Download Report

Structuring & Analyzing
Arguments:
The Classical, Toulmin & Rogerian
Models
Key Terms:
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning = in traditional Aristotelian
logic, the process of reasoning in which a conclusion
follows necessarily from the stated premises;
inference by reasoning from the general to the
specific.
• Inductive Reasoning = the process of reasoning
from the specific to the general, in which the
premises of an argument are believed to support the
conclusion, but do not ensure it. Inductive reasoning
is used to formulate laws based on limited
observations of recurring patterns.
Key Terms: The Syllogism
• Three part deductive argument, in which conclusion
follows from two premises.
Example:
Major Premise: All people have hearts.
Minor Premise: John is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.
Classical Argument
• Began in ancient Greece, approximately fifth century
B.C.
 Commonly used when speakers tried to sway fellow voters in the
early democratic debates over policy.
• Communicated orally and designed to be easily
understood by listeners.
• Based on formal logic, including the syllogism.
• Has six main components:
The Toulmin Model
The Toulmin Model
• Developed by British
philosopher Stephen
Toulmin who wrote a
book called The Uses of
Argument (1958).
Background:
Toulmin was looking for a method that accurately
described the way people make convincing and
reasonable arguments. Because Toulmin-argument
takes into account the complications in life—all those
situations when people have to qualify their thoughts
with words such as sometimes, often, presumably,
unless, and almost—his method isn’t as air-tight as
formal logic. But for exactly that reason, Toulmin logic
has become a powerful and, for the most part, practical
tool for understanding and shaping an argument.
The Toulmin Model
• Emphasizes that logic is often based on probability
rather than certainty.
• Focuses on claims
• Has three primary components:
Claim → Data → Warrant (Because)
Making Claims:
• In the Toulmin model, arguments begin with claims,
which are debatable and controversial statements or
assertions you hope to prove.
• Notice in this model the arguments depend on conditions
set by others—your audience or readers.
• It’s raining might be an innocent statement of fact in one
situation; in another, it might provoke a debate: No, it’s
not. That’s sleet.
• And so argument begins, involving a question of
definition.
The Toulmin Model
• Claim: the proposition that the arguer is supporting.
It must be an opinion and cannot be a fact.
• Data: the specific evidence or reason used to support
the claim (often introduced with the word “because”
or “since”; sometimes this is the claim of another
argument).
• Warrant: the inference that allows you to move from
the grounds to the claim (often only implied in the
argument)
Other Elements:
• Backing – Support for the warrant, backing the
reason given
• Grounds – Facts, statistics, expert testimony,
observations
• Qualifier – Degree of certainty
Aristotle’s Categorical Model
Syllogisms and the Toulmin model
compared
• Claim Z[ Conclusion
• Data
Z[
Minor premise
• Warrant Z[ Major premise
Toulmin Model Diagram
• Data ---------------u Claim
• Warrant
A sentence symbolizing the Toulmin
model
• Because ______________________,
therefore__________________,
since__________________________.
• In analyzing an argument, you would fill in the
first blank with the data or support. The second
with the assertion or claim, and the third with
the warrant, the unspoken assumption.
Example:
• Data – Because independent research has shown
that 70% of students who take one A.P. class are
more likely to graduate college than students who
take no A.P. class.
• Claim – Therefore all students who are academically
prepared should have access to A.P. classes in high
school.
• Warrant – Since high school should prepare students
for college success, students should have access to
A.P. classes.
Imagine someone looking over your
shoulder
• As you use Toulmin, imagine a crowd of
“prospective readers” hovering over your
shoulder, asking questions.
• At every stage in Toulmin argument—
making a claim, offering a reason, or studying
a warrant—you might converse with those
nosy readers, imagining them as skeptical,
demanding, even a bit testy.
Rebuttal:
• They may get on your nerves, but they’ll likely help
you foresee the objections and reservations real
readers will have regarding your arguments.
• In the Toulmin system, potential objections to a
claim are called conditions of rebuttal.
• Understanding and reacting to these conditions are
essential to back up your claim where it is weak, but
also to understand the reasonable objections of
people who see the world differently.
The Claim-Data-Warrant (Because) Model
• Claim: The argument, contention, premise, central
idea, proposition.
• Data: the specific evidence or reason used to support
the claim
• Warrant: the inference that the author assumes his
audience thinks and believes about the claim. How
do these assumptions play in the construction of his
argument?
Claim, Data, Warrant (Because)
Model Diagram
• Data ---------------Claim
• [Because]
Thesis Statements
• One way to use the Toulmin model is to check the
logic of our own thesis statements
Thesis Development Example:
• Brainstorm: Crack Babies
• Narrowed: Programs for Crack Babies
• Specific: Experts estimate that half of crack babies
will grow up in home environments lacking rich
cognitive and emotional stimulation.
