Skip to main content

Post 3, Chapter 4


In Chapter 4, the Model of an Argument created  by Stephen Toulmin is introduced in order to analyze arguments and explain their parts and interrelationships (Peterson et al, pg. 53). When evaluating an argument we use the model to identify an argument's claim, grounds, warrants, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. As defined by the authors, a claim “is the end goal of the argument, and it is the place where arguments begin” (Peterson et al, pg. 53). Then, the grounds follow the claim which support the argument being made by answering questions that provide evidence. However, grounds are usually not enough for decision makers to “grant adherence to the claim” so they are backed up by warrants or a statement that adds value to the claim being made. Additionally, I believe that the rebuttal/reservation of an argument is essential to increasing the strength and influence over decision makers. When making an argument it is important to keep in mind how it can be questioned by the decision makers. If the questions made by the decision makers can be easily answered or at least addressed, then the argument has more value.
Additionally, this chapter also covers the concept of argument by authority which is when a claim is supported because it is presented by a credible individual (Peterson et al, pg. 64). I believe this is extremely relevant in our culture since many individuals support claims without having much backing information, simply because the source is someone famous or relevant. For example, when a famous reality TV stars starts using certain products and advertising them, people will just buy them and believe everything this person is saying. Instead of doing some research which can explain why the products can have positive/negative effects, they simply trust their source and believe in their credibility. Furthermore, I found it interesting how the authors relate definition by authority to the dictionary. As mentioned in the chapter, many of us tend to believe that “the dictionary is the final or only authority on word meanings” (Peterson et al, pg. 67) , but the authors believe the dictionary is actually the worse for this since they cannot be updated fast enough to keep up with the changes that occur. However, dictionary give general guide to strengthen arguments.  

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