…or, “Stop your lippy attitude.” Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models …or, “Stop your lippy attitude.”

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 A straightforward 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. Communicated orally and designed to be easily understood by listeners Based on formal logic, including the syllogism Six main components

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 you’ve 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)

The Toulmin Model Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950’s Emphasizes that logic often based on probability rather than certainty Focuses on claims Three primary components

Toulmin Model: Three Components Claim = the main point or position Data = the evidence supporting the claim, aka the reasons Warrant = an underlying assumption or basic principle that connects data and claim; often implied rather than explicit

Toulmin Model: An Example Claim = My parents should allow me to go to my friend’s party on Friday night. Data = The parents of nearly all of the juniors at FC have given their children permission to attend this party. Warrant = My parents should act in accordance with the other parents of juniors at FC.

Uh-oh, a potential snag… What if my parents don’t “buy” my warrant? What if they don’t 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 Warrant Backing Rebuttal

Rogerian Model Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers (also in the ’50s) Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus Allows the author to appear open-minded or even objective Appropriate in contexts where you need to convince a resistant opponent to at least respect your views

Rogerian Arguments:Structure Introduction: statement of problem to be solved or question to be answered Summary of Opposing Views: described using a seemingly objective persona Statement of Understanding: concedes circumstances under which opposing views might be valid Statement of Your Position Statement of Contexts: describes contexts in which your position applies/works well Statement of Benefits: appeals to self-interest of readers who may not yet agree with you; demonstrates how your position benefits them