Structuring Arguments: Toulmin and Rogerian Schemes

ENG 102

Toulmin Schemes: UsesTo check your own logicTo evaluate another’s logicTo test ideas and reasons

Toulmin logic is simple involving four elements: Reason Claim Warrant Proof

Thesis statements

One way to use the Toulmin model is to check the logic of our own thesis statements

A clearer example follows…

Thesis development example Brainstorm: Crack Babies Narrowed: Programs for Crack Babies Specific: Experts estimate that half of crack

babies will grow up in home environments lacking rich cognitive and emotional stimulation.

Take a stand: More attention needs to be paid to the environment they grow up in

Finalize: Because half of all crack babies are likely to grow up in homes lacking good cognitive and emotional stimulation, the federal government should finance programs to supplement parental care.

Same topic: Toulmin testReason: (Because) half of all crack

babies are likely to grow up in homes lacking good cognitive and emotional stimulation

Warrant: (since) their parents are drug users

Claim: (so) the government should step in and finance social programs Does this thesis work? It will depend on

the strength of the proof… Toulmin can help us tell what proof we need.

Toulmin terms definedthe claim: the conclusionReason/Grounds: the Why/So

what? for the claimthe warrant: an unstated

assumptionThe Proof/Backing: The facts that

prove your case

Usually the claim or conclusion is stated first, followed by the evidence.

Rebuttals/QualifiersAlways watch for language that needs

further refining: All Democrats hate America and all

Republicans are blind patriots While it’s true that some Democrats like

Mr. Smith are critical of American policies, many Republicans, like Mr. Jones aren’t critical enough.

Failure to refine language or offer adequate proof are grounds for rebuttals.

What proof is needed?

Claim: Parents should buy their kids Mattel toys.

Reasons: Because Mattel makes high quality toys; Because Mattel has competitive prices; Because millions of Mattel toys are bought by other parents every year.

Warrant: Parents should buy their kids toys of some kind.

Necessary Questions: Proof The major aspects to consider:

Is the reason valid on its face, Is it only valid for this particular instance, Can it adequately support the claim

without support other than what is offered in the proof?

In whose opinion is this brand of toys "quality"? Was it an unbiased report (Consumer Reports) or the opinion of the company itself?

What does "competitive" pricing mean? If I make a lot of money, this will be on a different level than someone making much less.

More questions for the proof:Do the purchases by other parents make this

purchase a sound one? Could they be blindly buying an inferior product merely because of its popularity?

Is the warrant truly a shared assumption or is this subject to individual opinion? Should parents be buying any toys at all, or is this an assumption that not all of us share?

Much of this may be subjective, and thus the argument that ensues is not based on the validity of the claim as much as the validity of the warrant or the reasons.

Often the claim is supported largely by preconceived assumptions that are really unproven assertions that the writer wants you to take for granted.

Let’s try it… Political ExampleCLAIM:Republican Jones is a shoe-

in to win the election.REASON:Democrat Smith was

convicted of fraud last week. The other candidates are all Independents.

WARRANTS:Only a Republican or Democrat can win an election. A criminal conviction will sway votes. Is this valid?

Provisional answer: Even though logic does support this

claim, the proof does not: first, history proves that a few candidates

from other than the two major parties have won both state and national congressional posts.

Likewise, Marion Barry, mayor of Washington DC, was reelected after being convicted and jailed for cocaine use. Similarly, Buddy Cianci, Mayor of Providence, RI was reelected after being charged with fraud and assault

Religion

CLAIM:You shouldn't break morality laws.

REASONS:Some actions hurt other people. All such actions are against God's will. You will be punished by God when you die.

WARRANTS:Hurting others is bad. God exists.

Provisional answer

Obviously, this argument hinges largely one's belief system.

If the reader were to be an atheist or didn't care about other people, the argument is not convincing. Can one have “proof” of the

existence of God outside a faith-based belief system?

Opinion/Advertisement CLAIM:"PBS is free because it sucks"

(Comedy Central radio ad) REASONS (offered in ad):PBS is

information-based. Comedy Central offers sexily clad women. Comedy Central offers "adult" language and content.

WARRANT (not stated in ad but implied):Culture is boring, or prurient content is exciting. Culture is not worth paying for, or prurient interest is worth paying for.

Provisional answer

Obviously, many would agree with this argument, since cable costs money and PBS is free. Proof shows that PBS is paid for by

individual and corporate sponsorship (not advertisers nor cable subscription), so the warrant may not be supportable to a certain segment of the population.

Conclusions

Toulmin Logic is supposed to draw the user into a stricter logic process...and it can be used to evaluate claims by others.

Be aware that it is difficult to get absolute "proof" of an argument, even when logic and past experience tell us the likely outcome.

However, used correctly, this approach to argumentation can be effective as a way to check a thesis created by traditional means, or one’s own logic throughout an argument.

Activity

Using your editorial, create a Toulmin scheme based off your reading of its main ideas

See the handout for more information

The option… Rogerian Arguments

Carl Rogers, “Communication: Its Blocking and Facillitation”

A writer who wishes to communicate with someone (esp. on a tough issue) needs to reduce the threat Moves away from either/or and toward a

compromiseHelps one show sympathetic understanding

of opposition by recognizing valid spots and the overall goodwill of their detractor’s ideas

Toulmin vs. Rogerian Adversarial tone Although

concessions may be made, arguments mostly based on refutation

Opponent is “wrong” and will be overcome by evidence

Nonconfrontational, collegial, friendly tone

Respects other’s views and allows for more than one truth

Seeks to achieve common ground, not to convince 100%

Rogerian Scheme1. State the problem2. Give the opponent’s position3. Grant whatever validity you find in

that position (ex: circumstances where the position might be acceptable

4. Attempt to show how the opposing position will be improved if the writer’s own position is accepted. In cases where two sides can’t meet,

writer will begin to stress the assets of his/her own position