CMN-504: Introduction to Argumentation Exercise 12 [No multiple-choice safety net] Identify the Pattern of Argument or the Fallacy at work in each of the following items. 1 CMN-504: Introduction to Argumentation Informal Patterns of Reasoning & Practical Argument Fallacies ARGUMENTS RELATED TO THE CATEGORY OF “BEING”: Argument from Definition: This argument advances a claim that a particular object, person, action, or idea belongs to a certain class or category. The argument begins with a clear definition of a class or category of persons, things, ideas, or actions. The definition is taken from public knowledge (what is generally accepted and known), or it is established on the basis of some authoritative source (a law book, dictionary). Once the definition is agreed upon it is then applied to particulars — to the specific case at hand. When the particular case is shown to fit the definition, the conclusion is drawn that the particular belongs to the class or category named by the definition. Argument from Division: This way of classifying a particular examines its parts. We begin with some common sense understanding of the various aspects, qualities, marks, or characteristics of a class or category. These are enumerated. Then we move to an examination of the parts of the particular. When the number and quality of the parts match the description of the class or category the conclusion is drawn that the particular belongs to that class. The argument may also be used to show that a particular does not belong to a class or category. Dissociation Argument: This argument must begin by taking note of the existing value system in a given community, and in particular, the priority that is at least temporarily given to one value over another when those values come into conflict. The dissociation argument is recognized because it starts by constructing an opposition of perspectives. Two or more ways of viewing a problem or judging an issue are suggested. Both perspectives may have merit, but one is more important, more relevant, or more valuable in this case than another. The argument advances by the privileging of that one perspective over another. This (often implicit) value claim should reflect some aspect of the shared values of the community (although sometimes the arguer will also have to give reasons for the value hierarchy he or she proposes.) After suggesting one perspective as the most important, the arguer will then draw a conclusion consistent with that perspective (and with the implied values of the community). Because it is based on an opposition, often such arguments will use an antithetical structure (such as: “on the one hand . . . but on the other hand . . .’). And, these arguments tend to invoke one from among a set of commonplace comparisons (e.g.: “in the short term . . . but in the long term . . .” or, “the letter” vs. “the spirit” of the law). Other commonplace oppositions include: honor v. expedience; natural vs. artificial; new vs. old (traditional); science vs. ethics; environment vs. economics, and public vs. private. We include this form of argument in the category of “being” because in requires us to choose the relevant perspective that allows us to properly “name” or define a fact or event about which we are arguing and which we then are able to correctly judge. By choosing the proper perspective from which it should be judged we are able to identify the class or category to which the fact or event properly belongs. Generalization: Generalization arguments begin with evidence drawn from a sample. We test a ‘sample’ and obtain some ‘data.’ The sample is part of a ‘target population.’ The argument advances a claim that says the data or ‘projected property’ discovered in the sample will likewise exist or be true in the ‘target population.’ We test a generalization argument by asking whether the sample is ‘representative.’ To be representative, we must judge its size, its randomness, and its, spread. We judge of size by measuring the sample size in relation to the size of the target population. We judge of randomness by asking simply whether every member of the target population has an equal chance to be included in the sample. We judge of spread by asking whether the sample includes all the important differences that might make a difference in the data. For example if the target population is University students, a sample should have men and women, commuters and dorm students, freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, Liberal Arts and CEPS students, etc. When a projected property is a causal claim, then we have a causal generalization, and tests for generalization and casual arguments both apply. Most medical research studies are causal generalizations (see below). Hasty Generalization: a fallacy that results when a general claim is not warranted because the sample is biased, or not representative. 2 Example: Aristotle’s inductive@ argument. Argument by example is a generalization argument that uses a sample of one, or a small number of representative cases. Transitivity Arguments (quasi-logical): Within logic, “transitivity” refers to the way that we understand the relationship between two things (two terms) because we know how each is related to a third thing. Using this reasoning process I can determine what a thing is (being) indirectly. Thus, if I know you are John’s brother, and I also know that Mary is John’s mother, then I can conclude that Mary is also your Mother. In the transitivity arguments we employ reasoning that is like that used in the deductive syllogisms of formal logic. However, unlike the syllogisms they imitate the transitivity arguments are not dependent on formal rules of logic. Rather, they rely on our natural reasoning ability to recognize the logical implications of the known relationships between three different terms. Thus, if I know that Roger is a Red Sox fan, how can I possibly conclude that Roger is a beer drinker? I can do that