote katseli häntä koko ajan; sitten hän kääntyi sanaakaan
vastaamatta Sanchon puoleen ja sanoi hänelle:
— Esivanhempiesi autuuden nimessä, rakas Sancho, minä

vannotan sinua tunnustamaan minulle totuuden. Sano minulle, onko
sinulla kukaties ne kolme myssyä ja ne sukkanauhat, joista tuo
rakastunut neiti puhuu?
Siihen vastasi Sancho:
— Ne kolme myssyä minulla kyllä on, mutta sukkanauhoista ei

aavistustakaan.
Herttuatar hämmästyi Altisidoran julkeutta; vaikka hän piti

kamarineitiänsä huimana, veitikkamaisena ja hillittömänä, ei hän
kumminkaan olisi uskonut, että tyttö rohkenisi olla näin julkea, ja
hänen hämmästyksensä oli sitä suurempi, kun hän ei ollut osannut
tätä pilaa odottaa. Herttua halusi jatkaa leikkiä ja sanoi:
— Minusta ei näytä oikealta, herra ritari, että te, nautittuanne

tässä linnassani osaksenne tullutta hyvää kohtelua, olette rohjennut
ottaa mukaanne ainakin kolme myssyä ja mahdollisesti vielä
kamarineitini sukkanauhat. Tämä osoittaa huonoa sydäntä; se on
teko, joka huonosti sopii teidän maineeseenne. Antakaa hänelle
sukkanauhat takaisin; jollette niin tee, haastan teidät taistelemaan
elämästä ja kuolemasta, ollenkaan pelkäämättä, että konnamaiset
noidat muuttavat minut toiseen hahmoon tai vaihtavat kasvoni,
niinkuin ovat vaihtaneet lakeijani kasvot, joka kävi kanssanne
kaksintaisteluun.
— Jumala varjelkoon — vastasi Don Quijote minua paljastamasta

miekkaani teidän kaikkein korkeinta persoonaanne vastaan, jolta
olen saanut niin paljon suosionosoituksia. Myssyt minä annan
takaisin, koska Sancho sanoo, että ne hänellä on, mutta
sukkanauhoja minun on mahdoton palauttaa, sillä niitä en ole saanut
minä enempää kuin hänkään, ja jos tämä teidän kamarineitinne
suvaitsee tutkia piilopaikkojaan, niin hän varmasti ne löytää. Minä,
armollinen herra herttua, en ole koskaan ollut varas enkä aio siksi
tulla eläessäni, jollei Jumala minua kokonaan hylkää. Tämä
kamarineiti puhuu, kuten hän itse sanoo, rakastuneena, mihin minä
en ole syypää, ja niinmuodoin minun ei tarvitse anoa mitään
anteeksi, ei häneltä eikä teidän ylhäisyydeltänne, jota hartaasti
pyydän ajattelemaan itsestäni paremmin ja jälleen antamaan minulle
luvan lähteä matkaan.
— Jumala suokoon, että matkanne on onnellinen, herra Don

Quijote, — sanoi herttuatar — ja että saamme aina kuulla hyviä
uutisia urotöistänne. Ja lähtekää nyt Jumalan nimeen, sillä mitä
kauemmin viivyttelette, sitä enemmän kiihdätte tulta näiden teitä
katselevien neitojen povissa; mutta minä tulen rankaisemaan
kamarineitiäni, niin ettei hän tästä lähtien käyttäydy sopimattomasti,
ei katseissaan eikä puheissaan.
— Minä pyydän sinua kuulemaan vielä yhden ainoan sanan, oi

urhoollinen Don Quijote, — sanoi nyt Altisidora — ja se on tämä:
minä pyydän sinulta anteeksi, että syytin sinua sukkanauhojen
varastamisesta, sillä Jumalan ja oman sieluni nimessä, minullahan on
ne ylläni, ja minä olen ollut yhtä hajamielinen kuin se, joka etsi aasia
sillä ratsastaessaan.
— Enkö sitä sanonut? — virkkoi Sancho. — Minä se olenkin oikea

poika salantajaksi! Jos minua olisi haluttanut niin tehdä, niin totisesti
minulla olisi ollut siihen mainio tilaisuus ollessani käskynhaltiana.
Don Quijote taivutti päätään ja kumarsi herttualle ja herttuattarelle