• Take a stand: More attention needs to be paid to the
environment they grow up in
• Finalize: Because half of all crack babies are likely to
grow up in homes lacking good cognitive and
emotional stimulation, the federal government
should finance programs to supplement parental
care.
Same topic: Toulmin test
• Reason: (Because) half of all crack-babies are likely
to grow up in homes lacking good cognitive and
emotional stimulation
• Warrant: (since) their parents are drug users
• Claim: (so) the government should step in and
finance social programs.
 Does this thesis work? It will depend on the
strength of the proof… Toulmin can help us tell
what proof we need.
In a nutshell,
• The Toulmin method is an effective way of getting to
the how and why levels of the argument. It is a type of
communication breakdown that allows us to divide
an argument into its different parts (such as claim,
reasons, and evidence) so that we can make
judgments on how well the different parts work
together.
The Rogerian Model
The Rogerian Model
• Developed by influential
American psychologist Carl
Rogers (also in the 50’s).
• Nominated for the Nobel
Peace Prize for his work with
national intergroup conflict in
South Africa and Northern
Ireland.
• Considered one of the most
eminent psychologists of the
20th century—second only to
Sigmund Freud among
clinicians.
Background:
• Based on Carl Rogers' work in psychology, Rogerian
argument begins by assuming that a willing writer can find
middle or common ground with a willing reader. Instead of
promoting the adversarial relationship that traditional or
classical argument typically sets up between reader and
writer, Rogerian argument assumes that if reader and writer
can both find common ground about a problem, they are
more likely to find a solution to that problem. Based on
these assumptions, Rogerian argument develops along quite
different lines than is often found in a Classical argument.
Introduction:
• In the introduction to a Rogerian argument, the writer
presents the problem, typically pointing out how both
writer and reader are affected by the problem. Rather
than presenting an issue that divides reader and writer,
or a thesis that demands agreement (and in effect can
be seen as an attack on a reader who holds an opposing
view), the Rogerian argument does not begin with the
writer's position at all.
Maintaining Credibility:
• Next, the writer describes as fairly as possible--typically in
language as neutral as possible--the reader's perceived point
of view on the problem.
• Only if the writer can represent the reader's perspective
accurately will the reader begin to move toward compromise,
and so this section of the argument is crucial to the writer's
credibility. (Even though writers might be tempted to use
this section of the Rogerian argument to manipulate readers,
that strategy usually backfires when readers perceive the
writer's insincerity.
Good-will:
• Good-will is crucial to the success of a Rogerian
argument.) Moreover, as part of the writer's
commitment to expressing the reader's perspective on
the problem, the writer acknowledges the
circumstances and contexts in which the reader's
position or perspective is valid.
Body Paragraphs:
• In the next main chunk of the Rogerian argument, the writer
then presents fairly and accurately his or her own perspective
or position on the problem. This segment depends, again, on
neutral but clear language so that the reader perceives the
fair-mindedness of the writer's description.
• The segment is, however, a major factor in whether or not
the writer is ultimately convincing, and so key evidence
supports and develops this section of the argument.
• Like the description of the reader's perspective, this part of
the argument also includes a description of the contexts or
circumstances in which the writer's position is valid.
Closing:
• The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give
up their own positions on the problem but by showing
how the reader would benefit from moving toward the
writer's position.
• In other words, the final section of the Rogerian
argument lays out possible ways to compromise or
alternative solutions to the problem that would benefit
both reader and writer under more circumstances than
either perspective alone accounts for.
Audience Analysis:
• Rogerian approaches are particularly useful for emotionally
charged, highly divisive issues. The Rogerian approach
typically downplays the emotional in favor of the rational so
that people of good-will can find solutions to common
problems.
• But no argument, Rogerian or otherwise, will succeed unless
the writer understands the reader.
• Rogerian argument is especially dependent on audience
analysis because the writer must present the reader's
perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly.
…The Rogerian Model
• Emphasizes problem-solving
and/or coming to consensus
• Allows the author to appear
open-minded or to have an
even objective
• Appropriate in contexts where
you need to convince a resistant
opponent to at least respect
your views
Toulmin vs. Rogerian
Adversarial tone
Although concessions
may be made,
arguments mostly
based on refutation
Opponent is “wrong”
and will be overcome
by evidence
Z[
Nonconfrontational, collegial,
friendly tone
Z[
Respects other’s views and
allows for more than one truth
Z[
Seeks to achieve common
ground, not to convince 100%
Quick Reference ↓
Classical Structure:
Toulmin Structure
Rogerian Structure: