Structuring and Analyzing Arguments:

The Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

AP Language and Composition

Classical Argument

Began in ancient Greece, approximately fifth century B.C.

Communicated orally and designed to be easily understood by listeners

Based on formal logic, including the syllogism

Six main components

The 5 Canons

By the time of the great Roman orator Cicero, 5 parts of discourse (The Canons of Rhetoric) have been named: Inventio Dispositio Elocutio Memoria Pronuntatio

Inventio (discovery or invention)

Given a topic, the orator had to find arguments to support his point of view.

Inventio is a system for finding those arguments, and the orator had to make some carefully prescribed choices: Rational appeal (Logos) Emotional appeal (Pathos) Ethical appeal (Ethos)

Rational Appeal (Logos)

An appeal to reason through induction or deduction

We will discuss thoroughly in a few minutes

Emotional Appeals (Pathos)

An analysis and understanding of common emotions

Ethical Appeals (Ethos)

Gaining the audience’s trust and admiration through high moral standards.

Dispositio (Arrangement or Organization)

Roman rhetoricians divided this into six parts

Classical Argument: Six Elements

1) Introduction: captures attention of audience; urges audience to consider your case

2) Statement of Background: narrates the key facts and/or events leading up to your case

3) Proposition: states the position you are taking, based on the information you’ve already presented, and sets up the structure of the rest of your argument

4) Proof: discusses your reasons for your position and provides evidence to support each reason

5) Refutation: anticipates opposing viewpoints; then demonstrates why your approach is the only acceptable one (i.e. better than your opponents’)

6) Conclusion: summarizes your most important points and can include appeals to feelings or values (pathos)

Elocutio (Style)

Levels of style (plain/low style; middle of forcible style or persuasion; high or florid style used for charming)

Diction- choice of words determined by purpose, paying attention to correctness of choice, clarity and simplicity vs. ornateness

Elocutio (Style)

Syntax- the arrangement of words into groups. Also specified patterns, such as parallelism and antithesis; the use of conjunctions and coordinating devices; and euphony (pleasing arrangement of sounds by manipulating vowel and consonant combination and rhythmical patterns).

Elocutio (Style)

Romans also considered figures of speech (called troupes and schemes) that they meticulously identified and named.

Memoria (memorization)

Romans employed specific techniques for memorizing speeches.

We will not discuss this much because much of the argument you will construct will be written.

Pronuntatio (Delivery)

The Romans were also taught how to gesture and manage their voices. They learned specific rules and principles that all good orators were expected to know and use.

Today this canon refers to the medium in which the argument is delivered: spoken, written, visual, etc.

Formal Logic: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Inductive Reasoning = the process of reasoning from the specific to the general, in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. Inductive reasoning is used to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring patterns.

Deductive Reasoning = in traditional Aristotelian logic, the process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific

Induction

“Wow! My dog smells terrible! She was outside all night, and around midnight I smelled skunk at the back of the house. I heard her barking loudly, too. That’s definitely a skunky smell on her. She must have tangled with that skunk.”

This person has amassed sufficient, relevant, and reliable evidence to draw her conclusion.

Deduction

Deduction involves premises- statements upon which parties agree, which when considered logically, lead to a strong conclusion.

The Syllogism

Three-part deductive argument, in which conclusion follows from two premises

A straightforward example:Major premise: All people have hearts.Minor premise: John is a person.Conclusion: Therefore, John has a

heart.

The Syllogism

The classic example: Major premise: A generalization or all

encompassing statement Minor premise: A statement of a specific

instance of the generalization Conclusion: A statement of conclusion

which follows from the premises All human beings are mortal Socrates is a human being Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The Syllogism

Syllogisms are seldom found in their pure form but instead appear in the form of enthymemes

The Enthymeme

The enthymeme is a contextual, rhetorical concept that depends on a question at issue, a claim, a reason, and an unstated premise that necessitates attention to the audience’s values

An enthymeme is a claim supported by a reason expressed as a because clause.

See Examples

Logic in Analysis

You use logical appeals when you quote the text and cite scenes from the novel or from secondary sources to support your ideas about your topic (character, themes, motifs, etc.)

Homework

Read both drafts of “The Declaration of Independence”

Decide how the argument is organized

The Fallacies of Argument

A fallacy is a flaw in an argument. A problem in an argument, but not a strategy.

See handout (read and study these by Monday)

The Toulmin Model

Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950’s

Emphasizes that logic often based on probability rather than certainty

Focuses on claims Three primary components

Toulmin Model: Three Components

Three components:Claim = the main point or positionData = the evidence supporting the

claim, aka the reasonsWarrant = an underlying assumption

or basic principle that connects data and claim; often implied rather than explicit

Toulmin Model: An Example

Claim = My parents should allow me to go to my friend’s party on Friday night.

Data = The parents of nearly all of the juniors at UHS have given their children permission to attend this party.

Warrant = My parents should act in accordance with the other parents of juniors at UHS.

Uh-oh, a potential snag…

What if my parents don’t “buy” my warrant? What if they don’t think they should necessarily do what other parents are doing?

How can I still get permission to attend the party? Or at least have a better chance of getting permission?

Try new data and a new warrant.

What might be more convincing data for an audience of parents?

What might be a warrant that most parents will share?

Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail

ClaimDataQualifier

Warrant

Backing Rebuttal

Rogerian Model

Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers (also in the ’50s)

Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus

Allows the author to appear open-minded or even objective

Appropriate in contexts where you need to convince a resistant opponent to at least respect your views

Rogerian Arguments:Structure Introduction: statement of problem to be solved

or question to be answered Summary of Opposing Views: described using

a seemingly objective persona Statement of Understanding: concedes

circumstances under which opposing views might be valid

Statement of Your Position Statement of Contexts: describes contexts in

which your position applies/works well Statement of Benefits: appeals to self-interest

of readers who may not yet agree with you; demonstrates how your position benefits them

Review

1. What is the rhetorical triangle?2. What is informal logic?3. How is informal logic used to make an

argument?4. In informal logic, what is a claim?5. How does a reason support a claim in informal

logic?6. What role does a warrant play in informal

logic?7. What is the goal of Rogerian rhetoric, and how

does it differ from the goal of traditional argumentation?