Essay 1: Persuasive based on Values or Humor Average was 67% Highest: 96% Lowest: 31% Biggest problems Didn’t persuade Organization Grammar: Punctuation, Semicolons, commas, etc. What are we going to do about it? 1. Make corrections and resubmit 2. Examine your arguments. 3. Approach them in a different way. Toulmin’s argument theory Rogerian theory

Fast Food Nation- Chpts 3-4 Discussion questions Partners Open Book Then be prepared to discuss: Was it an extended history lesson? Why/What was the purpose of section 1?

Teri Tosspon, English 255 Meeting 5 Argument Models Teri Tosspon, English 255 Meeting 5

Rogerian Model Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers (also in the ’50s) Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus Unlike in Classical argument, is not an argument to win; instead, emphasizes a “win-win” solution benefiting both parties Useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos dominate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XPRwI2odU

Benefits of Rogerian Argument 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

An Example of Rogerian Argument: Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr An Example of Rogerian Argument: Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.’s “Whiskey Speech” Author/Speaker was a legislator, lawyer, and judge Known as Judge “Soggy” Sweat; “Soggy” was short for “Sorghum Top” = the tassel at the top of a sugar cane plant Occasion/Context: Debate in Mississippi Legislature in 1948 regarding the possible legalization of liquor

Essay Restructure/Analysis 1: Rogerian Argument Write down your original (or updated) topic as if you were writing a Rogerian Argument. Use the sheet provided. 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

A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments The Toulmin Model A tool for diagramming “informal” arguments

Stephen Toulmin originally a British logician now a professor at USC. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical reasoning.

The three basic elements: Claim (assertion or proposition) Grounds (proof, grounds, support) Warrant (inferential leap) Biff was probably in a fight He has a black eye Claim Grounds Warrant (unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight

Claims A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept. The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?” example: “Rosario is an American citizen, because she was born in the United States.” example: “Because the groundhog saw his shadow, there will be six more weeks of winter.”

More about claims... There are four basic 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 definition/classification: indicates what criteria are being used to to define a term or what category something falls into

Grounds (proof or data) Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers. Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning example: “I’m a vegetarian. One reason is that I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is for my own health.” example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the dishes.

More about grounds... Grounds are the support the arguer offers on behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer questions such as: "What is your proof?“ "How do you know?“ "Why?” example: “It looks like rain. The barometer is falling.” example: "The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've stayed at had great pools, so I'll bet this one has a great pool too."

Still more about grounds... grounds can be based on: evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof premises already held by the listener

Clue words for identifying grounds The grounds for an argument often follow words such as “because,” “since,” “given that…” example: “Airports should x-ray all luggage because a bomb could be placed in a checked baggage.” example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I studied all night for it.”

Warrants inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds. implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the connection between the claim and grounds The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning” of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a part of the message. Some arguments are “multi-warranted,” e.g., based on more than one inferential leap

More about warrants... The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim example: “Muffin is running a temperature. I’ll bet she has an infection.” example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.” (warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection) (warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly)

Still more about warrants... warrants can be based on: ethos: source credibility, authority logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction pathos: emotional or motivational appeals value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be shared by, the receiver(s) note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the three Logos/ Logical appeals Ethos Ethical appeals Pathos Emotional appeals

sample argument 1 The Angels are likely to win the ballgame tonight. They are playing at home. The Angels are likely to win the ballgame tonight They are playing at home Claim Grounds Warrant (unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in baseball

sample argument 2 Juno is a wonderful movie. It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards. It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards “Juno” is a wonderful movie. Claim Grounds Warrant (unstated) Sign: a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

sample argument 3: Qualifiers If you surf at Huntington Beach right after it rains you risk getting a bacterial infection Runoff from the rain washes bacteria into the ocean Qualifiers Qualifiers Qualifiers add conditions, Get rid of absolutes Claim Grounds Warrant (unstated) Cause-effect: bacteria in the water causes surfers to get ill. If you surf at Huntington Beach right after it rains you risk getting a bacterial infection. Runoff from the rain washes the bacteria into the oceans.

Limitations regarding the Toulmin model The Toulmin model offers a somewhat static view of an argument Focuses on the argument maker, not the target or respondent Real-life arguments aren’t always neat or clear The Toulmin model is an analytical tool Useful for dissecting arguments before or after they’ve been made Not as useful, practical in the “heat” of an argument Since warrants are unstated, different listeners may perceive them differently

Doesn’t have to be linear CLAIM: Our swimming program is effective for weight loss. GROUNDS: Studies show that after four weeks of following our program, the participants boast a 10% decrease in body weight. WARRANTS: The audience wants to lose weight The studies are trustworthy No other factors contributed to the 10% decrease in weight loss All participants lost 10% of their body weight

Using Toulmin: continued Including backing (b), a qualifier (q), and a rebuttal (r) can diminish skepticism:   CLAIM: If you are like most Americans and are keen to lose a few pounds (b), you should try our swimming program. GROUNDS: Studies show that after four weeks of following our program, combined with a restricted diet (q), the majority of (r) participants boast a 10% decrease in body weight. QUALIFIER: Limits to argument; conditionality. REBUTTAL: Exception to argument. WARRANTS: The audience wants to lose weight The studies are trustworthy BACKING: Support or justification of the warrant.

Essay Restructure/Analysis 2 Choose ONE of these Toulmin Worksheet Evidence Gathering What is 1 claim you are making? What grounds? What is your Warrant? What backing do you have? Conditions of rebuttal? Qualifier? Worksheets to state your point Break down the reasons Select evidence/proofs Tell why that evidence matters. Address opponent’s view.

Essay 2 Persuasive Essay with Arguments Based on Evidence, Fact, Definition and/or Cause Requirements Timeline Outline required – Structured with thesis and main points. Typed 12-point Times Roman type double spaced 1,000-2,000 words. five (5) references to valid sources/other people’s work. MLA format Works Cited page Starting 1 week early Outline (or Evidence Gathering Sheet) & Draft due 5/24 Final draft due 5/31