1. Introduction to Argument: the Fundamentals and the Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian Models

2. Before we get started, though…
…there are a few key terms you’ll need to know:
Deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning
Syllogism
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion

3. Deductive Reasoning (Sherlock)
Deductive Reasoning: in traditional Aristotelian logic, the process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific (subtraction from BIG IDEA to smaller parts/elements). Another way of thinking of deductive reasoning = an argument whose premises make its conclusion certain.
Smith owns only blue pants and brown pants.
Smith is wearing his pants today.
Smith is wearing either blue or brown pants today.
The sportsball match is on either Thursday or Friday.
I just found out the game is not on Thursday.
The game must be on Friday.

4. The Role of Premises in Deduction
That last slide referred to “premises” a lot, didn’t it?
Deduction involves premises, statements upon which parties agree and which (when considered logically) lead to a strong conclusion.

5. Inductive Reasoning (Bad cops)
Inductive Reasoning: the process of reasoning from the specific to the general (addition of smaller parts/elements to add up to a BIG IDEA) in which an argument’s premises supposedly support the conclusion but do not ensure it. We often use inductive reasoning to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring patterns. Another way of thinking of deductive reasoning = an argument whose premises make its conclusion likely.
January has always been cold here in Siberia.
Today is January 14th.
Today will be a cold day in Siberia.

6. Another Induction Example: Stinky Dog
Why does my dog smell worse than usual? She was outside all night. Around midnight I smelled a skunk at the back of the house. I heard my dog barking loudly, too. That’s definitely a skunky smell on her. She must have tangled with that skunk. The dog’s owner has amassed sufficient, relevant, and reliable evidence to draw an extremely probable conclusion.

7. Inductive Reasoning in Bad Police Work
Someone robbed the local bank yesterday.
Jenny needed money to pay off her gambling debts.
She just bought a gun two days ago.
I saw her hanging around the bank yesterday morning.
Today the mob stopped looking for Jenny.
Jenny robbed the bank yesterday.

8. One last note on these two…
With regard to deductive and inductive reasoning, one mode of reasoning is not necessarily superior to another, but one leads to more certain conclusions than another.

9. Key Terms: The Syllogism
Three-part deductive argument, in which conclusion follows from two premises
The oldest (and possibly most straightforward) example:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

10. Syllogisms = Enthymemes
Syllogisms are seldom found in their pure form but instead appear in the form of enthymemes.

11. The Enthymeme
The enthymeme is a contextual, rhetorical concept that depends on a question at issue, a claim, a reason, and an unstated premise that necessitates attention to the audience’s values
An enthymeme is a claim supported by a reason expressed as a because clause.

12. Enthymeme Examples

13. Classical Argument
Began in ancient Greece, approximately fifth century B.C.
Communicated orally and designed to be easily understood by listeners
Based on formal logic, including the syllogism
Six main components

14. Classical Argument: Six Elements
1) Introduction: captures attention of audience; urges audience to consider your case
2) Statement of Background: narrates the key facts and/or events leading up to your case
3) Proposition: states the position you are taking, based on the information you’ve already presented, and sets up the structure of the rest of your argument
4) Proof: discusses your reasons for your position and provides evidence to support each reason
5) Refutation: anticipates opposing viewpoints; then demonstrates why your approach is the only acceptable one (i.e. better than your opponents’)
6) Conclusion: summarizes your most important points and can include appeals to feelings or values (pathos)

15. Classical Argument: example
Introduction:
Dog is said to be “man’s best friend,” but is their function in our human society even more integral than this quote portrays?
2. Statement of background:
Society regards dogs as loyal, loving, perpetually optimistic, athletic, and obedient.
3. Proposition (Thesis):
Dogs have proven essential to human society since early civilization, evolving from hunting companions and personal protectors to current roles as seeing eye dogs and police canine units. Dogs are essential to society because they aid humans physically, emotionally, and socially.

16. Classical Argument: example cont.
4. Proof: Physically, dogs are integral helpers and motivators, from sheep herders to taking your dog on walks. Emotionally, dogs are loyal and loving, and their love is unconditional (even when undeserved). Socially, dogs not only invite interactions with other humans but can also aid people who have socially debilitating handicaps. 5. Refutation: “Cat people” would say that cats, too, can be loving and loyal, but no cat could drag a grown man from a burning building to save his life. The “cat people” would say that no human beings die from cat attacks while dog attacks create injuries or even take lives every year. While this is a factual statement, it oversimplifies the issue. Dogs do not attack humans unprovoked – a dog who attacks has suffered abuse or mistreatment or is responding to a perceived threat to themselves or loved ones. Do cats only attack when provoked? Absolutely not. 6. Conclusion: Ultimately, dogs are not only “man’s best friend” but also an essential and valuable cog in the machinery of human society. They help us to better feed not only our stomachs but also our hearts and souls.

