There are three different types of argument structures. There are linear, branching and joint structures of argument. Each of these structures are different according to the relationship between their premises and conclusions. In this paper, I will be focusing on the difference between joint and branching structures. Joint support is when there is more than one premise that only together, not independently, support the conclusion. In other words, these premises “work together” to support the conclusion. As you can see from the example (1), the premises work jointly to support the conclusion. Without premise 1 or 2, the conclusion would not be the same.
(1) 1. The best color is either Carolina or Duke blue. + 2. The best color is not
…show more content…
I do not like wizard movies. 1*. I have an early class tomorrow
2. ∴ I do not want to go to the Harry Potter marathon tonight.
If you were given a branching structure argument, you would be able to recognize that each premise could independently support the conclusion. In this sense, you would be able to come to a conclusion with a single premise. Whereas, if you were given a joint structure argument, you would recognize that the conclusion relies on the premises together. In this sense, you would not be able to conclude anything without each premise.
As you can see from the descriptions and examples throughout this paper, these two structures of argument are vastly different. Each argument structure serves a different purpose. The branching structure is important as it allows for each premise to serve independently to support the conclusion. The joint structure is important as it allows premises to work dependently together in order to support the conclusion.
In conclusion, each type of argument structure serves an important purpose. Depending on what type of structure you have, the conclusion can be viewed differently. It is important to know that differences between each structure so that you will not come to the wrong
By providing a base argument and the implications of
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
The argument posited by Sider (S1) can be seen as an argument by elimination, where the premises if accepted, reject the possibility of S2 and S3. As such, the argument suffers from whether the re...
Premise one is a generalized argument, premise two is a specific argument, and the conclusion is the result of both premises. An explanation is due to be provided for how the argument posed obeys the two rules for a good argument. There are two rules for a good argument:
.... For argument is not about who is right, but what is learned as a
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Both Moore’s and Gatto’s methods of argumentation are efficient although may prove ineffective in convincing some critical readers.
For most writers, we must know the different types of argumentation styles along with logical fallacies. There are three main types of argumentation styles including: Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin. All three styles have their own argumentation spin on arguments. Aristotelian refutes the opposing claim while at the same time promoting its own argument by using supporting evidence. Some of that evidence includes using rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos. A Rogerian arguments are the arguments that find the common ground in order for an effective argument. Last but not least there is the Toulmin argument, the Toulmin argument is similar to the Aristotelian argument yet instead of appealing to the audience Toulmin focuses
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
Stephen Toulmin noticed that good realistic arguments consist of six actual parts. The extended method includes claims, data, and warrants, but it includes backing, qualifications, and a rebuttal, which are used to test the authority of a given warrant. The backing takes the warrants and adds additional evidence and reasoning to validate the warrant. With backing a warrant, there must be a way of qualifying statements expressing the degree to which the speaker defends a claim or to limit the strength of the argument to its truth. There is never just one view or one side of an argument, there are counter-arguments or statements called rebuttals that indicate the circumstances when the general argument does not hold true.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
3Jonassen, D., Kim, B., (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and
Writing essays consists of an aim of the proven thesis and the body paragraph which holds evidence that strengthens it. A thesis should be precise and argueable; a visible thesis may cause disinterest and lack of deliberation within the audience. To deliver supporting ideas, it should not be copied and paste on what you have read; rather, think of what and why the author reflects on the passage differently the way you do. Obtaining habits such as reading between the lines, analyzing the text will improve your writing skills and directly have a straight forward comprehension of existence of the argument to your audience. According to the article, Overview of the Academic Essay, Duffin states “You might decide to move from the smallest piece of evidence to the most impressive… Start with the most convincing, then mention other supporting details…hold back a surprising piece of evidence until the very end”. Plotting your evidence in order from a minimal to maximal is one way to persuade the audience and initiate the excitement of the audience to read the last body paragraph. There are two approaches in argumentative structure; deductive and inductive. Deductive is frequently used where a thesis is stated and is supported by gathering information.
This structure shows the two initial premises which he argues, in detail, to be correct and in the case that they are correct a logically valid conclusion.
If an argument has a true conclusion, then it is both valid and sound. If an argument is sound, then it is valid. An argument will have a true conclusion if it is sound. An argument has a false conclusion only if it is valid. If an argument has a false conclusion, then it is invalid. An argument is both valid and invalid. Therefore, an argument is sound if and only if it is sound.