Skip to main content

Chapter 4 - blog 2


Arguments are are composed up of various parts. In its most simple form, they are comprised of grounds, warrants, and claims. They are what allow us to determine if we accept the argument or not. The point that we try to get across to people is the claim. The claim is what we want people to accept in the argument. How we get to the claim is based on the grounds that we can provide. The grounds are evidence to our claim, such as physical examples or other ways that support the claim we are trying to prove. The warrant is a little bit more complicated to wrap your head around, but it is a form of logical reasoning that he have that can either be implied in the grounds, or explicitly stated to help us reach the claim through the grounds we provide. It is the metaphorical vehicle that drives the argument. In other words, why we should accept the grounds that are provided to help us reach the claim. 
To strengthen the argument further, we can also provide backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals.   Backing is the use of statistics, testimonies, values, and other ways to help strengthen the grounds we provide or the warrant that is explicitly given or implied. The qualifier is used to determine the force of the argument. Words like certainly, possibly, usually, and always are words that help shape the force of the argument. Lastly, rebuttals are used to go against the claim you are trying to prove in an attempt to consider the opposing view point and disprove it. All the components of an argument are used in a synergistic, logically way to help prove the claim through grounds and warrants, but strengthened through backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. 

Comments

  1. Quinn DaleyOctober 2, 2018 at 8:19 PM

    Hi Scott, I think you did a solid job of summing up the Toulmin model, but I feel more can be said about warrants to help develop a better understanding of the them.

    I agree with your assessment that warrants can be a little tricky, but they are crucial to effective argumentation, and argument can't go anywhere without them. Warrants simply connect the grounds to the claim, and its incredibly important for both parties in the argument to understand what warrants are being used in advancing the argument. Warrants don't always have to be controversial, either, but often they are because they are inferred and are not universal truths. When warrants become unclear, the argument becomes more difficult to assess. This is likely the case when warrants are disputed, conflict, or are argued. Despite the difficulties warrants present in arguments, they need to be understood and somewhat transparent for arguments to be effective.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more