Structuring & Analyzing Arguments:. The Classical, Toulmin & Rogerian Models. Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Classical, Toulmin & Rogerian Models
Major Premise: All people have hearts.
Minor Premise: John is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.
Toulmin was looking for a method that accurately described the way people make convincing and reasonable arguments. Because Toulmin-argument takes into account the complications in life—all those situations when people have to qualify their thoughts with words such as sometimes, often, presumably, unless, and almost—his method isn’t as air-tight as formal logic. But for exactly that reason, Toulmin logic has become a powerful and, for the most part, practical tool for understanding and shaping an argument.
Claim → Data → Warrant (Because)
Brainstorm: Crack Babies
Narrowed: Programs for Crack Babies
Specific: Experts estimate that half of crack babies will grow up in home environments lacking rich cognitive and emotional stimulation.
Take a stand: More attention needs to be paid to the environment they grow up in
Finalize: Because half of all crack babies are likely to grow up in homes lacking good cognitive and emotional stimulation, the federal government should finance programs to supplement parental care.
The Toulmin method is an effective way of getting to the how and why levels of the argument. It is a type of communication breakdown that allows us to divide an argument into its different parts (such as claim, reasons, and evidence) so that we can make judgments on how well the different parts work together.
Nonconfrontational, collegial, friendly tone
Although concessions may be made, arguments mostly based on refutation
Respects other’s views and allows for more than one truth
Opponent is “wrong” and will be overcome
Seeks to achieve common ground, not to convince 100%