Download
structuring and analyzing arguments the classical toulmin and rogerian models n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

833 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models AP Language and Composition

  2. Classical Argument • Began in ancient Greece, approximately fifth century B.C. • Communicated orally and designed to be easily understood by listeners • Based on formal logic, including the syllogism • Formal Logic: abstract discipline—deals with absolutes.

  3. CLASSICAL:The Five Canons of Rhetoric(Categories) • Invention • Arrangement • Style • Memory (oratory) • Delivery (oratory)

  4. 1. Invention • Coming up with ideas for speaking and/or writing • Ethos, Logos, Pathos: APPEALS: Tools for both analyzing and creating effective arguments • 3 “Artistic Proofs” • Writer controls • Writer must use • Writer, however, must balance

  5. Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning • Deductive Reasoning = in traditional Aristotelian logic, the process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific • Inductive Reasoning = the process of reasoning from the specific to the general, in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. Inductive reasoning is used to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring patterns.

  6. Key Terms: The Syllogism • Three-part deductive argument, in which conclusion follows from two premises • A straightforward example: Major premise: All people have hearts. Minor premise: John is a person. Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.

  7. Key Terms: The Enthymeme • The two most powerful tools: Enthymeme and Example • Shortened syllogism – more practical • A straightforward example: Syllogism: Major premise: All people are mortal. Minor premise: John is a person. Conclusion: Therefore, John is mortal. Enthymeme: John is mortal because he is a person.

  8. 2. Arrangement • Exordium • Narratio • Propositio • Confirmatio/Refutatio • Peroratio

  9. REVIEW • What is invention in Rhetoric? • What is Ethos? • What is Logos? • What is Pathos? • How do the three appeals WORK TOGETHER to persuade an audience? • What is a syllogism? An enthymeme? • How you derive an enthymeme from a syllogism? • Why is an enthymeme more useful in argumentation? • What is arrangement? Why is it important in argumentation (analyzing AND constructing)? • What is Style? • What effect does style have in communicating an argument to an audience?

  10. Classical Argument: Arrangement of Elements 1) Introduction: captures attention of audience; urges audience to consider your case 2) Statement of Background: narrates the key facts and/or events leading up to your case 3) Proposition: states the position you are taking, based on the information you’ve already presented, and sets up the structure of the rest of your argument 4) Proof: discusses your reasons for your position and provides evidence to support each reason 5) Refutation: anticipates opposing viewpoints; then demonstrates why your approach is the only acceptable one (i.e. better than your opponents’) 6) Conclusion: summarizes your most important points and can include appeals to feelings or values (pathos)

  11. 3. Style • Figurative Language • Metaphor • Antitheses • Alliteration • Anaphora

  12. Modern Approaches to Argument Toulmin Rogers

  13. Modern Rhetorical Triangle Message (logos) Rhetorical context Writer (ethos) Audience (pathos)

  14. The Toulmin Model (see also Harbrace pp. 300-303). • Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950’s • Emphasizes that logic often based on probability rather than certainty • Focuses on claims • Informal logic: based on probability. Gives good reasons, persuasive arguments. Does not attempt to prove…. • Acknowledges reasonable arguments of both sides • Seven components

  15. Toulmin Model: Three Components • Enthymeme gives the three primary components Claim = statement of the main point or position Data = the evidence supporting the claim, aka the reasons Warrant= an underlying/unstated assumption or basic principle that connects data and claim; as said before, perhaps implied rather than explicit

  16. Toulmin Model: Other Components • Grounds: provide actual evidence in support of the reasons. • Examples, statistics, citations, facts • Backing: supports warrant, if needed. • Conditions of Rebuttal: bring up and address counter-arguments. Attacks grounds and/or the warrant and backing. • Qualifier: limits a claim. Gets rid of absolutes. Can prove a claim is faulty if given absolutes like always, never…..can find exceptions to such broad statements.

  17. Qualifier Data Claim Warrant Backing Rebuttal Toulmin Argumentation Graphic

  18. Toulmin Model: An Example Claim = My parents should allow me to go to my friend’s party on Friday night. Data = The parents of nearly all of the seniors at CHS have given their children permission to attend this party. Warrant = My parents should act in accordance with the other parents of juniors at CHS.

  19. Uh-oh, a potential snag… What if my parents don’t “buy” my warrant? What if they don’t think they should necessarily do what other parents are doing? How can I still get permission to attend the party? Or at least have a better chance of getting permission?

  20. Try new data and a new warrant. What might be more convincing data for an audience of parents? What might be a warrant that most parents will share?

  21. Rogerian Model • Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers (also in the ’50s) • Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus • Mutually acceptable solutions to problems • 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

  22. Rogerian Model • Seeks common ground • Builds trust • Reduces threat • Avoids confrontation/attack • Gives credit to counterarguments

  23. 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

  24. REVIEW • What is the rhetorical triangle? • What is informal logic? • How is informal logic used to make an argument? • In informal logic, what is a claim? • How does a reason support a claim in informal logic? • What role does a warrant play in informal logic? • What is the goal of Rogerian rhetoric, and how does it differ from the goal of traditional argumentation?