In
chapter 4, the topic of how arguments begin has come up, and in this portion of
the book it explains who started the perfect setup to start a good argument and
how to do it. The model of an argument began by a man named Stephen Toulmin. He
created this model to help people understand the parts of an argument and their
interrelationships. In his standard pattern of an argument, Toulmin states that
an argument must have six factors in it to make it a valid argument. The six
factors that it must have is claims, grounds, warrants, backing, qualifiers,
and rebuttals. If you were to look for these factors in any argument it would
help you analyze the argument more efficiently and decide is it a good or bad
argument. In an argument, you always begin with a claim. A claim is your
statement or idea that you are trying to get people to make sense of. Then, to
back up your claim you use the grounds portion of the model. The grounds
portion is the primary source that supports your claim. People tend to question
your claim and your grounds are supposed to help back that up so it is more
believable. Next, the warrant is the part of the model that connects the
grounds to the claim with a statement. It shows that the grounds in your
argument actually supports the claim and pushes your argument to become more
believable. In some cases, those three factors are what you need to begin and
win an argument but for some people, they would want more. If you meet that
person who would want more, then you would need the next step which is backing.
Backing is anything else that strengthens your claim. It could be stats,
testimonies, or anything that is more specific to support your claim. Also, for
those people who would want more, you could add a rebuttal in your argument to
make it even more reasonable and believable. A rebuttal is where you critique
your own claim and ask yourself questions to make it stronger. This allows you
to do your own critiquing and allow you to see your argument from the other
side so therefore you know what to fix and what could make your argument even
stronger. I think the Toulmin model is a great way to analyze and start an
argument. I have personally used it before and think it helps with making a
strong argument because you have a standard plan of what you suppose to have in
an strong argument.
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...
I definitely agree with you that the Toulmin Model is a very useful tool to consider when constructing arguments. It makes it much more possible that the opposed party will agree with your side of the argument if you have grounds, warrants, and backing for your claim. I think having a standard plan or something to refer to if always useful, however every argument is different, just like every person you will encounter is different. With that being said I don't think someone can just follow the model religiously for every argument. But if you're considering the strength of your argument I feel the Toulmin Model is very effective, just not always practical to consider in the heat of the moment.
ReplyDelete