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

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