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. AnonymousOctober 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 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

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...
1 comment
Read more