Structures of Reasoning Models of Argumentation

Review Syllogism All syllogisms have 3 parts: Major Premise- Minor Premise Conclusion Categorical Syllogism: Major Premise is an unqualified or universal statement.

Disjunctive Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism: Is a syllogism that contains Mutually Exclusive Alternatives

Conditional Syllogism Conditional Syllogism: Is a syllogism that deals with a hypothetical argument. It contains an Antecedent (if) clause, & Consequent (then) clause Alternatives

Enthymeme 1. A truncated or shortened syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion in unstated/unwritten. 2. A Rhetorical device used by speaker that calls on audience to complete sequence of logic.

Limitations of Syllogism Difficult to make unqualified statements. Not practical for many arguments and debates. Attempts to establish Universal Knowledge/Ethics.

Stephen Toulmin Model Model of Argumentation: Allows Debaters to develop and analyze more contextual and probable arguments based upon 6 components:

Stephen Toulmin Model 1. Claim 2. Grounds 3. Warrant 4. Backing 5. Modality (Qualifier) 6. Rebuttal

Stephen Toulmin Model First Triad 1. Claim 2. Grounds 3. Warrant

Stephen Toulmin Model Second Triad 4. Backing 5. Modality (Qualifier) 6. Rebuttal

Claim Claim: A position or assertion being argued for; the conclusion of an argument. A claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?" There are three basic types of claims:

Types of Claims fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken

Grounds Grounds answers the questions, "What is your proof?" or "How come?" or "Why?" Grounds can consist of substantive proof, statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical or empirical evidence, or various forms of reasoning.

Warrant Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason Warrant is typically implicit (unstated)

5 Types of Warrant Authority Analogy Sign Cause Generalization

Warrant: Authority General Reasoning: Source of The Data is credible and should be believed

Argument from Authority: Questions: What are qualifications? Any Biases that hurt source credibility?

Warrant: Analogy Inference Between 2 Cases What is true in one case is true in the other 2 Cases are largely similar

Warrant: Analogy Literal Analogy: same Classification L.A. is Similar to N.Y.C Comparing Cities

Warrant: Analogy Figurative Analogy: Different Classifications This Car is a Lemon! No Logical Validity

Warrant: Analogy Historical Analogy: 2 Different Time Periods/Contexts “The Iraq War is another Vietnam War!”

Warrant: Analogy Questions: Are 2 Cases overall Similar? Are points of Difference Non-Critical? Is reasoning Cumulative?

Warrant: Sign Inferring relationship or correlation between 2 variables One variable usually indicates the other

Warrant: Sign Presence/Absence of One variable usually indicates the presence/absence other Smoke Usually indicates to Fire

Warrant: Sign Data indentify Conditions which Usually Indicate presence of claim Not 100% Not Causality

Warrant: Causality Inference that One factor (Cause) acts as a force that produces something else (Effect)

Warrant: Causality Is the factor the most relevant? Are there any impeding factors?

Warrant: Generalization Deductive :What is true of the whole of is true of the part Inductive: What is true of the specific is true of the general

Warrant: Generalization Are there exceptions? Are exceptions significant? Are there enough examples?

First Triad Claim > Grounds > Warrant Example: [Claim] “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [Reason] because they only cause more people to use drugs.” The unstated [Warrant] is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more people to engage in it.”

Second Triad Backing > Qualifier > Rebuttal

Backing Additional Support for Warrant. Backing usually consists of evidence to support the (5) types of reasoning employed by the warrant.

Modal Qualification/Qualifier: Specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The qualifier states how sure the arguer is about his/her claim.

Modal Qualification/Qualifier: The qualifier indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may Limit how universally the claim applies.

Cogency Continuum Absolute Truth: 100% Certainty Probability Plausibility Possibility> % of Truth Impossible: 0%

Rebuttal Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.

EXAMPLE ARGUMENT CLAIM: You should use a hearing aid. GROUND: Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty. WARRANT: A hearing aid helps most people to hear better.

EXAMPLE ARGUMENT BACKING: Many Studies Indicate effectiveness + are available locally QUALIFIER: Hearing aids help most people. REBUTTAL: There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Class Activity

Homework: Research Assignment