Structuring Arguments - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Structuring Arguments

Slide2

Structuring arguments

Defines which parts go where

Logical arguments described as:

Inductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning:Slide3

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. Slide4

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. Slide5

Inductive Deductive

I 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.Slide6

Influential ways of structuring

Classical Oration

Rogerian

Argument

Toulmin

ArgumentSlide7

Classical oration

Structure used by Greek and Roman rhetoricians

Think as arguments as debates that have winners and losers

Sequence of 6 parts

Exordium (Introduce topic, gain attention)

Narratio (Narrative providing context)

Partitico

(Subject examined)

Confirmatio

(Detailed Support)

Refutatio

(Opposing claims)

Peroratio

(Summary and move to action)Slide8

Classical Oration

Introduction

Gain reader interest

Background

Present necessary information

Lines of argumentPresents good reasons (logical & emotional appeal)Alternative argumentsAlternative points of view & opposing arguments

Conclusion

Summarizes argument, makes clear what you want the audience to do Slide9

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. Slide10

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 honestlySlide11

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 PositionState position and present circumstances making opinion validBenefits to opponent Explain to opponents how they would benefit from adopting their positionSlide12

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. Slide13

Toulmin argument

Acknowledges the complications of life

Use of qualifiersSlide14

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

perhapsSlide15

Making claims

Arguments begin with claims

Claims – 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?”Slide16

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 questionsSlide17

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. Slide18

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

ClaimSlide19

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

WarrantSlide20

Warrants

The mushroom is poisonous.

So

Don’t eat it.

Since

Eating poisonous things is dangerous.

General principle that enables you to justify the move from a reason to a specific claim – the bridge connecting them. Slide21

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. Slide22

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 pointlessSlide23

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 changeSlide24

Outline of Toulmin

Argument

Claim

Qualifier

Good Reasons

WarrantsBackingEvidenceAuthorityConditions of RebuttalResponse