Structuring and Analyzing

Argument: Toulmin and

Rogerian Models

English 106

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

Toulmin Model: Three Components

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

Toulmin Argument from Stephen Toulmin’s book, the Uses of Argument – 1958

We will look at the claim, the support (reasons), and the warrant from the British philosopher's, Stephen Toulmin's, point of view.

Qualifiers

Rather than universal premises like formal argument, Toulmin suggested qualifiers more reflected the real world and arguments about controversial topics in particular. Here is a list of qualifiers: Few, Rarely, Sometimes, Routinely, Often, For the most part

In general

Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail

Claim Data

Qualifier

Warrant

Backing Rebuttal

Claims

These should be made on debatable, controversial issues and use the above qualifiers.

The claim answers the question, "What are you trying to prove?" It may appear as the thesis statement in your essay. It will likely be a claim of fact, value, or policy.

Claims

Claim of fact, "The present cocaine epidemic is not unique. From 1885 to the 1920's, cocaine was as widely used as it is today."

Claim of value, "Ending a patient's life intentionally is absolutely forbidden on moral grounds."

Claims of policy, "drivers should no longer be able to text while driving.

Reasons (evidence)

The support consists of the materials used to convince your audience

Personal experience, anecdotes, facts, quotes, stats so the claim makes sense

The warrant

The assumptions behind your claim (often unstated) – cultural assumptions about “fairness” and “equality” are a good place to start; i.e., supporters of affirmative action claim that it is needed because of inequalities from the past while opponents claim that preferential policies should be overturned because they cause inequality today. Both claims assume or warrant “fairness.”

The warrant allows the reader to make the connection between the support and the claim. It is an inference or assumption. It is often called the bridge. It moves from the reason to the claim. They can be phrased in various ways. They may appear in the conclusion of an essay or simply implied.

Putting it all together

Reasons . . . so claim . . . since warrants (assumptions, which are often unstated)

Examples:

We had better cancel the picnic because the weather bureau says there is a 70% chance that it is going to rain.

Warrants (unstated assumptions):

picnics are held outdoors

when the weather is bad, it is best to cancel picnics

a 70% chance of rain means rain is likely to occur

The weather bureau’s predictions are reliable enough to warrant this action

The Electoral College gives small states undue influence (reason) so it should be abolished (claim)

Warrant:

No states should have undue influence on presidential elections

The Electoral College gives small states undue influence (reason) so it should be abolished (claim)

Warrant:

No states should have undue influence on presidential elections

People should adopt a vegetarian diet because it is healthier according to the authors of this textbook.

Claim: Adoption of a vegetarian diet leads to a healthier and longer life.

Support: The authors of Becoming a Vegetarian Family say so.

Warrant: The authors of Becoming a Vegetarian Family are reliable sources of information on diet.

Flat taxes are fairer than progressive taxes because they treat all taxpayers in the same way.

Claim: Flat taxes are fairer than progressive taxes.

Support: They treat all taxpayers in the same way.

Warrants: Fair taxes are those that treat all taxpayers in the same way.

Treating people equitably is the American way

All people should be treated the same

Progressive taxes are fairer than flat taxes because people with more income can afford to pay more, benefit more from government, and can shelter their income from taxes.

Claim: Progressive taxes are fairer than flat taxes.

Support: They tax people according to their ability to pay.

Warrants: Fair taxes are those that tax people according to their ability to pay.

People who benefit more from the government and can shelter more money from taxes should be taxed at higher rates.

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

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

Rogerian Arguments: example 1. Introduction: Should students wear uniforms? 2. Summary of opposing views: Some argue YES as uniforms create a sense of equality and highlight the person, not the materials they wear. Others say NO because uniforms limit self expression and individuality. 3. Statement of Understanding: I understand the point of view that uniforms, in making students look the ‘same’, may also make them feel they are all ‘the same’, unable to express their personal style and individuality. 4. Statement of Your Position: However, I think the above belief is mistaken, because – in reality – it should not be the materials we wear that define who we are, but rather our actions, our words, our talents. With this in mind, I believe uniforms are a quality addition to any school policy. 5. Statement of Contexts: If your shoes are Nike brand, that does not tell me your are a talented athlete, merely that you or your parents have the money to purchase Brand names. If you wear purple, that does not tell me you are a talented artist, merely that you have a preference for purple. 6. State of Benefits: Meanwhile, in a uniform, brand names do not exist, and economic status is no longer a barrier. In a uniform, rather than your clothes speaking for you, you speak for yourself. In a uniform, you must prove – to the world and yourself – that you are a talented athlete, or artist, or mathematician. Ironically, by making everyone look ‘the same’, uniforms allow us to TRULY become unique.

OWL’S 10 Steps to Writing a Rogerian Argument

Find common ground — Because a Rogerian argument will help you find common ground with your audience, you should consider this style of argument when you have a difficult or controversial topic and want to use a connection with your audience as a part of your persuasive style. But what is common ground? Finding a common ground involves meeting your opposition in the middle.

Know your audience — Is your audience going to be reluctant to change on this issue? If so, a Rogerian argument can be persuasive. It is also going to be a wonderful exercise in helping you see things from your audience’s perspective, as your goal is to understand the other side of an issue and then meet your audience in the middle. Some brainstorming can help you as you think about how you are going to approach your audience and find the common ground you need.

Introduce the problem — When you begin your argumentative essay, you should introduce the problem or issue in a way that makes it clear to an opposing audience that you understand their position.

Acknowledge other side — Unlike some other argument structures, in a Rogerian argument, you should address the opposition in the very beginning of your essay. After your introduction, you should explain the contexts in which your opposition’s viewpoints make sense and are valid.

State your position — It’s now time to present your side. Your goal is to evenly and carefully make the case for your position in order to be as persuasive as possible to the other side. Explain the contexts in which your side of the issue makes sense.

Bring two sides together — After you present your position, your next step is to explain how the opposition would benefit from considering at least certain parts of your position. Focus on the value of your position while remembering the value of the other side.

Reach a conclusion — As you reach the end of your Rogerian essay, remember to remind your audience of your main points and try to leave your audience with something to consider, even if they are still not convinced by the balanced presentation on the issue you have presented.

Not finished yet — You now have your draft completed, but there is a world of work left to do in terms of revision and editing. Before you edit, you should revise the content of your work. To help with revision, it is a good idea to get feedback.

Hear from the other side — Get feedback from as many people as you can. It is helpful to participate in a peer review if your course offers one. But it is a good idea to go beyond that peer review as well. Try to get feedback from those who disagree with your position. Not everyone is going to agree with your argument, but the feedback helps you grow as a writer.

Edit and polish — Once your essay content has been revised, it is time to edit. Editing involves addressing things like grammar, spelling, and checking on your citation. A good editing process involves many passes. You can’t catch all of your errors in one pass. Remember that effective editing takes time!

Follow these steps and you will be well on your way to a strong Rogerian argument essay!