Argumentative Models
Toulmin Model and Moralist’s, Lawyer’s, Psychologist’s, and Forensics' Views
Toulmin Model
•Argument has three triads
•The first triad of his model consists of
three basic elements:
•1. A claim is the point an arguer is
trying to make. The claim is the
proposition or assertion an arguer
wants another to accept.
–The claim answers the question,
"So what is your point?“
•There are three 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
•2. Grounds refers to the proof or
evidence an arguer offers. Grounds
answers the questions, "What is your
proof?" or "How come?" or "Why?"
–Grounds can consist of
statistics, quotations, reports,
findings, physical evidence, or
various forms of reasoning.
–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
•3. 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 underlying
reasoning that makes sense
of the claim in light of the
grounds.
–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."
warrant: sign reasoning; a
fever is a reliable sign of an
infection
–Warrants can be based on:
source credibility, authority;
reason-giving, induction,
deduction; emotional or
motivational appeals; free
speech, right to know,
fairness, etc.
Toulmin Model
• The second triad of the Toulmin model
involves three additional elements:
• 4. Backing provides additional
justification for the warrant.
– Backing usually consists of evidence to
support the type of reasoning
employed by the warrant.
• 5. The qualifier states the degree of force
or probability to be attached to the claim.
– The qualifier states how sure the
arguer is about his/her claim
• 6. The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions
or limitations to the argument.
– The rebuttal admits to those
circumstances or situations where the
argument would not hold.
Moralist’s View
•Based upon moral
reasoning, that is appealing
to the ethics of the reader
•Has a variety of purposes,
particularly for guidance in
conduct
• When writing from a
moralist view, the writer
has to remember to appeal
to their own and the
reader’s morality stance on
a particular issue.
•They do not ridicule or
persecute those that do not
share their view, nor do
they “bash” their points
across.
•There are 2 kinds of moral
reasoning: amoral and
immoral
•Amorality consists of
conduct of no moral
significance. That is,
conduct not to be
evaluated by reference to
moral considerations.
–Choosing between 3
items to buy
•There is nothing moral
or immoral about making
this decision
•Immorality is conduct
contrary to what morality
requires or prohibits.
–Hence a person is
reasoning immorality
whenever he or she is
contemplating judgment
or conduct that violates or
disregards some relevant
rule.
Lawyer’s View
• Provides relevant facts and
previously decided court cases that
support position
• Straightforward, but not an openbook
– Facts that would harm their case or
argument are excluded
– Tends to bend every rule for benefit
• Appeals to the logical side of the
reader
• Appears to be balanced, but it is
only an illusion
• Writing style is professional and
technical (use of legal jargon)
Psychologist’s View (Rogerian)
•
•
•
Based on Carl Rogers' work in psychology, Rogerian argument
begins by assuming that a willing writer can find middle or
common ground with a willing reader. Instead of promoting the
adversarial relationship that traditional or classical argument
typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerian argument
assumes that if reader and writer can both find common ground
about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution to that
problem. Based on these assumptions, Rogerian argument
develops along quite different lines than a traditional argument
often does.
In the introduction to a Rogerian argument, the writer presents
the problem, typically pointing out how both writer and reader are
affected by the problem. Rather than presenting an issue that
divides reader and writer, or a thesis that demands agreement
(and in effect can be seen as an attack on a reader who holds an
opposing view), the Rogerian argument does not begin with the
writer's position at all.
Next, the writer describes as fairly as possible--typically in
language as neutral as possible--the reader's perceived point of
view on the problem. Only if the writer can represent the reader's
perspective accurately will the reader begin to move toward
compromise, and so this section of the argument is crucial to the
writer's credibility. (Even though writers might be tempted to use
this section of the Rogerian argument to manipulate readers, that
strategy usually backfires when readers perceive the writer's
insincerity. Good will is crucial to the success of a Rogerian
argument.) Moreover, as part of the writer's commitment to
expressing the reader's perspective on the problem, the writer
acknowledges the circumstances and contexts in which the
reader's position or perspective is valid.
Rogerian…
•
•
•
In the next main chunk of the Rogerian argument, the writer
then presents fairly and accurately his or her own perspective
or position on the problem. This segment depends, again, on
neutral but clear language so that the reader perceives the
fair-mindedness of the writer's description. The segment is,
however, a major factor in whether or not the writer is
ultimately convincing, and so key evidence supports and
develops this section of the argument. Like the description of
the reader's perspective, this part of the argument also
includes a description of the contexts or circumstances in
which the writer's position is valid.
The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give up
their own positions on the problem but by showing how the
reader would benefit from moving toward the writer's
position. In other words, the final section of the Rogerian
argument lays out possible ways to compromise or alternative
solutions to the problem that would benefit both reader and
writer under more circumstances than either perspective
alone accounts for.
Rogerian approaches are particularly useful for emotionally
charged, highly divisive issues. The Rogerian approach
typically downplays the emotional in favor of the rational so
that people of good will can find solutions to common
problems. But no argument, Rogerian or otherwise, will
succeed unless the writer understands the reader. Rogerian
argument is especially dependent on audience analysis
because the writer must present the reader's perspective
clearly, accurately, and fairly.
Forensics' View
•Formal debate
•Does not attempt to
solve anything or get the
truth
•The debate is used to
promote only thought
and questioning about a
particular matter
•There are no answers!
•One side is “pro” and
the other is “con”
•The basic structure of
the forensics' view
occurs in three parts,
writer’s are only
concerned with two
•The constructive phase:
the debaters construct
their cases and develop
their arguments
•The rebuttal: present
responses and also
present their final
summary
•Use technical language,
visual aids, quotations,
and professionalism