17. The Toulmin Model
Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950s
Emphasizes that logic is often based on probability rather than certainty
Focuses on claims
Consists of three primary components

18. Toulmin Model: Three Components
Claim = the main point or position
Data/Grounds = the evidence supporting the claim
Warrant = an underlying assumption or basic principle that connects data and claim; often implied rather than explicit

19. Toulmin Model: An Example
Claim (main point/position) = My parents should allow me to go to my friend’s party on Friday night.
Data/Grounds (evidence/support) = Nearly all my friends’ parents have given their children permission to attend this party.
Warrant (connection between data and claim) = My parents should act in accordance with my friends’ parents.

20. Uh-oh…
What if my parents don’t “buy” my warrant? What if they don’t think they should necessarily do what other parents are doing?
How can I still get permission to attend the party (or at least have a better chance of getting permission)?

21. Try new data and/or a new warrant!
Without changing your claim, you must consider…
What might be more convincing data for the ‘rents?
What might be a warrant that most parents will share?

22. Rogerian Model
Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers (like Toulmin, also in the ’50s)
Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus
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 if not completely adopt them

23. 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

24. Rogerian Arguments: example
1. Introduction: Should students wear uniforms?
2. Summary of opposing views: Some argue YES as uniforms create a sense of equality and highlight the person, not the materials they wear. Others say NO because uniforms limit self expression and individuality.
3. Statement of Understanding: I understand the point of view that uniforms, in making students look the ‘same’, may also make them feel they are all ‘the same’, unable to express their personal style and individuality.
4. Statement of Your Position: However, I think the above belief is mistaken, because – in reality – it should not be the materials we wear that define who we are, but rather our actions, our words, our talents. With this in mind, I believe uniforms are a quality addition to any school policy.
5. Statement of Contexts: If your shoes are Nike brand, that does not tell me you’re are a talented athlete, merely that you or your parents have the money to purchase brand names. If you wear purple, that does not tell me you are a talented artist, merely that you have a preference for purple.
6. State of Benefits: Meanwhile, in a uniform, brand names do not exist, and economic status is no longer a barrier. In a uniform, rather than your clothes speaking for you, you speak for yourself. In a uniform, you must prove – to the world and yourself – that you are a talented athlete, or artist, or mathematician. Ironically, by making everyone look ‘the same’, uniforms allow us to TRULY become unique.

25. The Fallacies of Argument
A fallacy is a flaw in an argument. A problem in an argument, but not a strategy.
See handout (read and study these by Monday)

26. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BELOW

27. The 5 Canons
By the time of the great Roman orator Cicero, 5 parts of discourse (The Canons of Rhetoric) have been named:
Inventio
Dispositio
Elocutio
Memoria
Pronuntatio

28. Inventio (discovery or invention)
Given a topic, the orator had to find arguments to support his point of view.
Inventio is a system for finding those arguments, and the orator had to make some carefully prescribed choices:
Rational appeal (Logos)
Emotional appeal (Pathos)
Ethical appeal (Ethos)

29. Rational Appeal (Logos)
An appeal to reason through induction or deduction
We will discuss thoroughly in a few minutes

30. Emotional Appeals (Pathos)
An analysis and understanding of common emotions

31. Ethical Appeals (Ethos)
Gaining the audience’s trust and admiration through high moral standards.

32. Dispositio (Arrangement or Organization)
Roman rhetoricians divided this into six parts

33. Elocutio (Style)
Levels of style (plain/low style; middle of forcible style or persuasion; high or florid style used for charming)
Diction- choice of words determined by purpose, paying attention to correctness of choice, clarity and simplicity vs. ornateness

34. Elocutio (Style)
Syntax- the arrangement of words into groups. Also specified patterns, such as parallelism and antithesis; the use of conjunctions and coordinating devices; and euphony (pleasing arrangement of sounds by manipulating vowel and consonant combination and rhythmical patterns).

35. Elocutio (Style)
Romans also considered figures of speech (called troupes and schemes) that they meticulously identified and named.

36. Memoria (memorization)
Romans employed specific techniques for memorizing speeches.
We will not discuss this much because much of the argument you will construct will be written.

37. Pronuntatio (Delivery)
The Romans were also taught how to gesture and manage their voices. They learned specific rules and principles that all good orators were expected to know and use.
Today this canon refers to the medium in which the argument is delivered: spoken, written, visual, etc.

38. Review What is the rhetorical triangle? What is informal logic?
How is informal logic used to make an argument?
In informal logic, what is a claim?
How does a reason support a claim in informal logic?
What role does a warrant play in informal logic?
What is the goal of Rogerian rhetoric, and how does it differ from the goal of traditional argumentation?