Skip to main content

Chapter 4

In chapter four of the book we were introduced to the Toulmin argument model. This model gives us different ways one can perform an analysis of an argument, in total there are six different perspectives it talks about. Claims, qualifier, grounds, backing, warrant, rebuttal/reservation are the six different ways the Toulmin model focuses on in relation to argumentation. Out of all of these six elements it is the claim that I find to be the most important one, because the claim gives me a sense of what the argument will revolve around. From hearing the claim I will be able to determine whether or not it is going to be an argument that I think is relevant and worthwhile to pay attention to. Not only does the chapter focus on different perspectives on arguments, but also the different types of arguments that exists. To me, it is argument by authority that I believe is the most effective, because if you have a group of people or a person with a lot of authority presenting an argument, then that would have a lot of credibility attached to the argument from the beginning.
However, I believe that an essential element to argumentation is making sure that the message of ones argument is clarified so that it is easy for the audience to decide what they support do not support. It often happens that the purpose and goal of an argument has not been elaborated upon, which caused confusion among the people listening and trying to form an opinion about the topic presenting through an argument.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 1, 2018 at 11:45 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 1, 2018 at 11:49 AM

    I like your thought on the significance of claims in the Toulmin Model. I think the claims has a huge role in this analysis like you stated above. Claims are what the entire argument is shaped around. But I wouldn't just single out any key element in the model because each one depends on one another. You could have a claim but without grounds, everything is ruined. But claims are an important piece just like everything else is when analyzing and critiquing an argument. Do you ever see yourself using this model? Or do you think this model is effective? I also agree with you on argument by authority is the most effective way to bring up an argument. In other words, to what you said about it, you start off in good shape in your argument because you are basing your argument off someone or something that is very credible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM

    Overall, I found your blog post to be very enjoyable to read and it interested me because I wrote my blog post on argument by authority as well. While I do believe that argument by authority is very effective in an argument, and the book even states it is the most common way to present an argument, I believe that argument by logic can be the most effective form of argument because it uses patterns to test validity, is mathematically certain, and does not contradict itself. However, I do agree with your point that people of authority provide a lot of credibility in their arguments. I also found your point about making clear arguments to be interesting because sometimes I will listen to arguments and by the end of the debate I do not understand what the argument is because the claim and all the points presented were not clarified. So, I do agree with you that clarifying the argument and points helps the person forming an argument in effectively presenting it and also reduces confusion for the listener.

    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