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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail
Claim
Data
Qualifier
Warrant
Backing
Rebuttal

12. 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

13. 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