Skip to main content

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 was about the Toulmin argument model.  This model tells us to analyze an argument with through six different lenses.  These six lenses are: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation.  While all six are important, I think that backing is the most vital to a strong argument.  If I hear an argument that has strong support from outside sources, I am definitely more likely to believe that it is valid.  That does not mean I have to agree with how the facts are used or what the facts are supporting, but I think it gives the argument more strength.

After discussing how to analyze arguments, the chapter talks about types of arguments.  They are argument by generalization, cause, sign, analogy, and authority.  I had never thought of argument by analogy before reading this chapter, but I do use analogies in my arguments all the time.  I didn’t realize it was actually a type of argumentation.  If we can give our audience an example of a similar argument or situation, they may be more likely to accept our argument because they can relate something familiar to it. 


Finally, I think defining the argument is incredibly important.  While we may think what we are trying to prove is obvious, so many times it is not clear to the other person.  All of a sudden you’re ten minutes into a conversation, you clarify your argument, and the other person finally agrees with you simply because they did not know exactly the point you were trying to make.  It’s like a thesis statement in a paper: without it, there really is no point. 

Comments

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