ja kaikille läsnäolijoille; sitten hän käänsi Rocinanten, Sancho seurasi
häntä harmollaan, ja niin hän lähti pois linnasta suunnaten kulkunsa
kohti Zaragozaa.
Kahdeksaskuudetta luku,
jossa kerrotaan, kuinka Don Quijotelle sateli seikkailuja niin paljon,

että toinen oli toisen tiellä.
Päästyään avoimelle kentälle, missä Altisidoran lemmentouhu ei

häntä vaivannut eikä rasittanut, Don Quijote tunsi olevansa oikein
elementissään, hänen elämänvoimansa virkistyivät jälleen jatkamaan
ritarillista tehtävää, ja hän kääntyi sanomaan Sancholle:
— Vapaus, hyvä Sancho, on kalleimpia lahjoja, mitä taivas on

ihmisille suonut; sille eivät vedä vertoja ne aarteet, joita maa
sisäänsä kätkee ja meri helmaansa salaa; vapauden samoinkuin
kunnian tähden sopii ja tuleekin uskaltaa henkensä; vankeus
sitävastoin on suurin onnettomuus, mikä voi ihmisiä kohdata. Sanon
tämän, Sancho, siksi, että olet varmaan havainnut, millaista
hekumallista ja yltäkylläistä elämää olemme viettäneet linnassa,
josta nyt lähdemme. Mutta sittenkin minusta tuntui keskellä noita
ylellisiä pitoja ja jäähdytettyjä juomia, että olin kuin nälkäänäkevä,
koska en nauttinut niitä niin vapaasti kuin olisin nauttinut, jos kaikki
olisi ollut omaani; velvollisuus korvata hyviä tekoja ja
suosionosoituksia, joita on osakseen saanut, on näet kahle, joka
estää sielua vapaasti liikkumasta. Onnellinen se, jolle taivas on
antanut leivänkannikan hänen tarvitsematta siitä kiittää ketään
muuta kuin taivasta itseään!
— Huolimatta kaikesta, mitä teidän armonne nyt sanoi, ‒ virkkoi

Sancho — on väärin, jollemme ole puolestamme kiitollisia niistä
kahdestasadasta dukaatista, jotka minulle antoi kukkaroineen
päivineen herttuan hovimestari ja joita nyt kannan povellani kuin
sydämen laastarina ja vahvistavana lääkkeenä kaiken sen varalta,
mitä voi sattua; me näet emme suinkaan aina löydä linnoja, missä
meitä kestitään, vaan voimme kenties osua majapaikkoihin, missä
meitä piestään.
Näissä ja muissa samanlaisissa keskusteluissa molemmat vaeltajat,

ritari ja aseenkantaja, liikkuivat eteenpäin. Kuljettuaan hiukan toista
peninkulmaa he näkivät eräällä viheriällä niityllä ruohikossa noin
tusinan miehiä, jotka olivat talonpoikaispuvuissa ja istuivat
nuttujensa päällä aterioimassa. Heillä oli vierellään eräänlaisia
valkoisia lakanoita, joilla he olivat jotakin peittäneet; lakanat olivat
maasta koholla ja erillään toisistaan. Don Quijote lähestyi
aterioitsevia, tervehti heitä ensin kohteliaasti ja kysyi sitten, mitä oli
noitten liinojen alla. Eräs miehistä vastasi:
— Hyvä herra, näiden peitteitten alla on muutamia veistokuvia,

jotka tullaan liittämään kylämme kirkossa rakenteilla olevaan
alttariin; me kuljetamme niitä peitettyinä, jotta ne eivät menetä
kiiltoaan, ja kannamme niitä olkapäillämme, jotta ne eivät säry.
— Jos suvaitsette, — vastasi Don Quijote — haluaisin mielelläni ne

nähdä, sillä kuvat, joita kuljetetaan niin varovasti, ovat varmaan
oivallisia.
— Ovatpa tietenkin! — vastasi mies. — Osoittaahan sen jo niiden

hinta, sillä niiden joukossa ei totisesti ole yhtäkään, joka ei maksa
kuudettakymmentä dukaattia ja jos teidän armonne haluaa nähdä,
että niin on laita, niin odottakaa vähän, saatte nähdä sen omin
silmin.
Mies nousi aterialtaan ja meni ottamaan pois peiton ensimmäisen

