Skip to main content

Blog Post 3: Chapter Four


In the beginning of chapter four of the Nature of Argumentation, the authors introduced a modification of Stephen Toulmin’s model for a better understanding about the parts of an argument and their interrelationships (73). The standard pattern of Toulmin’s model includes six factors: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal/reservation (74). Here I will explain each of these factors and apply these six factors in my real life experience. First of all, an argument always starts with a claim, which states the idea for which people are looking for adherence. For example, I used to bring up a claim of “I should seriously consider getting a cat”, and it is the final goal of my argument and following reasoning. Second, there are grounds aim to offer prime source to support the claim in order to convince decision maker. In my case, the grounds could be a fact that cats can help reduce stress. But the grounds could hardly let the decision maker to grant adherence to the claim, so a third part, warrant, is needed for connecting the grounds to the claim. Therefore, to strengthen my claim of getting a cat, I could add a warrant that everyone has stress and it has been a more serious problem for both individual and the society. The fourth factor is backing, which plays the role of any support that provides more specific data for the grounds or warrant. In my case, I back up my grounds by finding some research online that there exist supportive data showing a positive correlation between having a cat and the decrease of anxiety in experiments. The fifth factor, qualifier, is included in some claims and is used for indicating the expression of the confidence in the claim. Here I use “seriously consider” in my claim and it reflects the extent to which I am willing to be responsible for the claim. The last factor is rebuttal/reservation. Putting a rebuttal is a chance for you to make your claim more more reasonable since you bring up questioned parts before opponents. So I could further add a rebuttal in my claim by saying that unless you believe that you are not stressful or you just dislike cats. In general, Toulmin’s model helps evaluate an intact and strong argument, and it is useful for us to understand the reasoning processes. But we should notice that not all arguments follow the whole model, and we should be flexible when it comes to analyzing an argument. 


Comments

  1. YiwanningOctober 2, 2018 at 5:50 PM

    Hey Yujia
    I had a lot of fun reading your post, I love your examples as a cat lover!
    I would like to make my own example which pair with yours, it will be cool to do it!

    Claim:I should seriously consider looking for a boyfriend.
    ground is: Having a boyfriend will efficiently develop my eloquence.
    Warrant: Everyone should develop their eloquence, because you never know when you will get into a serious fight, and you definitely don't want to lose it.
    Backing: From my research, every long-term relationship couple will fight with each other 3 times a week. And having fights occasionally can efficiently practice people's skill of making more rigorous claim, having the ability to strike back in a wrathful mood, as well as making critical decision.
    Qualifier: I add "seriously" in my claim too.
    Rebuttal: Unless you have a high profession of debates, or you just don't like boys.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a 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

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more