Structuring Arguments

Structuring arguments  Defines which parts go where  Logical arguments described as:  Inductive reasoning  Deductive reasoning:

Inductive reasoning  Process of generalizing on the basis of a number of specific examples I get hives after eating crawdads. My mouth swells up when I eat clams. Shrimp triggers my asthma. Shellfish makes me ill.

Deductive reasoning  Reaches a conclusion by assuming a general principle (major premise) Shellfish makes me ill. Lobster is a type of shellfish. Lobster will make me ill.

InductiveDeductive I get hives after eating crawdads. My mouth swells up when I eat clams. Shrimp triggers my asthma. Shellfish makes me ill. Lobster is a type of shellfish. Lobster will make me ill.

Influential ways of structuring 1. Classical Oration 2. Rogerian Argument 3. Toulmin Argument

Classical oration  Structure used by Greek and Roman rhetoricians  Think as arguments as debates that have winners and losers  Sequence of 6 parts 1. Exordium (Introduce topic, gain attention) 2. Narratio (Narrative providing context) 3. Partitico (Subject examined) 4. Confirmatio (Detailed Support) 5. Refutatio (Opposing claims) 6. Peroratio (Summary and move to action)

Classical Oration 1. Introduction  Gain reader interest  Background  Present necessary information  Lines of argument  Presents good reasons (logical & emotional appeal)  Alternative arguments  Alternative points of view & opposing arguments  Conclusion  Summarizes argument, makes clear what you want the audience to do

Rogerian argument  People involved in disputes should not respond to each other until they could fully, fairly, and even sympathetically state the other person’s position. Willingness to think about opposing positions and to describe them fairly.

Rogerian argument  Must acknowledge that alternative to your claims exist and they are reasonable under certain circumstances  Moves toward understanding and cooperation  Structure your arguments to learn opposing positions well enough to state them accurately and honestly

Rogerian structure  Introduction  Rich description to demonstrate that the writer fully understands alternative positions  Contexts  Describe the contexts in which the alternative positions may be valid  Writer’s Position  State position and present circumstances making opinion valid  Benefits to opponent  Explain to opponents how they would benefit from adopting their position

Structuring Activity  Turn to 1-2 people near you and structure an argument using either Classical Oration or Rogerian.  You may choose any topic.  I am looking only for the “structure” argument (bare bones so to speak) – basically, 1-2 sentences for each part of the argument.

Toulmin argument  Acknowledges the complications of life  Use of qualifiers

Using qualifiers  Words and phrases that place limits on claims  Using qualifiers make writing more precise and honest Examples:  Never assume your readers know the limits you have in mind – you must state them as precisely as possible FewMore or lessOftenPossible It seemsRarelyMostIn general In the mainManyIn some cases perhaps

Making claims  Arguments begin with claims  Claims – debatable assertions you hope to prove  Claims worth arguing tend to be controversial  No point in arguing point on which people agree  Claim answers the question: “What’s your point?”

Making claims Simple, Undeveloped Claims  It’s time to legalize the medical use of marijuana.  NASA should launch a human expedition to Mars.  Vegetarianism is the best choice of diet. *note: these claims are statements, not questions

Making claims  Ask a question to reach a claim  Should NASA launch more robotic interstellar probes? Can NASA even afford to send people to Mars? Answer: NASA should launch a human expedition to Mars.  Good claims often spring from personal experiences.  We all know something to merit the label expert.

Offering evidence and good reasons  A claim must have some evidence and good reasons to support it  Attaching a reason to a claim often spells out the major terms of an argument.  Do the reason & evidence offered really support the claim? Evidence & Reason So Claim

Determining warrants  Must be a logical & persuasive connection b/t the claim and the reasons & data supporting  A sound warrant give you authority to proceed with your case Evidence & Reason So Claim Since Warrant

Warrants The mushroom is poisonous. So Don’t eat it. Since Eating poisonous things is dangerous. General principle that enables you to justify the move from a reason to a specific claim – the bridge connecting them.

warrants  Tell you what arguments you have to make and at what level you have to make them.  Controversial warrant = more explanation  When possible – choose warrant knowing your audience, context of your argument, and your own feelings.

Offering evidence - backing  Warrants suggest the scope of the evidence  Use backing to provide the background or history on the subject  Backing – evidence to support your warrant  Toulmin – readers have to agree on some basic principles, or the argument becomes pointless

Understanding conditions of rebuttal  Know potential objections to your argument  Understand and reacting to these conditions are essential to support your own claims where they’re weak  You gain credibility & authority by anticipating a reasonable objection  Anticipating objections broadens your horizons and likely makes your more open to change

Outline of Toulmin Argument  Claim  Qualifier  Good Reasons  Warrants  Backing  Evidence  Authority  Conditions of Rebuttal  Response