Skip to main content

Chapter 4

In the fourth chapter of the book the authors discuss the nature of arguments, their model and how they are presented and formatted. What are the essential parts to an argument and what makes up those parts? They present at the beginning of the chapter the simplest argument you can imagine. One between two children on the playground during elementary school. This shows us how even in their simplest form arguments still follow a similar process. No matter who is arguing or over what. There are three essential parts to every argument The grounds, the warrant, and the claim. The claim is the simplest to define, it is simply what is being argued. The grounds is why the claim is true. And the warrant is how the two connect, why the grounds prove the claim. It is a pretty simple concept. The book also makes mention of backing for grounds and warrants, as well as qualifiers and rebuttals. All parts that can be included in the formulation of and argument and during the process but aren’t as essential and basic as claims, grounds, and warrants.
 I think that looking at this in the context of our world is fairly interesting. We see arguments everyday and everywhere, however since it is a midterm year we are seeing all kinds of political arguments in a larger volume than normal. I think that taking this simple formula for an argument and seeing which claims made by politicians are properly backed with grounds and a warrant. When you watch a debate a variety of arguments are made and even the simplest points usually follow this same structure. The far spread and prolific use of the same structure of arguments is really fascinating.

Comments

  1. Sadie WollerOctober 3, 2018 at 8:50 AM

    I didn't even know what a mid-term year was until a few days ago, but you are right. I think that they are a lot more arguments being made in the Political World and using the Toulman Model can help digest which arguments are fair and which are not. Although, that would take a lot of work but it is something that if your going for a certain candidate that you should take a few of their arguments and put it through the Toulman model because you never know what you might find. We learned before that not all Political people stand up for what they say they believe in or are even who they say they are. The Toulman model is the easiest way to digest and argument and it can be simple or a little more complex if you get into the qualifiers and rebuttal. Because I learned what a mid-term year means I'm definitely going to be looking into the political world a little bit more and their arguments to help decided for my vote.

    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