2. 10.28/10.29 warm-up: ARGUE!!! Read through the ad on p. 555. Consider what the rhetorical triangle is for the ad. Advertisements are perhaps the simplest form of argumentation and, indeed, rhetoric. Consider the following...

3. 10.28/10.29 warm-up: Argue As far as exercise equipment goes, nothing is more state of the art than a dog. Not only is walking a dog great exercise, this is one piece of equipment that won’t take “no” for an answer. Plus no treadmill or stair-climber comes with these particular features: friendship, loyalty and unconditional love. Your local animal shelter has hundreds of puppies and dogs read to start you on a terrific cardiovascular workout for around $50 (including vaccinations). So if you’re ready to provide the care and love a dog needs, why not adopt one today? Because while walking a dog is good for your heart, so is adopting one from the pound. What claim does this ad make (what, in other words, is it persuading its audience to do)? What evidence does it use to support its claim? What assumption does it make about what everyone in its audience wants? (Phrase it like this: “All people want... ”)

4. 10.28/10.29 notes: Stephen Toulmin Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician, is now a professor at USC (maybe? I should probably look this up to see if he’s dead yet or not). He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical reasoning. There he is! Thanks for the tool, man! Groan...

5. 10.28/10.29 notes : The three basic elements: Claim (assertion or proposition) Grounds (proof, grounds, support) Warrant (inferential leap or connective tissue)

6. 10.28/10.29 notes : 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: “High school students should take a year off before entering college in order to grow as a person.” example: “Tonald Drump is a great businessman, so he is totally qualified to lead this country.”

7. 10.28/10.29 notes : More about claims Four basic types. 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 define a term or what category something falls into Which one of these are you using for your grad paper?

8. 10.28/10.29 notes : 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.

9. 10.28/10.29 notes : 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." example: “90% of all college professors agree that AP Lang is a terrific class.”

10. 10.28/10.29 notes : 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

11. 10.28/10.29 notes : 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.” example: “Tonald Drump might be an orangutan because he has orange skin and red hair and acts all super-aggressive.”

12. 10.28/10.29 notes : Warrants The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds. The warrant is typically 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”; they are based on more than one inferential leap

13. 10.28/10.29 notes : More about warrants... The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim example: “LeRoy is running a temperature. I’ll bet he has an infection.” warrant (sign/clue): A fever is a reliable sign of an infection. example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.” warrant (generalization): Most or all Golden Retrievers be friendly

14. 10.28/10.29 notes : types of warrants Common Warrants 1. Argument based on Generalization A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population. 2. Argument based on Analogy Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event. Has links to “case-based” and precedent- based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between two contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?

15. 10.28/10.29 notes : types of warrants 3. Argument via Sign/Clue The notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college. 4. Causal Argument Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it are: Mixing up correlation with causation Falling into the post hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation, this involves inferring “after the fact, therefore because of the fact”).

16. 10.28/10.29 notes : types of warrants 5. Argument from Authority Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on? 6. Argument from Principle Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there “rival” principles that lead to a different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?

17. 10.28/10.29 notes: Counterargument “When gathering your evidence, keep in mind that you cannot ignore arguments against your position.” At least that’s what Patterns says (those chumps). But why can you not ignore it? Let’s go back to Jefferson (557). Jefferson argues that “Great Britain [has] a history of repeated injuries and usurpations” against the colonies. What would a logical counterargument be? “That stuff we did was totes necessary to protect not only British interests but also the interests and safety of the colonies.” (Say it with a British accent and it totally works.) How does Jefferson refute that counterargument?

18. 10.28/10.29 notes: Refutation Directly addressing objections to your claim. It makes your arguments more sound, more believable if the audience can’t poke holes in it. Refutation can happen when you show that counterarguments are unsound, unfair or weak. You have to present evidence to demonstrate this. What happens when you can’t refute an opponent’s counterargument? What if their counterargument is too strong?

19. 10.28/10.29 activity: Toulmin practice Claim Grounds Warrant RoyLee shouldn’t be allowed to walk at graduation He done cheated on his test! (unstated) principle: Cheaters don’t deserve special privileges or recognition

20. 10.28/10.29 activity : Toulmin practice Claim Grounds Warrant Slumdog Millionaire is a wonderful movie. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards (unstated) generalization: wonderful movies are often nominated for Oscars.

21. 10.28/10.29 activity : More about warrants... ClaimGrounds Warrant Biff was probably in a fight He has a black eye (unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight

22. 10.30/11.2 activity: Toulmin practice ClaimGrounds Warrant 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 (unstated) causal: bacteria in the water causes surfers to get ill.

23. 10.28/10.29 activity : Toulmin practice ClaimGrounds Warrant You should be able to do this for just about any argument we examine. So let’s apply the basic model below to Jefferson.

24. 10.28/10.29 activity : 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

25. 10.28/10.29 activity: create an argument Choose one of the following topics and outline a brief argument for one of the following topics AK’s cell phone policy should be less strict Homework should be optional at AK The grad paper should be optional at AK The AK school day should be shortened by one half hour (8:15-2:45 or 7:45-2:15) Students should be allowed to leave campus for lunch Consider who your audience for you argument would be. Consider what type of rhetorical appeals would be most effective for reaching that audience and the tone you’d adopt as a credible speaker.