Presentation on theme: "Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical and Toulmin, Models Junior AP English September 23, 2008."— Presentation transcript:
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical and Toulmin, Models Junior AP English September 23, 2008
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.
Inductive Reasoning, Continued In literary and rhetorical analysis, use inductive reasoning. Base your analysis on the evidence in the text (or backpack). In persuasive/expository argument writing, it is still a good strategy to collect evidence and see where it leads you, rather than forcing the data to fit your claim.
Classical Argument Began in ancient Greece, approximately fifth century B.C. Communicated orally and designed to be easily understood by listeners Based on formal logic, including the syllogism Six main components
Key Terms: The Syllogism Three-part deductive argument, in which conclusion follows from two premises A straightforward example: Major premise: All people have hearts. Minor premise: John is a person. Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.
Classical Argument: Six Elements 1) Introduction: captures attention of audience; urges audience to consider your case 2) Statement of Background: narrates the key facts and/or events leading up to your case 3) Proposition: states the position you are taking, based on the information youve already presented, and sets up the structure of the rest of your argument 4) Proof: discusses your reasons for your position and provides evidence to support each reason 5) Refutation: anticipates opposing viewpoints; then demonstrates why your approach is the only acceptable one (i.e. better than your opponents) 6) Conclusion: summarizes your most important points and can include appeals to feelings or values (pathos and ethos)
The Toulmin Model Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950s Emphasizes that real-life logic often based on probability rather than certainty Focuses on claims that are based on evidence (inductive) Three primary components
Toulmin Model: Three Components Three components: Data = the evidence that leads one to believe the claim, aka the reasons Claim = the main point or position Warrant = an underlying assumption or basic principle that connects data and claim; often implied rather than explicit
Toulmin Model: An Example Data = The parents of nearly all of the juniors at UHS have given their children permission to attend Joe Shmos party on Friday night. Claim = My parents should allow me to go to Joes party. Warrant = My parents should act in accordance with the other parents of juniors at UHS.
Uh-oh, a potential snag… What if my parents dont buy my warrant? What if they dont think they should necessarily do what other parents are doing? How can I still get permission to attend the party? Or at least have a better chance of getting permission?
Try new data and a new warrant. What might be more convincing data for an audience of parents? What might be a warrant that most parents will share?
Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail Claim Data Qualifier WarrantBackingRebuttal since because ; therefore, unless