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

Premise  A statement or position regarded as true that helps to support a conclusion.

Inductive Reasoning  The process of reasoning from specific to general  Begins with specific facts; draws generalizations or conclusions from those facts  Premises are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it

Example of Inductive Reasoning  I get hives when I eat salmon.  My tongue swells when I eat flounder.  I am allergic to fish.

Deductive Reasoning  The process of reasoning from general to specific  Conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises

Example of Deductive Reasoning  I am allergic to fish.  Flounder is a type of fish.  I am allergic to flounder.

Syllogism Three-part deductive argument; conclusion follows from two premises Major premise: General principle or rule. (A=B) Minor premise: Introduction of new, more specific fact; verifiable by evidence (C=A) Conclusion: Based on the two premises (C=B)

Examples of Syllogisms Major premise: All human beings are mortal. Minor premise: Socrates is a human being. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Examples of Syllogisms Major premise: All people have hearts. Minor premise: John is a person. Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.

Examples of Syllogisms Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded. Minor premise: All black dogs are mammals. Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.

Valid vs. True Truth: Accuracy of conclusion Valid: Method used to arrive at conclusion A sound syllogism is both valid and true. A syllogism may be true without being valid, and valid without being true.

Valid, true, both, neither? All cats are animals. All dogs are cats. Therefore, all dogs are animals.

Illogical Syllogisms U_4m-g

Enthymemes A shortened, compressed syllogism that leaves one premise unstated/assumed Depends on audience’s agreement with an assumption Ex.) Socrates is mortal because he is a human being. -What is unstated/assumed?

Aristotle’s Classical Model  Introduction (exordium) Introduces reader to subject Piques interest Establishes ethos  Narration (narratio) Establishes why subject needs addressing Provides factual/background information Logos or pathos

Aristotle’s Classical Model Confirmation (confirmatio)  Develops and proves the argument  Most specific and concrete detail  Appeals to logos Refutation (refutatio)  Addresses the counterargument (opposing side)  Appeals to logos Conclusion (peroratio)  Brings essay to a close  Answers the question, “So what?”  Appeals to pathos

Rogerian Model- Basics Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers Emphasizes building bridges between speaker and audience Focuses on problem-solving/coming to a consensus Willingness to think about opposing positions and present them fairly

Rogerian Model- Purposes Appropriate model for:  Trying to reconcile conflicting parties; achieving a compromise  Issues that are highly emotional

Rogerian Model- Effects Writer shows empathy for audience’s viewpoint Opens door for mutual understanding and respect A “win-win” situation

Rogerian Model-Strategies Avoid heated, stereotypical, or attacking language that might put audience on defensive Use appeals to emotions and character/credibility

Rogerian Model- Structure Introduction: Statement of problem to be solved or question to be answered; how it affects both speaker and audience Summary of Opposing Views: Described using a seemingly objective persona Statement of Understanding: Concedes circumstances under which opposing views might be valid

Rogerian Model- Structure Statement of Your Position (Thesis) 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

Toulmin Model- Basics Developed by Stephen Toulmin, 1950s “Acknowledges the complications of life”

Toulmin Model- Structure Claim: The argument you wish to prove Qualifier: Any limits you place on your claim (usually, probably, maybe, in most cases) Reasons/Evidence: Support for your claim Warrant: Underlying assumption that links claim to evidence

Warrants: Practice Because the mushroom is poisonous, you should not eat the mushroom, since… You should not eat the mushroom. Warrant/Assumption? The mushroom is poisonous.

Warrants: Practice I don’t like receiving grades in high school. Grades in high school should be abolished. *Disputable warrants have to be defended before you can continue arguing for your claim.* Warrant/Assumption?

Toulmin Model- Structure Backing: Evidence for questionable warrants (can be emotional, ethical, or logical appeals) “My claim is true, to a qualified degree, because of the following reasons, which makes sense if you consider the warrant, backed by these additional reasons.”

Toulmin Model- Structure Reservations/Conditions of Rebuttal  Explains terms and conditions necessitated by the qualifier  Shows an understanding of those who see your issue differently

Toulmin Model- Structure