Thinkin’ about Logic Using the Toulmin system to evaluate arguments.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

-- in other words, logic is

Advertisements

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical and Toulmin, Models Junior AP English September 23, 2008.

Toulmin in 10 Easy Steps PowerPoint by Cam Matthews.

Logic and Reasoning Panther Prep North Central High School.

Taming the Warrant notes from article by James E. Warren from English Journal 99.6 (2010):

BREAKING APART AN ARGUMENT. WHAT I’M NOTICING:  Misinterpreting the prompt  Poor thesis construction  Lack of topic sentences/ effective organization.

Toulmin Argument Model Model Three: The Final Model.

Debate. Inductive Reasoning When you start with a probable truth, and seek evidence to support it. Most scientific theories are inductive. Evidence is.

Moral Relativism, Cultural Differences and Bioethics Prof. Eric Barnes.

Reasoning Critically about Argument and Evidence Solid versus Sloppy Thinking Chapter 9 of Dees Pages

Logos Formal Logic.

Debate. Inductive Reasoning When you start with a probable truth, and seek evidence to support it. Most scientific theories are inductive. Evidence is.

Basic Argumentation.

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian and Ad Herennium Models.

Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Toulmin’s argument model

CS 4001Mary Jean Harrold1 Logical Structure of Arguments.

Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasion.

Argument Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted.

Basics of Argumentation Victoria Nelson, Ph.D.. What is an argument? An interpersonal dispute.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Argument But were afraid to ask…

Warm Up 1. How do I know the following must be false? Points P, Q, and R are coplanar. They lie on plane m. They also lie on another plane, plane n. 2.

CS 4001Mary Jean Harrold1 Class 16 Midterm exam—10/25—discussion on 10/18 Final exam—discuss Term paper approach Assign WA Ch 6, 15—10/18 Term paper.

Argument Strategies. Aristotle’s 4 main arguments 1. argue about what is possible or impossible 1. If people continue to eat foods with chemicals, it.

Recognizing Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is a mistake in logical thinking; it is a MENTAL TRAP.

Arguments and Thinking

Reasoning Critically about Argument and Evidence Solid versus Sloppy Thinking.

Terms of Logic and Types of Argument AP English Language and Composition.

Persuasive Appeals Logos AP LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION.

Classical Oration.  Structure in arguments defines which parts go where.  People don’t always agree about what parts an argument should include or what.

Toulmin’s Model of Argument According to Dr. Caughron.

Mike McGuire MV Community College COM 101 A Closer Look at Logos Syllogism, Enthymeme, and Logical Fallacies ENGL102 Ordover Fall 2008.

Argument Language is a form of motivated action. Argument as Discourse It’s important to understand that for the purposes of this class, Argument means.

Introduction to Toulmin Logic Scott Hale English

The Toulmin Model A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments.

ARGUMENTS. WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT? An argument consist of two or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement that supports the conclusion.

CS 4001Mary Jean Harrold 1 Logical Structure of Arguments.

What do we mean by the “logical structure” of an argument? PART ONE.

Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.

Rhetoric of Argument. Rhetorical Situation Image from Exigence Purpose.

Argument What is required?. Argument – the essentials Claim – a statement that expresses a point of view on a debatable topic “the exact wording of the.

Elements of Argument Logic vs. Rhetoric. Syllogism Major Premise: Advertising of things harmful to our health should be legally banned. Minor Premise:

Toulmin Argument A process of discovering how argumentation works.

Introduction to Argument Chapter 2 (Pgs ) AP Language Demi Greiner | Arlyn Rodriguez Period 4.

The Open Prompt: Timing 1-3 minutes reading and working the prompt. 3 minutes deciding on a position minutes planning the support of your position.

SYLLOGISM - FORM & LOGICAL REASONING. WHAT IS A SYLLOGISM? Syllogism – the formal structure of logical argument. Three statements - Major Premise, Minor.

