Refining our

Arguments

"Put the argument into a concrete shape, into an image, some hard phrase, round and solid as a ball, which they can see and handle and

carry home with them, and the cause is half won."- Ralph Waldo Emerson

What do you already know about argumentation?

First, let’s do a quick pretest on argumentation

or if you are making this up on your own – go to this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KYYBHGZ

First, a question . . . With a partner (or someone sitting near you) come

up with an argument to persuade me that we shouldn’t have any vocab quizzes this semester.

. . . .

Methods of Reasoning:

Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning makes a generalization from a number of specific examples. We sometimes call this a bottom up approach.

Inductive Reasoning

I got sick after eating shrimp.

I got sick after eating oysters.

I got sick after eating crab.

So clearly . . .

Eating shellfish makes me sick.

As the above example shows, evidence was presented first, and the conclusion was based on the evidence And the inductive reasoning makes a generalization from a number of specific examples.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning takes a general principal and then applies it to a specific case to form a conclusion. Sometimes called a top-down approach.

Eating shellfish makes me sick.

Clams are a type of shellfish.

So clearly . . .

Clams will make me sick.

Deductive Reasoning

Now, keep in mind the following . . . .

So, clams could make me sick, but even this straightforward argument can be flawed. Perhaps the shrimp, oysters, and crab were all served at the same clambake where the food was not well-prepared. This would mean that the person would not get sick when eating better-prepared food.

Part of your job as readers is to read between the lines, especially when you are responding to a text with your own argument.

Be careful!

Key Concepts:

• When referencing inductive reasoning you are moving from the specific to the general.

• When referencing deductive reasoning you are moving from the general and end with the specific.

Represent this on your

handout visually for

you to remember!

In ENG101 we focused on a classical argument where a position was presented, and then a counter argument was considered before the essay concluded.

But, for ENG 102 you should be familiar with other types of arguments:

Toulmin and Rogerian.

The Toulmin Model of Argumentation

Let’s first read through the blurb on your handout!

Who is Stephen Toulmin?

• Toulmin was a contemporary philosopher concerned with how argumentation related to everyday life.

• Toulmin’s model became a popular method to analyzing public discourse, criticizing public argument, and also serving as an effective teaching tool for public speaking and debate.

Components of the model:

• Claim: the conclusion of the argument.• Grounds: facts and data used to prove the

claim’s validity (the reasons).• Warrant: The reasoning that authorizes the

inferential leap from the grounds to the claim – the unstated assumptions.

Toulmin arguments are made of three parts:

CLAIM:Grounds:

WARRANT:

Tuition will be increased

The college has recently incurred vast additional

expenses.

Tuition has been in the past and is likely to continue being the principle means by which the college pays its expenses.

Three essential parts:

Questions to ask?• Is the data/grounds sufficient to justify the

claim? What additional data is needed?• Is the claim properly (logically) qualified?

Is the claim presented with too much certainty?

• Is the warrant adequate to justify the claim on the basis of the data? Does the audience accept the warrant or will it need backing? What other warrants might be utilized?

The Rogerian Model of Argumentation

Let’s first read through the blurb on your handout!

Rogerian Argument

• Based on Carl Roger’s work in psychology.

• Takes a different approach to arguments in that “common ground” is established.

The Rogerian process:

• The writer presents the problem.

• The writer describes as fairly as possible the reader’s perceived point of view on the problem.

• The writer makes use of neutral language.

• The writer then presents their perspective on the problem.

Components of the model:

• The core argument

• The common ground,

• And the link between the two.

Rogerian arguments are made of three parts:

Just a little bit more . . .

• The writer will generally includes a careful description of the contexts or circumstances in which the writer’s position is valid.

• The Rogerian approach closes by not asking readers to give up their positions but by showing how the reader would benefit by moving to the writer’s position.

Characteristics:

• Developing “good will” is extremely important.

• The use of “compromising” is encouraged.

• The Rogerian approach typically downplays the emotional in favor of the rational.

• Move towards common ground.

An Example:• Core: Homeowners Associations have too much power in

the state of Arizona because they can determine what one places in their front yard, which seems to be in violation of private property laws.

• Common ground: Nobody wants to live near an eyesore; attractive neighborhoods raise property values.

• Link: Homeowners Associations should focus on problem areas, such as houses that are eyesores due to improper maintenance or abandonment, instead of regulating lawn ornaments and other items that come down to a matter of personal preference.

So, how do the two arguments compare?

Toulmin Rogerian

Adversarial toneNon-confrontational, collegial,

friendly tone

Although concessions may be made, arguments mostly are

based on refutation.

Respects others views and allows for more than one truth

Opponent is "wrong" and will be overcome by evidence.

Seeks to achieve common ground, not to fully convince

someone

Your Homework

Before you do some

argumentation analysis on your

own – we will do one

together!

#1 – What is your reaction to the argument? (What did you first think when you saw it?)

#2 -Do you see ethos, pathos, and/or logos? Provide a BRIEF

example of what you see.

#3 – Does the author use inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning?

How do you know?

#4 - Would you choose a Toulmin or Rogerian

argument to respond? Why?

Your HomeworkThe remaining spoof ads are online! I have them in a power point as well as

a PDF – they are the same!

There are 5 spoof ads and you can choose any 3 to analyze for

homework!

P.S. About that vocab, which type of argument would be the best to choose to try and convince me to

eliminate vocabulary? Why?