sensibly if I also know that all (or most) Red Sox fans drink beer. Aristotle would call such arguments ‘rhetorical syllogisms’ or enthymemes. Usually, in this kind of argument, one of the premises relates to known particulars (Roger is a Red Sox fan), and the other is a widely held belief or a “truth” widely shared. Often that widely-held “truth” remains implicit (unstated) and is filled in by the mental reasoning process (inferencemaking) of the recipient of the argument. Hypothesis: This sort of argument aims to offer an explanation of observable facts by supplying a theory that explains the facts. We begin with a question regarding the meaning of—or the proper classifying of—a set of facts. The meaning of those facts is disputed or unclear. There might be several possible explanations. The hypothesis argument is made in support of one of the explanations. To test the reliability of any hypothesis—that is, to see if the explanation is warranted—we need to apply three criteria: 1. Accountability: you must ask whether the hypothesis can explain, account for, all of the facts in question. 2. Simplicity: you must ask whether the hypothesis advanced is the simplest explanation that can account for the facts (or does it rather go beyond the facts to construct a plausible explanation?). 3. Frequency: you must ask whether the hypothesis is the most frequent actual explanation in like cases (involving, then, some attention to “similarity’—see below). Far-Fetched Hypothesis: If a given explanation fails one or more of these tests, it may still be true, but to the degree that it is therefore less probable (or unwarranted) we would define it as a Far-fetched Hypothesis. ARGUMENTS RELATED TO THE CATEGORY OF “CAUSE” Co-existential Arguments: This is Aristotle’s ‘Argument from Sign.’ The claim affirms something about an unseen condition or fact on the basis of some associated observable fact or condition. The inference is based on a general understanding that the visible “effects” are “signs” of the invisible cause or condition. Medical diagnosis, for example, is based on co-existential reasoning. The presence of a symptom is a ‘sign’ of (or it usually co-exists with) an underlying disease. Causal Explanation: Like the Hypothesis argument, this argument advances a claim that explains a set of facts or observable data. However, it is different in that it offers a specifically causal explanation. It is, then, an argument in support of causal (relational) claim. The argument asserts that one fact or condition or event is the cause of another. To test causal arguments you should apply the tests of necessary and sufficient condition: Is the alleged cause necessary to produce the effect? Is the alleged cause sufficient to produce the effect? One can also test causal arguments by looking for negative cause cases and negative effects cases. Negative cause cases are instances where the alleged result is present without the cause. Negative effects cases are instances where the alleged cause is present but does not produce the effect. When the claim of a causal argument is not warranted, the argument commits one of several fallacies. A. False Cause: When it is clear that the alleged cause is not necessary to produce the effect, and when 3 you find there are a number of negative cause cases and/or negative effects cases. B. Single Cause: When it is clear that the cause is more complex than the explanation offered. The fallacy is revealed by the test of sufficiency. Is the alleged cause alone sufficient to produce or account for the effect? C. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Literally ‘after this therefore because of this,’ the fallacy is revealed by application of the test of necessity, or by the presence of significant number of negative cause and negative effects cases. The fallacy occurs when the arguer makes the specific mistake of seeing chronological order as logical order. That is, the apparent correlation between alleged cause and effect is the result of proximity in time, rather than any evidence of a causal relationship. Causal Generalization: When a causal explanation is generalized, then the argument is a causal generalization. In such an argument the “projected property” of a generalization is a causal claim. In other words, the causal claim is proven or probable in the sample, and then that same causal relationship is ‘generalized’ to a target population. (in the sample, A led to B, so therefore A will lead to B in all, or most, cases). The argument is ‘generalized’ when the causal claim is asserted to be true (the relationship maintains) in any case where the alleged cause and effect are present. One can test the causal generalization by applying the proper critical assessments for both causal explanation and generalization arguments. ARGUMENTS RELATED TO THE CATEGORY OF “SIMILARITY” Argument by Analogy: This is one of the commonplace argument forms included among Aristotle’s general topics. Analogies are fundamentally based on perceived similarities. We reason about a particular case by drawing on our understanding or common knowledge of another particular case with similar properties, qualities, or marks. To test whether a claim based on argument by analogy is warranted or not we want to know if the comparison is justified. We should ask: what are the similarities? Then, we should apply tests of quality and quantity: Are they the most important features or qualities being compared? Are there enough similarities to suggest the two particular cases truly belong to the same class? A. Literal Analogies compare two things or events from the same class or category. Literal analogies can be used as evidence for a claim if the analogy is warranted. B. Figurative Analogies compare things or events from different classes or categories. While figurative analogies can be illustrative and aid persuasion, they have no force as evidence, and cannot be warranted. An example of a figurative