kuvan päältä, joka esitti ratsastavaa Pyhää Yrjänää. Ratsun jaloissa
kiemurteli louhikäärme, ja pyhä Yrjänä oli syöksemässä sen kitaan
peistään niin tuimasti kuin ainakin häntä esittävissä kuvissa. Kuva
hehkui kuin sula kulta, kuten sanotaan. Sen nähdessään Don Quijote
sanoi:
— Tämä oli eräs kaikkein parhaita vaeltavia ritareita taivaallisessa

sotajoukossa; hänen nimensä oli pyhä Yrjänä, ja hän oli sitäpaitsi
neitojen suojelija. Katsotaanpa tätä toista.
Mies otti peitteen pois, ja näkyviin tuli ratsastava pyhä Martti, joka
oli antamassa viittansa toista puolta köyhälle. Tuskin sen nähtyään
Don Quijote virkkoi:
— Tämäkin ritari kuului kristittyihin seikkailijoihin, ja minä uskon,

että hän oli vielä anteliaampi kuin urhoollinen, kuten voit nähdä,
Sancho, siitä, että hän antaa puolet viittaansa köyhälle, ja tämä
tapahtuu varmaan talviseen aikaan; jollei olisi niin laita, hän
varmaan antaisi koko viitan, niin armelias hän oli.
— Ei suinkaan asia niin ollut, — sanoi Sancho vaan hän varmaan

noudatti sananlaskua, joka sanoo, että kohtuus hyvä kaikessa,
makkarassakin.
Don Quijote nauroi ja pyysi ottamaan pois seuraavan peitteen,

jonka alta tuli näkyviin Espanjan Suojeluspyhimys. Hän oli ratsun
selässä, kädessä verinen miekka, hän ajoi kumoon maureja syöksyen
heidän päittensä ylitse, ja hänet nähdessään Don Quijote lausui:
— Tämä on oikea ritari Kristuksen sotajoukoista: hänen nimensä

on pyhä Jaakko Mauriensurma, hän on kaikkein urhoollisimpia
pyhimyksiä ja ritareita, mitä on ollut maailmassa ja nyt on taivaassa.
Sitten otettiin jälleen pois peite, ja sen alta tuli näkyviin pyhä
Paavali putoamassa ratsultaan, kaikkine yksityisseikkoineen, joita
yleensä kuvataan hänen kääntymistään esittäviin alttaritauluihin.
Nähdessään hänet niin ilmielävänä, että olisi luullut Kristuksen
todella hänelle puhuvan ja Paavalin vastaavan, Don Quijote sanoi:
— Tämä oli kaikkein suurin vihollinen, mitä Herramme Jumalan

kirkolla oli hänen aikanaan, ja kaikkein voimallisin puolustaja, mitä
sillä tulee milloinkaan olemaan; hän oli eläessään vaeltava ritari ja
pysyi pyhänä taistelijana hamaan kuolemaan saakka,
uupumattomana työmiehenä Herran viinamäessä, kansojen
opettajana, joka oli saanut oppinsa taivaasta,[48] missä hänen
mestarinaan ja opettajanaan oli itse Jeesus Kristus.
Useampia kuvia ei ollut; siksi Don Quijote käski ne jälleen peittää

ja sanoi niiden kuljettajille:
— Olen katsonut hyväksi enteeksi, rakkaat veljet, että olen
nähnyt, mitä olen nähnyt, sillä nämät pyhät miehet harjoittivat
samaa tointa, jota minä harjoitan, nimittäin asetointa, vaikka minun
ja heidän kesken on se ero, että he olivat pyhimyksiä ja taistelivat
taivaallisella tavalla, minä sitävastoin olen syntinen ihminen ja
taistelen inhimillisellä tavalla. He valloittivat taivaan väkisin, sillä
taivaan valtakuntaan voidaan hyökätä,[49] minä taas en toistaiseksi
tiedä, mitä voin valloittaa suurellakaan vaivalla; mutta jos
valtiattareni Dulcinea Tobosolainen sattuisi sentään vapautumaan
vaikeuksista, joiden alaisena on, niin onneni olisi parempi, mieleni
pääsisi tasapainoon, ja minä voisin ohjata askeleni paremmalle tielle
kuin se, jota nyt vaellan.
— Jumala sen kuulkoon, ja piru olkoon kuuro — virkkoi siihen

