Structuring Arguments. Structuring arguments Defines which parts go where Logical arguments...

Structuring Arguments

Structuring arguments

Defines which parts go whereLogical arguments described as:

Inductive reasoningDeductive 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.

Inductive DeductiveI get hives after eating

crawdads.

My mouth swells up when I eat clams.

Shrimp triggers my asthma.

Shellfish makes me ill.

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 Oration1. 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 lifeUse 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

Few More or less Often Possible

It seems Rarely Most In general

In the main Many In some cases

perhaps

Making claims

Arguments begin with claimsClaims – 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.

SinceEating 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