IMPORTANT METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION.  Aristotle’s Method  Stephen Toulmin’s Method.

Organizing our Arguments with Toulmin’s Structure.

Persuasive Appeals AP LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION Logos

Class 16 Midterm exam—10/25—discussion on 10/18 Final exam—discuss

Deductive reasoning.

What is it and how does it work?

Toulmin Method of Logic

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation Or, the Structure of Arguments

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

Syllogism, Enthymeme, and Logical Fallacies

Lesson 5: Brave New World, Chapter 3

…or, “Stop your lippy attitude.”

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments:

Principles of Argument

Organizing our Arguments

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments:

The Persuasive Speech Ch. 24.

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Toulmin Model

Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Toulmin Model

September 25, 2017 AP English 3 Mr. Bell

Presentation transcript:

Thinkin’ about Logic Using the Toulmin system to evaluate arguments

What car should we buy? We should buy this Geo Metro because it is extremely economical. We should buy this used Volvo because it is very safe. We should buy this Ford Falcon because it is red.

What are we assuming? We should buy the car that is most economical. Economy is the major factor we should consider.

We should buy the car that is safest. Safety is the major factor we should use in choosing a car.

We should buy this Ford Falcon because it is red. Being red is the most important factor in selecting a car.

How can we support or refute the assumptions? I agree that we should buy the most economical car, but the Geo Metro isn’t it. The Mazda 3 is a better buy. I agree that we should buy the safest car. But a Humvee is safer than a Volvo. I don’t agree with either criterion. These days, we should pick the car that gets the best gas mileage. I have 7 kids and a dog. I need the car with the most passenger and cargo space.

Are we attacking the stated reason itself (We should buy the Metro because it is most economical) or the assumption behind it (We should choose the most economical car)?

So…wanna buy the red Falcon? Why not? Don’t you believe it’s red? 100% of people surveyed say it’s red. Chemical spectroscopy test verifies the color red. Oh…what does color have to do with buying a car?

Oh…so you can’t see how we got from the fact (the car is red) to the claim (we should buy it). What we need is some kind of argument to back up this unstated assumption that redness is the major criterion we should choose.

Toulmin’s Analysis Stephen Toulmin, a modern rhetorician, believed that few arguments actually follow the classical models of logic like the syllogism. Review: Example of syllogism: All men are mortal (premise) Aristotle is a man (premise) Therefore, Aristotle is mortal (conclusion)

Toulmin’s system Model for analyzing the type of argument you encounter in everyday life Identifies the basic parts of an argument You can use it two ways: –To identify and analyze the sources you use for information –To test your own argument

Toulmin identifies the three essential parts of any argument as the claim, the data (evidence which supports the claim) and the warrant.

For example: Claim: We should buy this used Volvo. Data (stated reason): It is very safe. Warrant (unstated assumption): We should buy the car that is the safest.

For example: Claim: We should buy this used Volvo. Data (stated reason): It is very safe. Grounds: facts, examples, evidence to support data Warrant (unstated assumption): We should buy the car that is the safest. Backing: facts, examples, evidence to support warrant

Back to the Geo Metro that we should choose because it is the most economical… Q: When might you need grounds (support for the data) but not backing (support for the warrant)? A: Writer and audience agree that economy is the most important factor; they disagree on which car is most economical.

Q: When might we need backing (support for the warrant) and not grounds (support for the data)? Remember the ultra-safe Volvo? A: When the writer and audience agree that the Volvo is the safest car, but disagree on whether safety is the most important factor.

Ah, but what about the Falcon, the car we should choose because it’s red? Claim: We should buy the Ford Falcon. Data: It is red. Grounds: Everyone agrees it’s red; scientific analysis confirms it. Warrant: We need a red car. Backing: ???? (Can you think of a reason?)

How will this kind of analysis help me understand other people’s arguments? How will this kind of analysis help me formulate my own effective arguments?