I. Discuss the following questions:

1. What is forensic science?

2. What two meanings does the term forensics have?

3. What are forensics programs at universities intended for?

4. What does students’ performance at forensics tournament include?

5. What does debate research involve?

6. Why is the information of opponent’s argument necessary?

7. What are the main approaches to teaching arguments?

8. Who developed one of the most popular formal models of argument?

9. What are the components of Toulmin’s model of an argument?

10. Could this layout of argumentation be used in the court?

II. Match the terms and their definitions :

claim data warrant backing rebuttal

a. a statement showing or saying that something is not true; b. statement that something is true that you have no definite proof of; c. support, help or active approval; d. facts or information used for making calculations or decisions; e. a reason for doing something;

III. Useful phrases

Study the list of phrases expressing the speaker’s agreement or disagreement and use them in the dialogues of your own:

1. How to agree strongly with smb’s opinion:

That’s absolutely true! I couldn’t agree more! I agree with this point. I’d go along with you there. I’m with you on that. That’s just how I see it. That’s just how I see it. That’s a good point.

2. How to half agree :

Yes, perhaps, however…, Yes, in a way, however…, I agree up to a point, however…, Well, you have a point there, but…, There’s something there, however…, Yes, I suppose so, however…,That’s worth thinking about, but…

3. How to disagree politely:

I am not so sure about that…Do you think so? Well, it depends. I’m not so certain. I’m not sure you are right. I’m inclined to disagree with that.

4. How to disagree strongly:

I disagree with your idea, I’m afraid I don’t agree, I’m afraid your idea is wrong, I couldn’t accept that for a minute, You can’t actually mean that, I wouldn’t go along with you, there, You must be joking, It’s possible you are mistaken about that.

IV. Visit the site of the American Forensics Association http://www.americanforensics.org/what.html and comment on the following issues:

What is the etymology of the term “forensics”?

What articles does the Code of Forensics Tournament include?

What are the requirements for providing evidences?

V. Visit the site http://www.figarospeech.com/the-3-basic-issues/ and comment on the following:

What are the three basic issues of arguing according to Aristotle?

What tense patterns do these core issues correspond to?

VI. Case study: Read the story Millionare Trio Escape Jail.

Discuss the story in small groups and provide arguments for or against court decision.

Could you interpret this case from Semiotics point of view?

What are further possible consequences of this case for the defendants?

MILLIONAIRE TRIO ESCAPE JAIL

Ingram and his wife Diana denied cheating

An army major, his wife and a college lecturer have escaped jail after being found guilty of cheating to win the top prize in the TV quiz show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

Contestant Charles Ingram, his wife Diana, both 39, and college lecturer Tecwen Whittock were all found guilty of conspiring to cheat the show. The Ingrams were sentenced to 18 months in jail suspended for two years while Whittock received a 12-month sentence, also suspended for two years. Ingram, who reached the £1m prize, was guided to correct answers with the help of deliberately timed coughs from Whittock. Ingram's wife was found guilty of helping "set up" the cam.

Denial

The Ingrams were also each fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 costs while Whittock was fined £10,000 with £7,500 costs.

All three had denied "procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception" - £1m on 10 September 2001. Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said the trio had been "shamed in the most public way" and their reputations ruined. He referred to the men's "shabby schoolboy trick."

The verdicts came after the judge told the eight women and three men of the jury he would accept majority decisions after three days of deliberations. They were decided by a majority of 10 votes to one, the jury having lost a member for undisclosed reasons earlier in the trial.

Allergy

Whittock denied "coded coughs"

The judge described the trial at Southwark Crown Court as a "most unusual case". He said there was "so little to mitigate" their criminality custodial sentences were inevitable but they should be suspended as the Ingrams had children.

The judge told Mrs Ingram: "You might be well advised to thank your lucky stars you are not going to prison today, and put aside any childish wishes of bravado that you are entitled to this money."

The prosecution had contended Whittock, 53, from Cardiff, a "fastest finger first" contestant, had used coughs to guide Ingram to most of the right answers. The court heard another contestant and members of the television crew were suspicious by Whittock's coughing outbreak. Sonia Woodley QC, Ingram's barrister, said the Royal Engineers officer was a "committed soldier" who had lived a "honest and decent, hard working life". Whittock's counsel, David Aubrey QC, said the Crown ignored coughs which did not coincide with correct answers, while disregarding other occasions when he had not coughed.

No sympathy

A doctor told the court Whittock suffered from a year-round dust allergy, hayfever and tested "very positive" for asthma, which would have been made worse by a hot TV studio. After sentencing, quiz show host Chris Tarrant issued a statement saying the plot to cheat the show was a "very cynical plan, motivated by sheer greed". "I feel very sad about this whole business but I cannot really feel any sympathy for the perpetrators," he said. "It is hugely insulting to the hundreds and hundreds of other contestants who have come on the show, just hoping for much smaller amounts of money but prepared to try and win their money honestly." Police officers who led the investigation after the programme-makers raised suspicions said they were satisfied with the outcome.

(Retrieved from BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2910119.stm)

UNIT 2

Read the text:

Roger Shuy