Sancho.
Miehet ihmettelivät sekä Don Quijoten ulkomuotoa että hänen

puhettaan eivätkä ymmärtäneet puoltakaan siitä, mitä hän tarkoitti.
He lopettivat ateriansa, nostivat kuvat olkapäilleen, sanoivat hyvästi
Don Quijotelle ja lähtivät jatkamaan matkaansa.
Sanchosta tuntui jälleen kuin ei hän olisi milloinkaan herraansa

oikein tuntenut, hän ihmetteli, mitä kaikkea tämä tiesi, ja hänestä
näytti, ettei maailmassa ollut yhtään historiaa eikä tapahtumaa, jota
hän ei tuntenut kuin viittä sormeaan ja säilyttänyt uskollisesti
muistissaan. Sancho sanoi:
— Totisesti, armollinen herra isäntäni, jos sitä, mitä meille tänään

on tapahtunut, sopii nimittää seikkailuksi, niin se on ollut kaikkein
lempeimpiä ja suloisimpia, mitä meille on koko vaelluksemme
kestäessä sattunut: me olemme selviytyneet siitä joutumatta
piestyiksi ja ollenkaan pelästymättä, emme ole paljastaneet

Developing Writers of Argument Tools and Rules That Sharpen Student Reasoning 1st Edition Michael W. Smith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Writers of Argument Tools and Rules That Sharpen Student Reasoning 1st Edition Michael W. Smith

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Writers of Argument Tools and Rules That Sharpen Student Reasoning 1st Edition Michael W. Smith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookname.

Developing Writers of Argument Tools and Rules

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

Developing Young Writers In The Classroom 1st Edition

Grammar Troublespots A Guide for Student Writers 3rd

The New Rules of Green Marketing Strategies Tools and

Handbook of Fluoropolymer Science and Technology 1st

Stock Market Rules 3rd Edition Michael D. Sheimo

Developing Student Graduateness and Employability

Astrophysical Jets and Beams 1st Edition Michael D.

Creative colleges a guide for student actors artists

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

Foreword by Jim Burke ix

PART I. THE ARGUMENT FOR ARGUMENT 1

2 A Classroom Culture of Argumentation 10

3 Our Instructional Approach 20

PART II. LESSONS 31

5 Practicing Three Elements of Argument 70

6 Applying What They’ve Learned About Argument to Texts 102

7 Putting It All Together: Applying Argument to Life Choices 140

8 How to Use This Book 158

Visit the companion website at

—Jim Burke, Author of Academic Moves for College and

x Developing Writers of Argument

Lynn Angus Ramos Andy Schoenborn

Lydia Bowden Kym Sheehan

The Argument for Argument

2 Developing Writers of Argument

Think of five different arguments you’ve seen on TV or

1. Argument cultivates critical thinking.

Let’s think about each of these goals in a little more detail.

Argument Cultivates Critical Thinking

Chapter 1. Introduction

4 Developing Writers of Argument

Argument Fosters Collaborative Reasoning

Chapter 1. Introduction

Can you think of a recent experience where you and

6 Developing Writers of Argument

Recently, concerns around the increase in so-called fake

What This Book Can Offer

•• They illustrate a wide range of topics that promote argumentation.

Chapter 1. Introduction

As educators who have worked in many different environments, we deeply

8 Developing Writers of Argument

Chapter 1. Introduction

A Classroom Culture of Argumentation

Revisiting the Three R’s

1. Argument cultivates critical thinking.

10 Developing Writers of Argument

Chapter 2. A Classroom Culture of Argumentation

12 Developing Writers of Argument

Conversation as a Metaphor for Learning

Think about five different conversations you’ve participated in

As much as we would like to lay claim to the conversation metaphor, admit-

Chapter 2. A Classroom Culture of Argumentation

Another favorite unit of ours is built around the question

THIS unit would benefit from? In what ways do you think

Staging Conversations in Your Classroom

Foreword by Jim Burke ix

2 A Classroom Culture of Argumentation 10

3 Our Instructional Approach 20

PART II. LESSONS 31

5 Practicing Three Elements of Argument 70

6 Applying What They’ve Learned About Argument to Texts 102

7 Putting It All Together: Applying Argument to Life Choices 140

8 How to Use This Book 158