Kendall Way
July 16, 2016
COMS 3314
Toulmin Model Assignment
First Question:
When talking about an argument, it should be written in a manner that unfolds both the strengths and limits of the argument. The point of an argument is to come to a conclusion as close to the truth or realistic solution. In the twentieth-century, British philosopher Stephen Toulmin asked the question of where is the love and what are the uses of an argument. Stephen Toulmin then conducted a method constructing and analyzing an argument. This method, named after Stephen Toulmin, is called the Toulmin model. The Toulmin model involves breaking down an argument into six basic parts, looking at all supporting points and views both for and against the argument.
…show more content…
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.
The Toulmin model also tries to identify the assumptions, counter-examples, and implications. The model has a way of making very detailed analysis, in which we break an argument into its various parts and decide how effectively those parts participate in the overall whole. When we use this method, we identify the argument's claim, reasons, and evidence, and evaluate the effectiveness of each.
When looking at the Toulmin model and comparing them to how other models work in an argument, it can be said that Toulmin works like a formula to be applied to arguments. It is often not very well applied, for example, to arguments that are not themselves organized in a linear
Argument: This is where the attorney gives detail of the legal situations of the client, and relies on the primary and secondary authorities (Statsky, pg. 545).
Argumentation has followed humans from the dawn of time as a way for us to express our ideas and for our ideas to be heard. People naturally obtain the knowledge to persuade others, either backing their opinions by fact or touching others emotionally, from growing up and through their own experiences in life. We can be persuaded by a numerous amounts of different factors pertaining to the argument. There are four different types of strategies in which an argument can be presented and make the argument effective. Martin Luther King is a key example of the utilization of the strategies as he wrote, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and Nicholas Carr also portrays the strategies with his essay, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Both authors perfectly
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
In arguments there are three major types of classifications, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. An example of a forensic argument would be the article “The Assassination in Israel That Worked” by Roger Cohen for the New York Times. “Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering” by Chris Seck for the Stanford Review, and “Crowd Fill Washington For Inauguration” by Carol Morello, Allison Klein, and Donna St. George for the Washington Post are great examples of deliberative and epideictic arguments, respectively. I will examine the article by Chris Seck, specifically for it’s qualifications of a deliberative argument.
... reasons why. This strengthens my argument as I develop relevant reasons to my position while agreeing on a middle ground.
Therefore the assertion of the right reasons view, with respect to the third person perspective, and the validation of your belief from that same one third party makes a more compelling argument for keeping confidence in one's beliefs upon a disagreement.
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
There are six elements that make a theory sound. These elements are scientific criteria that provide whether or not the theories are scientific. The most important of these elements is empirical validity, which uses evidence to confirm or disprove a theory and have criteria for interpreting data as factual, irregular or unrelated. The other major elements include internal logical consistency, scope and parsimony, testability, and usefulness and policy implication. A theory must be logically consistent. In order to be so, it must have clearly defined concepts, have logically stated and internally consistent propositions. If a theory contains pointless ideas or is inconsistent, it can't really explain anything. Scope refers to the assortment of events that it propositions to explain. Parsimony is used to describe the concepts and propositions as to whether they are concise or abstract. Scope and Parsimony are interrelated. A scientific theory must be able to be tested by objective, repeatable evidence, but not against empirical findings. In order to assess the value of the theory, its usefulness for effective policy implications are evaluated. (Akers, 2009, p. 5-11)
First, there is the content. Compared to Donald, Hillary carefully followed the Toulmin Model, which made her debate seem more powerful and persuasive. The Toulmin Model helps arguers craft and dissect their arguments. It consists of three main elements: claim, data, and warrant. Both candidates
It is that simpler explanations are more likely the better choice than complicated drawn out explanations. The simpler something is the easier it is follow and there is less room for mistakes. Complicated explanations are more likely to make errors in them. This of course is when both theories explain the data or situation equally well. For example if you walk into the kitchen and the cat food has been knocked over and split all over the floor you would have to evaluate the different explanations. If your in-between two explanations that are the cat jumped on the counter and knocked it over or the dog unlocked its kennel pushed a chair over to the counter and then jumped on the counter, this tool says to go with the first option. Both explanations are reasonable and would explain what happened but the first less
After using the toulmin model for my essay, I believe without a doubt that it is one of the simplest ways to create a strong, clear argument. Its strength lies in how basic the structure is. Often, when someone attempts to make an argument, it comes out disorganized. They failed to address a counterargument. They failed to explain how any of their data matches their argument. The order in which they presented their information was generally illogical and confusing, the information simply spills out. While one could attribute this to having a structure in general, the toulmin argument actively encourages a writer or speaker to plug any holes in their argument. Inherently, the author has to explain their points, then they have to explain how
Muller, G.H. and Wiener, H.S. (2009). To the point: Reading and writing short arguments. New York: Pearson Education, Inc
...d the evidence that you have used. Weigh up the two (or more) sides of the argument.
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
* The Aims of Argument. 4th ed Ed.Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. New York:McGraw Hill,2003, 352-355.