analogy would be the extended metaphor that sees the rise and fall of the stock market as “a roller-coaster ride.” C. False Analogy: If the comparison suggested by the literal analogy is not warranted, because the similarities are not important or are insufficient in number, the argument is flawed, and commits the ‘false analogy’ fallacy. Argument by Degree. This is another of Aristotle’s general topics. The argument is sometimes called the “superanalogy” or the a fortiori argument. Like an analogy, it compares two particular cases. A claim is made about the probabilities associated with one case based on another known case where the outcome is less probable. Since the less likely thing is known to have occurred, the case under investigation is considered to be very likely. If the poorest student in the class got an “A” on the exam, how much more likely is it that the best student got an “A”? Reciprocity Arguments (quasi-logical): This argument is based on the universal principle of equity. We presume that persons, events, facts of equal status will be treated equally. When that does not occur, we recognize a violation of the principle of equity. We might typically say “that’s not fair.” An argument that is based on the principle of equity may point out the similarity between like cases, and so connects to the category of “similarity.” However, unlike the argument by analogy, there is here a specific moral concern with the justice (or injustice) of equal (or 4 unequal) treatment of the two like particulars. COMMON ARGUMENT FALLACIES Slippery Slope Fallacy: A very common reasoning error which is based on the assumption that if we take one step in a policy plan (which might itself be quite reasonable) we must inevitably follow with all the other steps that lead to an eventual disaster. For example, some might argue against the medical use of marijuana because it is merely the ‘first step’ toward total legalization of dangerous drugs. There is no natural, unstoppable progression which necessarily follows from any policy choice. If we are reasonable people, we can do what is right, and make the decision not proceed to any further step which would be undesirable. Just because we wish to ban private possession of assault weapons, does not mean we must or will then necessarily proceed to the banning of hunting rifles or target pistols. Appeal to Tradition: This is New Hampshire’s favorite argument, and is a common fallacy of conservative discourse. It affirms the value of the past as sacrosanct, rejecting any policy that alters or changes ‘the way we’ve always done things.’ It is true that there is a natural presumption in favor of the status quo, but the mere existence of a tradition is insufficient evidence to reject a reasonable policy that has been advanced on the basis of good evidence. Again, remember that at one time it was ‘traditional’ for women not to work outside the home, and ‘traditional’ for country clubs to deny admission to racial and religious minorities. Ad Populum Fallacy: This is the appeal ‘to the people,’ and another common fallacy in which support for a claim is taken from ‘what everyone wants’ or ‘what most people do.’ The argument assumes that because everyone or most people want something, that it is therefore the right thing to do. Such arguments are sometimes useful, but are seldom convincing on their own, providing insufficient grounds for accepting or rejecting a policy proposition. Such an appeal does not consider the merits of the policy itself, nor the evidence offered for or against it. Remember that at one time, most people thought it was a good idea that only men vote, that we have segregated schools, that we don’t permit Catholics to hold public office, and the like. A good example of the ‘ad populum’ fallacy was President Nixon’s invocation of the ‘great silent majority’ of Americans. Not only did Nixon make the appeal to the people, but he assumed that those who had not expressed their opinion at all were by virtue of that silence, on his side. Ad Hominem. Like the Ad Populum fallacy, the fallacy of Ad Hominem does not consider the merits of the policy being debated, and so provides no strong grounds for a claim against it. Rather it only considers the character, associations, words, or actions of those who promote or advance the policy. Literally it is an argument directed “at the man” rather than at the policy. “We shouldn’t support Senator Kennedy’s gun control policy, after all, he’s been the most liberal Democrat in the Senate for more than 40 years.” Here the rebuttal to the policy is directed, not at any flaw in the plan itself, but at the person responsible for advancing that plan. Straw Argument: This argument is almost always used in attack or rebuttal. Like the forms above, it makes the reasoning error of supporting a claim with very insufficient evidence. The straw argument fallacy (sometimes called the ‘strawman’) works by focusing on one questionable or weak or doubtful aspect of a policy which it opposes. Usually the focus is on a relatively unimportant or minor flaw. However, that flaw it taken to represent – as if by synecdoche – the entire policy, and a rejection is recommended on the basis of that flaw. ‘The new dining hall menu provides only one vegetarian option on Tuesdays. It doesn’t matter that the menu has won national gold medals, we should demand that it be replaced by a menu more sensitive to the needs of the vegetarian community.’ In another variation, the straw argument misrepresents (usually by hyperbole) the position of an opponent so that the now-exaggerated position is easier to attack. ‘Republicans only want to help their cronies in the wealthiest one percent, so you should vote for Democrats.’ Non Sequitur. This Latin phrase means literally “does not follow.” Here an error in reasoning is made when the “evidence” advanced in support of a claim is actually irrelevant to the claim. The argument lacks “inherency”—that is, the truth of the claim is not “inherent” in the evidence. As such, the evidence cannot support the claim because no inference is possible. The claim “does not follow” from the evidence. So, for example, suppose a fraternity brother should say to a pledge, “you should rush IOTA OMEGA because the football team is playing Arkansas State on November 13th.” We would be unable to see any connection here. The reason for rushing IOTA OMEGA would 5 not be inherent in the scheduled football game. Usually the mistake is more subtle than this example, and the claim is usually advanced because the arguer sees some connection (although not a logical one) between the claim and the alleged evidence. Begging the Question: This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes that a debatable question has already been answered or resolved. Such an argument assumes that one point of contention is in fact not contested at all. As a result, the conclusion of the argument is based on “evidence” that really does not have the status of evidence, because it has not been accepted or established as true. For example, if a campus activist argues that “widespread rape culture on campus proves the necessity of closing the fraternity system.” We would ask (because the question is begged): IS there, in fact, a ‘widespread rape culture on campus?’ Very often the Question Begging fallacy is evident in circular arguments, those arguments that assume the truth of a conclusion in stating a premise the purpose of which is to prove the conclusion that has already been assumed. For example, suppose a professor says: “I cannot teach logic to these students, for they have no logical abilities. Their SAT scores show they are deficient in logic.” This claim begs the question “WHY are the students deficient?” The answer, of course, is that the students have not yet been taught logic, so the objections of the professor are groundless. Equivocation: This is a language fallacy that comes from not maintaining a stable meaning of terms in the argument. When an arguer equivocates (‘Equal Voices’) he or she proposes two or more meanings for the same key term within the same argument. As the meaning shifts, then, the arguer exploits the ambiguity in meaning to advance a claim on the basis of the meaning he or she prefers. ‘I’m in favor of the ‘Family Protection Act.’ I think all families need protecting. The family of my gay neighbors, especially, need protecting from homophobic bigots who don’t see the legitimacy of families that challenge the traditional paradigm of the white suburban heterosexual family.’ Here, of course, the key word is ‘family,’ and the meaning shifts from the use in the title of the legislation, meant precisely as a defense of traditional marriage and family against the encroachment of gay ‘marriages’ to a wider, almost opposite notion of family that includes the very concept of ‘family’ that motivated the act in the first place. Emotive Language: This fallacy would have us respond emotionally to the language used instead of weighing the evidence advanced in support of, or against, a claim. Most of the so-called ‘sentencing’ hearings that allow victims of crime and their families to vent their anger and seek sympathy for their loss tread along the border of this fallacy. Emotion can be an important element of persuasion (so thought Aristotle), but the point here is that there is a reasoning mistake whenever a decision is encouraged on the basis of emotional language alone without consideration of any substantive evidence. CMN-504: Introduction to Argumentation Exercise 12 [No multiple-choice safety net] Identify the Pattern of Argument or the Fallacy at work in each of the following items. 1. She is often tired, has been gaining weight, is often nauseous, and missed her period three weeks ago. There’s a good chance she’s pregnant. 2. If we censor child pornography, what will be next? Soon all adult entertainment will be banned, then criticism of the government will be proscribed, then we will lose all freedom of speech and the press. I say, don’t even start down the path of approving censorship. 3. Of course executions should be televised. Recent surveys show that 70% of the public approve of televised executions. This proves it is the right thing to do. 4. I’m against President Trump’s economic plan. After all, the guy has orange hair, he disrespects women, and uses Twitter far too often. 5. The problem with the decline in historical education in America is that we never learn from history. The Russians ran into an interminable quagmire in Afghanistan in the early 1980s, at great cost in life and treasure. Things have not dramatically changed, and despite the nobility of our cause we will end up just like the Russians with a humiliating retreat and an unresolved threat. 6. The new Swedish study of one hundred heart patients determined that reducing cholesterol will decrease heart attack risk by mitigating the effects of existing coronary artery disease. American doctors are especially excited by the findings and are determined to prescribe more aggressive cholesterol reducing regimens, including drug therapy, for their patients. 7. Her star chart was unfavorable, Mars being in retrograde, and the moon in its second phase. I’m sure that is why she failed the quiz. 8. Less than a week after the Trump administration came into office, the national unemployment rate dropped. It shows you that when a Republican is in control it will be easier for the middle class, and small business to have economic success. 9. He asked twelve of his friends, and only one had seen the new ‘Avengers’ movie. I’m telling you now, this is clear evidence, despite all the hype, that the film will bomb. 10. As usual, any serious attempt to keep our children from being brainwashed by the minions of political correctness in our public schools is scurrilously attacked by the hyper-sensitive feminazis, and the multi-culturalist know-it-all elites. Our children, indeed our entire way of life, is in grave danger from these subversive forces. 11. We should not allow marijuana use for medical treatment. If we legalize marijuana, next thing you know the drug counter-culture will have our children buying crack cocaine out of vending machines at the movie theater. 12. At the annual Motorcycle Week at Lake Winnipesaukee, bikers spent nearly $4 million on rooms, meals, and souvenirs. It appears that 2020 will be an excellent recovery year for New Hampshire’s merchants, and that there will be sufficient tax revenue to eliminate the state budget deficit. 13. We shouldn’t spend money putting computers in the public schools. Study after study has shown that students in the public schools don’t know how to use computers. Why should we pay for these expensive tools that would sit idle in the classrooms because nobody knows how to use them? 14. State law clearly mandates that 0.08 percent alcohol in the blood is a felony DWI. So it is apparent that we should not permit drivers under 21 to drive after dark. 15. The Republican agenda commits the party to a balanced budget, a tax cut, and increased defense spending. The only way this can be done is to cut social security. The Republican agenda should be rejected because it cuts social security, and abandons the nation’s commitment to its older citizens. 16. Churches are constitutionally protected against taxation by the state. Therefore, the constitutional amendment to permit taxation of church property should not be approved, because it would violate that sacred constitutional protection. 17. When sharks smell blood, they circle in schools and close in for the kill. Then the feeding frenzy erupts, and the victim is left as a mangled corpse. It is the same way with professional athletes accused of using performanceenhancing substances. Without evidence, the reputation of these professionals is left mangled and bloody by media speculation and sports-radio hyperbole. 18 This semester has been like a mystery novel. Each week, like each chapter of the story, has brought new clues to help us solve the puzzle of human argumentative behavior. And, I guess, like a good mystery, the semester will have an unusual and exciting conclusion. 19. If the team builds a new stadium it will both require significant public investment of scarce state funds, and will eliminate the aesthetic appeal of the traditional ballpark, one of the major attractions for the downtown area. Add to this the increase in traffic and parking problems, and we have many good reasons for opposing the stadium plans. 20. Should we have class on Tuesday before Thanksgiving? Just ask the students. Nobody in the class wants to be here the day before the holiday. So, the professor should just give us the day off. What do you say prof.? 21. I don’t know why student fear they will lose control of entertainment programming on campus. As an administrator, I assure you that student input will always be welcome in programming decisions. And ultimately students will control programming by deciding whether to attend events or not. 22. Times certainly have changed. A campus newspaper from the 1960s reported that the University president ordered residence hall directors to stop drinking and sexual activity after midnight. Now, hall directors can’t even smoke cigarettes or tell dirty jokes without facing a conduct hearing. 23. It is true that from an architectural perspective the new ‘Libby’s’ bar strikes an impressive and imposing figure. From a historical perspective, however, the building just does not fit with the authentic colonial style architecture of the quaint downtown of Durham. The planning board should have required a scaled-down, more traditional building for this landmark tavern. 24. For more than 50 years, the UNH vs. UMaine football rivalry has always been played on the final week of the season. Last year, however, the teams played each other in their opening game, in August. We should go back to the way it had always been, with the rivalry game at the end of the season. 25. The University President has announced his retirement. It follows that he has qualified for full participation in the pension program. 26. The diplomat thought the videotape was a fabricated fake. But why should we believe an Islamic diplomat from an Arab country? 27. The physically fit and well-trained ROTC cadet could nevertheless not complete the assigned obstacle course quickly enough to test out of the new Gen. Ed. Physical Education requirement. It is clear, then, that the psychology major, who hasn’t exercised in years, has little chance of testing out of the requirement. 28. There are only four possible explanations for the videotape that shows the Russian leader had foreknowledge of the hacking of Democratic computers. It could be a complete fabrication by the CIA, it could be a botched translation by the government language clerks, or it could be a hoax composed by the Russians. Finally, it could actually be authentic evidence of his complicity. Independent forensic experts have proven the tape is not fabricated. Likewise, independent language experts agree that the English translation from Russian is accurate. The third possibility is very unlikely, since the Russians would not want to deliberately incriminate their leader. It leaves only the explanation that the tape is authentic. He is therefore guilty, as the tape proves. 29. Since the new University president took over, donations to the University have increased by 31%. It is clear that the alumni are responding to the leadership of this new campus administration. 30. Why should we listen to that student Senator’s opinion on the proposed alcohol policy? Not only was he arrested for an open container violation, but he’s a fraternity brother, and he even flunked Political Science 401. Purchase answer to see full attachment Tags: communications argumentation fallacy User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.

MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics

Guidelines for referring to the works of others in your text using MLA style are covered throughout the MLA Handbook and in chapter 7 of the MLA Style Manual. Both books provide extensive examples, so it’s a good idea to consult them if you want to become even more familiar with MLA guidelines or if you have a particular reference question.

BASIC IN-TEXT CITATION RULES

In MLA Style, referring to the works of others in your text is done using parenthetical citations. This method involves providing relevant source information in parentheses whenever a sentence uses a quotation or paraphrase. Usually, the simplest way to do this is to put all of the source information in parentheses at the end of the sentence (i.e., just before the period). However, as the examples below will illustrate, there are situations where it makes sense to put the parenthetical elsewhere in the sentence, or even to leave information out.

General Guidelines

• The source information required in a parenthetical citation depends (1) upon the source medium (e.g. print, web, DVD) and (2) upon the source’s entry on the Works Cited page.
• Any source information that you provide in-text must correspond to the source information on the Works Cited page. More specifically, whatever signal word or phrase you provide to your readers in the text must be the first thing that appears on the left-hand margin of the corresponding entry on the Works Cited page.

IN-TEXT CITATIONS: AUTHOR-PAGE STYLE

MLA format follows the author-page method of in-text citation. This means that the author’s last name and the page number(s) from which the quotation or paraphrase is taken must appear in the text, and a complete reference should appear on your Works Cited page. The author’s name may appear either in the sentence itself or in parentheses following the quotation or paraphrase, but the page number(s) should always appear in the parentheses, not in the text of your sentence. For example:

Wordsworth stated that Romantic poetry was marked by a “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” (263).

Romantic poetry is characterized by the “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” (Wordsworth 263).

Wordsworth extensively explored the role of emotion in the creative process (263).

Both citations in the examples above, (263) and (Wordsworth 263), tell readers that the information in the sentence can be located on page 263 of a work by an author named Wordsworth. If readers want more information about this source, they can turn to the Works Cited page, where, under the name of Wordsworth, they would find the following information:

Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads. Oxford UP, 1967.

IN-TEXT CITATIONS FOR PRINT SOURCES WITH KNOWN AUTHOR

For print sources like books, magazines, scholarly journal articles, and newspapers, provide a signal word or phrase (usually the author’s last name) and a page number. If you provide the signal word/phrase in the sentence, you do not need to include it in the parenthetical citation.

Human beings have been described by Kenneth Burke as “symbol-using animals” (3).

Human beings have been described as “symbol-using animals” (Burke 3).

These examples must correspond to an entry that begins with Burke, which will be the first thing that appears on the left-hand margin of an entry on the Works Cited page:

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. University of California Press, 1966.