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