IMPORTANT METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION.  Aristotle’s Method  Stephen Toulmin’s Method.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical and Toulmin, Models Junior AP English September 23, 2008.
Advertisements

Standardizing Arguments Premise 1: New Mexico offers many outdoor activities. Premise 2: New Mexico has rich history of Native Americans and of Spanish.
Reasoning Critically about Argument and Evidence Solid versus Sloppy Thinking Chapter 9 of Dees Pages
Logos Formal Logic.
The Three Appeals of Argument
Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
Basics of Argumentation Victoria Nelson, Ph.D.. What is an argument? An interpersonal dispute.
Argument Strategies. Aristotle’s 4 main arguments 1. argue about what is possible or impossible 1. If people continue to eat foods with chemicals, it.
Argument and Persuasion Harrison High School. THE METHOD PERSUASION aims to influence readers’ actions, or their support for an action, by engaging their.
Three Modes of Persuasion Qualitative/Quantitative September 2011 Rhetoric: Communication Techniques.
Thinkin’ about Logic Using the Toulmin system to evaluate arguments.
What is the Toulmin Method? Is a simple, practical method of reasoning created by a British philosopher, Stephen Toulmin He divided arguments into three.
Reasoning Critically about Argument and Evidence Solid versus Sloppy Thinking.
Terms of Logic and Types of Argument AP English Language and Composition.
10/20/09 BR- Who are the three “brothers” of Argument? Today: Constructing A Logical Argument – Deductive and Inductive Reasoning -Hand in “facts” -MIKVA.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING MOVES FROM A GENERALIZATION THAT IS TRUE OR SELF-EVIDENT TO A MORE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
Classical Oration.  Structure in arguments defines which parts go where.  People don’t always agree about what parts an argument should include or what.
Toulmin’s Model of Argument According to Dr. Caughron.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. PROBLEM SOLVING Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
Logic and Reasoning.
Understanding the Persuasive Techniques in Developing Arguments How a speech can soothe and inspire a grieving population.
Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Elements of Argument Logic vs. Rhetoric. Syllogism Major Premise: Advertising of things harmful to our health should be legally banned. Minor Premise:
 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.
© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.
Introduction to Argument Chapter 2 (Pgs ) AP Language Demi Greiner | Arlyn Rodriguez Period 4.
ARGUMENT. Purposes of Argument ► To inform ► To convince ► To explore ► To make decisions.
ACADEMIC ENGLISH III Sept. 24, What is the author trying to argue? How does he/she support his/her point? What kind of evidence is used? Do you.
Argument Writing.
Rhetorical Vocab. Toulmin Model of Argumentation Choice Reading
CLASSICAL ORATION INDUCTION DEDUCTION TOULMIN MODEL
09/17/08 BR- Identify the premises and the conclusion in the following deductive argument. Is it valid or invalid? All fish need gills to breath water.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive reasoning.
Lecture 10 - ARGUMENT.
3 Types of Arguments: Ethos- Establishing a reason to listen or believe the speaker. E.g., “that guy is wearing a tie so he must know what he’s saying.”
Deductive and Inductive REASONING
10/28/09 BR- What is the most important factor in winning an argument
according to Stephen Toulmin
Chapter 3: Reality Assumptions
Activity 2.13: Highlighting logos
Chapter 7.24: Persuasive Speaking
The Ontological Argument
A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments
Argumentation and Persuasive Rhetoric
The art of giving good reasons
Reasoning, Logic, and Position Statements
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Rhetorical Terms Review
Syllogisms English III: American Literature|| D. Glen Smith, instructor.
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
The Ontological Argument
Formulating an Argument
A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments
…or, “Stop your lippy attitude.”
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.
Toulmin Model AP Lang. & Comp. Ch. 3
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Constructing a Logical Argument
“Kritikos” To question, to make sense of, to analyze.
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Toulmin Model
Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
Syllogisms and Enthymemes.
Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Toulmin Model
Categorical syllogisms
DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Basic Errors in Logic Featured in “Love is a Fallacy” By Max Shulman
Presentation transcript:

IMPORTANT METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION

 Aristotle’s Method  Stephen Toulmin’s Method

Aristotle  Inductive Reasoning In inductive reasoning we collect bits of evidence on which to base generalizations The Inductive Leap: Since thoroughness is often impractical if not impossible, inductive reasoning involves making a leap from the evidence to the conclusion.  Deductive Reasoning The syllogism

SYLLOGISM  Major premise  Minor premise  Conclusion  All men are mortal  Socrates is a man.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

REMEMBER FALLACIES  Never assume that your syllogism is airtight– be careful to remember the things that can go wrong with reasoning. Here is an example of a faulty syllogism…  “Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles. The earth has no limbs and muscles. Hence, the Earth does not move.”  What is the flaw?

Real Life Example…(Mainly because Mrs. Lamar LOOOVE’s House.)  Dr. House: Words have set meanings for a reason. If you see an animal like Bill and you try to play fetch, Bill's going to eat you, because Bill's a bear. Little Girl: Bill has fur, four legs, and a collar. He's a dog. Dr. House: You see, that's what's called a faulty syllogism; just because you call Bill a dog doesn't mean that he is... a dog. ("Merry Little Christmas,” House, M.D.)

Syllogism Example #1  Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man. Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore-- Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second. This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed." (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)

Syllogism Example #2 Major premise: All asteroids are made of rock. Minor premise: Ceres is an asteroid. Conclusion: Ceres is made of rock.Major premise Minor premise Conclusion

Label this one on your own… Fluffy is not a cat. Fluffy enjoys the company of snakes. No cat enjoys the company of snakes.

And this one… Some kinds of cheese smell like feet. I will not eat anything that smells like feet. There are some kinds of cheese I will not eat.

Who is Stephen Toulmin and why do I care?  A British philosopher, author and educator  Devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning  His writing “seeks to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues.”

Toulmin  Toulmin Parts Data Claim Warrant Backing Qualifier Rebuttal

CLAIM  Conclusions whose merit must be established

DATA  The facts appealed to as a foundation for the claim

WARRANT  The statement authorizing the movement from the data to the claim  Toulmin stated that an argument is only as strong as its weakest warrant and if a warrant isn’t valid, then the whole argument collapses.

BACKING  Facts that give credibility to the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners.

REBUTTAL  Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied.

QUALIFIER  Words or phrases expressing how certain the author/ speaker is concerning the claim

NOTE  The first three elements, “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered the essential components of practical arguments, while the others may not be needed in some arguments

EXAMPLE  CLAIM- You should buy our tooth-whitening product  DATA- Studies show that teeth are 50% whiter after using the product for a specified time  WARRANT- People want whiter teeth  BACKING– Celebrities want whiter teeth  REBUTTAL– Commercial says “unless you don’t want to attract guys”  QUALIFIER– Fine print says “product must be used six weeks for results”

Thanks to the following sources for the information included in this presentation… Kennedy, X.J., Dorothy Kennedy and Jane E. Aaron Eds. The Bedford Reader 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, McFerran, Doug. “Constructing Syllogisms.” 22 August McFerran, Doug. “Recognizing Valid Forms.” 22 August Toulmin’s Schema– Free Online Course Materials. 19 September 2007.