ArgumentationCourse Documents English I Home
|
Dr. Bordelon's English I On-Campus |
You'll find here several strategies to use -- and to avoid -- when making an argument. Let's start with everyone's favorite: logic Toulmin Logic | Induction and Deduction | Evaluating Arguments From LeTourneau University: http://owlet.letu.edu/contenthtml/research/toulmin.html Stephen Toulmin, a modern rhetorician, believed that few arguments actually follow classical models of logic like the syllogism, so he developed a model for analyzing the kind of argument you read and hear every day--in newspapers and on television, at work, in classrooms, and in conversation. Toulmin's model focuses on identifying the basic parts of an argument. As a researcher and writer, you can use Toulmin's model two ways:
Please note that this page presents only a very simplified version of Toulmin's theory. For a more complete understanding, you should read Toulmin's book The Uses of Argument (Cambridge University Press, 1958). Toulmin identifies the three essential parts of any argument as the claim, the data or evidence which is offered to support the claim, and the warrant. The warrant is the assumption on which the claim and the evidence depend. Another way of saying this would be that the warrant explains why the data supports the claim. For example, suppose you see a one of those commercials for a product that promises to give you whiter teeth. Here are the basic parts of the argument behind the commercial: Claim You should buy our tooth-whitening product. Notice that those commercials don't usually bother trying to convince you that you want whiter teeth; instead, they assume that you have bought into the value our culture places on whiter teeth. When an assumption--a warrant in Toulmin's terms--is unstated, it's called an implicit warrant. Sometimes [attention students – this is Dr. Bordelon speaking. Change the “Sometimes” to “almost always.” You can now resume reading the essay], however, the warrant may need to be stated because it is a powerful part of the argument. When the warrant is stated, it's called an explicit warrant. Toulmin says that the weakest part of any argument is its weakest warrant. Remember that the warrant is the link between the data and the claim. If the warrant isn't valid, the argument collapses. Now that you're familiar with the three main parts of an argument, let's look at three other elements Toulmin identified. Qualifier: A qualifier is a statement about how strong the claim is. For example, if you are claiming that stains on teeth are caused by drinking coffee, you might need to acknowledge that there may be other causes as well. Your qualified claim would be that drinking coffee is the most significant cause (although perhaps not the only cause) of stained teeth. Rebuttal: A rebuttal is an exception to your claim. For example, you might have to acknowledge that a certain kind of coffee does not stain teeth. Your claim, however, would be that coffee is the major cause of stained teeth except for those coffee drinkers who drink the special non-teeth staining coffee. Backing: Sometimes the warrant is an important part of the argument. Additionally, sometimes the warrant is not broadly understood or broadly accepted. In this case, a speaker or writer may have to defend the warrant. In our example, the warrant would need to be backed by reasons such as the argument that whiter teeth will help you get more dates or that whiter teeth will make you look better in yearbook photos. Reasons that support the warrant are called backing. So--how do you make this model work for you? Have you ever noticed that when you research both sides of a question, you find yourself being convinced first by one side, and then by the other? Each argument sounds good--at least while you are reading it. When you read an argument which takes an opposite position--that sounds good too, and soon you may feel completely confused. Toulmin to the rescue! By identifying the parts of an argument so each can be evaluated separately, Toulmin created a very useful model for analyzing the validity of an argument. Submit each source you study to rigorous Toulmin analysis. Identify each argument's claims, data, and warrants. Look for qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing for the warrants. Compare one claim with another. Compare data between the two arguments. Compare warrants and their backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. By analyzing the separate parts of an argument, you'll be much better equipped to evaluate each argument's validity. Then, as you begin to write, use Toulmin's methods to submit your own argument to the same rigorous analysis. From LeTourneau University: http://owlet.letu.edu/contenthtml/research/toulmin.html With Toulmin in mind, the next two aspects of argumentation should be clear: induction and deduction. Induction: a form of reasoning based on observed patterns. You make observations on a subject and then offer a conclusion based on them. Dogs, cats, rats, rabbits, horses give birth to live offspring. They are mammals. All mammals give birth to live offspring. The limitations of this reasoning are clear here: observed patterns. If we were in Australia, we might have added duckbilled platypus to the list of animals – which would have changed the outcome of the argument (platypuses are mammals who lay eggs). See Charlie Brown cartoon above for a perfect example of faulty observations as well. That said, inductive reasoning can be effective if qualifiers are used. Dogs, cats, rats, rabbits, horses give birth to live offspring. They are mammals. Most