Structuring and Analyzing
Arguments:
The Classical, Toulmin, and
Rogerian Models
AP Language and
Composition
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
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
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)
Rational Appeal (Logos)


An appeal to reason through
induction or deduction
We will discuss thoroughly in a few
minutes
Emotional Appeals (Pathos)

An analysis and understanding of
common emotions
Ethical Appeals (Ethos)

Gaining the audience’s trust and
admiration through high moral
standards.
Dispositio
(Arrangement or Organization)

Roman rhetoricians divided this into
six parts
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)
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
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).
Elocutio (Style)

Romans also considered figures of
speech (called troupes and
schemes) that they meticulously
identified and named.
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.
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.
Formal Logic:
Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning


Inductive Reasoning = the process of reasoning
from the specific to the general, in which the
premises of an argument are believed to support the
conclusion but do not ensure it. Inductive reasoning
is used to formulate laws based on limited
observations of recurring patterns.
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
Induction
“Wow! My dog smells terrible! She was
outside all night, and around midnight I
smelled skunk at the back of the
house. I heard her barking loudly, too.
That’s definitely a skunky smell on her.
She must have tangled with that
skunk.”
This person has amassed sufficient,
relevant, and reliable evidence to draw
her conclusion.
Deduction

Deduction involves premisesstatements upon which parties
agree, which when considered
logically, lead to a strong
conclusion.
The Syllogism
Three-part deductive argument, in
which conclusion follows from two
premises
 A straightforward example:
Major premise: All people have hearts.
Minor premise: John is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a
heart.

The Syllogism

The classic example:



Major premise: A generalization or all
encompassing statement
Minor premise: A statement of a
specific instance of the generalization
Conclusion: A statement of conclusion
which follows from the premises
All human beings are mortal
 Socrates is a human being
 Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The Syllogism

Syllogisms are seldom found in their
pure form but instead appear in the
form of enthymemes
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.
See Examples
Logic in Analysis

You use logical appeals when you
quote the text and cite scenes from
the novel or from secondary
sources to support your ideas about
your topic (character, themes,
motifs, etc.)
Homework


Read both drafts of “The Declaration
of Independence”
Decide how the argument is
organized
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)
The Toulmin Model




Developed by British philosopher
Stephen Toulmin in the 1950’s
Emphasizes that logic often based
on probability rather than certainty
Focuses on claims
Three primary components
Toulmin Model: Three Components
Three components:
Claim = the main point or position
Data = the evidence supporting the
claim, aka the reasons
Warrant = an underlying assumption
or basic principle that connects data
and claim; often implied rather than
explicit

Toulmin Model: An Example
Claim = My parents should allow me to go
to my friend’s party on Friday night.
Data = The parents of nearly all of the
juniors at UHS have given their children
permission to attend this party.
Warrant = My parents should act in
accordance with the other parents of
juniors at UHS.
Uh-oh, a potential snag…
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?
Try new data and a new warrant.
What might be more convincing
data for an audience of parents?
What might be a warrant that most
parents will share?
Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail
Data
Claim
Qualifier
Warrant
Backing
Rebuttal
Rogerian Model




Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers
(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
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
Review
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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?