Skip to main content

Blog Post 3 - Chapter 4


          Chapter Four is especially useful as it illustrates how arguments are built and formed. In particular, the Toulmin model, as explained by the authors, is an extremely intuitive way of understanding the building blocks of all arguments. As mentioned by the authors, “all arguments can be diagrammed by a variation of the Toulmin model, which illustrates how a claim can be justified only by showing that there are warranted grounds for it” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 69). Indeed, by understanding how the Toulmin model works, one can easily assess whether an argument is strong or weak, based on the elements that are present.
            As stated, the Toulmin model identifies various elements that, when used in tandem, form strong arguments. A claim, or “the idea or action for which you are seeking adherence” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 53), is the basic starting point of all arguments. Almost all arguments require claims to achieve their goals. Claims are backed up by grounds, which “provide the primary source of support” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 53). While claims and grounds are sufficient to make an argument, good arguments require additional elements, such as warrants and backings. Warrants are statements that connect claims to their grounds. If warrants are not understood by the audience, they will not understand how the grounds support the claims. Backings further substantiate the grounds, by providing additional evidence. Lastly, how strongly an argument is intended to be is justified by its qualifier. Qualifiers demonstrate the gravity of the assertion, and how much adherence the audience should lend to the claim. Arguments that accurately utilize the Toulmin model should prevail against doubts or questions known as rebuttals. When an argument survives the numerous rebuttals that are made against it, it can be said to be effective. While the Toulmin model is useful in identifying the elements in an argument, it is also useful to know the different types of arguments that could be advanced. One such example is arguments by generalization.
            Arguments by generalization occur when “individual instances are assembled to allow the assertion of a general principle” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 59). In other words, a sweeping assertion about a particular situation is made after observation of a few examples. Arguments by generalization are extremely common in today’s society. For example, some political polls only capture the thoughts of a small proportion of citizens in a district. Nonetheless, these polls use the survey results to project the district to be favorable to a certain political party’s candidate. Using the Toulmin model to analyze this argument, the claim made by these polls is that the district will be won by a particular party. The grounds are the data collected by the polls. People who comprehend how polls work will understand that polls demonstrate the views of the district, and the grounds are warranted. The poll company’s credibility could serve as additional backing for the argument, blinding the audience to the generalizations made. However, good polls indicate how accurate their findings are by stating qualifiers, such as the margin of error. Understanding a poll’s capacity to be inaccurate will allow people to discern its credibility better. The example above depicts how important understanding the Toulmin model and the different types of arguments are. For something as important as voting, being able to discern the credibility of a poll by breaking down its argument will strongly inform people who participate in the political process.

Sources:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.

Comments

  1. Hello, Max! Great post, I really enjoyed reading your explanation about generalization. I liked how you tied in voting with polls into explaining how the Toulmin model can be used to understand something like voting. I completely agree with that statement that you made. As a voter, it is crucial to be informed always, with understanding arguments it eliminates the inaccuracy of arguments. Understanding the qualifiers for a poll companies processes will allow those who are voting to give trust better. I think as much as an argument creates the opportunity to stand for something, it should also create an opportunity for people to trust what's being stated. Especially when it comes to voting and the polling system that comes with it. I think that breaking down that argument of who will be the districts representative from whichever party, it will create a better informed voter who can make their own decisions without needing to generalize a situation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, Max. Really solid work here! It seems like you are already comfortable working with the Toulmin model. Have you used this model in any courses in the past? This post provided a great introductory understanding, and summarized the chapter very well. I think your connection to generalizations was very well executed. Generalizations are something we are frequently faced with in communication with others, and I agree that the Toulmin model allows us to better understand elements of argumentation. Your analysis of both the Toulmin model and its connection to arguments by generalization also helped me better undesrtand the content in chapter four. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really enjoyed reading your post!! You gave us tons of information. I loved how elaborate you were when talking and comparing the Toulmin model to polls. The one thing I would say though is make sure to elaborate just as much as you did for that, with other points as well. For example at the beginning when you were talking about grounds, warrants etc. You would use the definition from the book most likely, and if you didn't you would just give a definition and then move onto the next term. Make sure that you're not just listing terms with their definitions and then moving on. Expand on your topics and explain a little more about each term but in your own words. Other than that, I was throughly impressed with your findings and what you had to say about the Toulmin model, you seem to know alot about it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...