mammals give birth to live offspring. Amazing how one word “most” can turn an false claim into a true one. Deduction: a form of reasoning based on facts. If the facts are true, then the claim/argument is valid. Classic example All men are mortal. While this is a powerful form of reasoning, its uses are limited because hard facts are often hard to find. Careful though: many writers confuse “claims” with “facts.” And remember that statistical data does not make something a fact. Here are some techniques used to confuse you: don’t get fooled (again . . . no no). Evasions Begging the question: treating an opinion that is open to question as if it were already proved or disproved. In other words, the writer begs readers to accept his or her ideas from the start. The college library's expenses should be reduced by cutting subscriptions to useless periodicals. [Begged questions: Are some of the library's periodicals useless? Useless to whom?] Non sequitur ("it does not follow"): drawing a conclusion from irrelevant evidence. In other words, the second thought does not follow from the first. If high school English were easier, fewer students would have trouble with the college English requirement. [Presumably, if high school English were easier, students would have more trouble.] Paul Pitner has my vote for governor because he has the best-run campaign organization. [Shouldn't one's vote be based on the candidate's qualities, not the campaign organization's?] Red Herring: introducing an irrelevant issue to distract readers. In other words, the writer changes the subject rather than pursue the argument. (A Red Herring is literally a kind of fish that might be drawn across a path to distract a bloodhound from a scent it's following.) A campus speech code is essential to protect students, who already have enough problems coping with rising tuition. [Tuition costs and speech codes are different subjects.] Evasions by Inappropriate Appeals Appeals to readers' fear or pity: the writer ignores the question with appeals to the readers. By electing Robert White to the city council, you will prevent the city's economic collapse. [Trades on people's fears. Can White single-handedly prevent economic collapse?] Snob appeal: appealing to readers' wish to be like those who are more intelligent, famous, rich, and so on. This invites readers to accept an assertion in order to be identified with others they admire. As any literate person knows, James Joyce is the best twentieth-century novelist. [But what qualities of Joyce's writing make him a superior novelist?] Bandwagon approach: appealing to readers' wish to be part of the group. In other words, the writer invites readers to accept an assertion because everybody else does. As everyone knows, marijuana use leads to heroin addiction. [What is the evidence?] Flattery: appealing to readers' intelligence, taste, and so on. In other words, the writer invites readers to join in a conspiracy. We all understand campus problems well enough to see the disadvantages of such a backward policy. [What are the disadvantages of the policy?] Argument ad populum ("to the people"): appealing to readers' general values, such as patriotism or love of family. Any truly patriotic American will support the President's action. [But why is the action worth taking?] Argument ad hominem ("to the man"): attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument. One of the scientists has been treated for emotional problems, so his pessimism about nuclear waste merits no attention. [Do the scientist's previous emotional problems invalidate his current views?] Oversimplifications Hasty generalization (jumping to a conclusion): asserting an opinion based on too little evidence. Absolute statements ("People who live in cities are unfriendly.") and stereotypes ("Women are emotional.") are variations. People who care about the environment recycle their trash. [Many people who care about the environment may not have the option of recycling.] Reductive fallacy: generally, oversimplifying causes and effects. Poverty causes crime. [If so, then why do people who are not poor commit crimes? And why aren't all poor people criminals?] The better a school's athletic facilities are, the worse its academic programs are. [The sentence assumes that a direct cause-and-effect link between athletics and scholarship.] Post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused B because A preceded B. This fallacy is called in Latin post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning "after this, therefore because of this." In the two months since he took office, Mayor Jones has allowed crime in the city to increase 2 percent. [The increase in crime is probably attributable to conditions existing before Jones took office.] The town council erred in permitting the adult bookstore to open, for shortly afterward, two people were assaulted. [It cannot be assumed without evidence that the assailants visited or were influenced by the bookstore.] Either/or fallacy: reducing a complicated question to two alternatives. In other words, the writer assumes that a complicated question has only two answers, one good and one bad, both bad, or both good. Either we permit drug testing in the workplace or productivity will continue to decline. [Many factors besides drug testing-or drug use-can affect productivity.] False analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an analogy or ignoring key differences. He was a brilliant basketball player; therefore, there's no question in my mind that he will be a fine coach. [Playing and coaching are hardly the same thing; this analogy is misleading.]
|