Structuring and Analyzing
Arguments:
The Classical, Toulmin, and
Rogerian Models
AP English Language and Composition
Classical Argument



Invented by Greek philosopher, Aristotle
Was originally communicated orally and
designed to be easily understood by listeners
Best used when the purpose of your argument
is to persuade your audience to agree with your
point of view, take your side on an issue, or
make a decision in your favor

Relies heavily on ethos, pathos, and logos

Six main components
Component 1: Introduction (exordium)
*in writing, components 1 and 2 usually appear together



Objective: attract interest of audience and focus it on the
subject of the argument.
Establish why this issue is relevant to the audience
Popular rhetorical strategies:






Begin with quotation
Ask a question
State problem or controversy
Give an analogy
Attack on an opposing point of view (especially if it’s a
more popular one than yours
Personal anecdote
Component 2: Narration (narratio)





Objective: statement of background
Provide factors or events leading to your issue
Establish your role as it relates to the subject or
to your audience
Signals the writer’s specific position on the issue
and/or the direction of her/his argument.
Establishes image of writer (ethos) you want to
project (caring, aggressive, passionate, etc)
Component 3: Proposition (partitio or
divisio)



Objective: state your thesis
Outline the subtopics of your issue
Outline the arguments that you will
address in detail later in the essay (in
the order in which they appear)
Component 4: Proof (confirmatio)




Objective: prove your thesis
Composed of claims (reasons for
your position) and evidence to
support your thesis
Uses logos, ethos, and pathos to
prove your case
Should rely mostly on logic
Component 5: Refutation (refutatio)




Objective: counterargument
Concede opponents’ viewpoint without damaging
your case
Anticipate objections to your argument
Popular rhetorical strategies:


Show by the use of facts, reasons, and testimony
that the opposing point is totally wrong based on
incorrect evidence, questionable assumptions, bad
reasoning, prejudice, or ill will.
Show that opposition has some merit but is flawed
(it may be true only in some circumstances or it may
only apply to certain people or conditions).
Popular rhetorical strategies continued:

Show that the opposition has merits but is outweighed
by other considerations. You are claiming that truth is
relative: when a difficult choice has to be made, the
benefits of your case outweigh the risks

Show that the reasoning used by the opposition is
flawed: in other words, that it contains logical fallacies.
Component 6: Conclusion (peroratio)




Objective: tie your essay together
Create a sense of finality or closure
Answer the questions or solve the problem
stated in the introduction—“close the circle”
and give the readers a feeling of completion
and balance.
Can add a “final blast”—a big emotional or
ethical appeal—that helps sway the
audience’s opinion.
The Toulmin Model





Developed by British philosopher
Stephen Toulmin in the 1950’s
Best when you try to make a case
on controversial issues that do not
have an absolute truth
Emphasizes that logic is 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

(Essentially the basic structure of a Toulmin argument is:
I believe_(claim)___ because ___(data)__. I believe this
because ____(warrant)___.)
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 my
friends have given their children
permission to attend this party.
Warrant = My parents should let me do
things my friends’ parents let their kids
do.
Uh-oh, a potential snag…
If your audience doesn’t agree with your
warrant, they probably won’t agree with
your claim!
Example: What if my parents don’t think
they should necessarily do what other
parents are doing? How can I still get
permission to attend the party?
Answer: With a Toulmin argument, you
choose new data based on a warrant your
audience is more likely to agree with.
Try new data and a new warrant.
Claim = My parents should allow me to go to
my friend’s party on Friday night.
Data = My friend’s parents will be home, I
will call when I arrive to the party and
when I leave, and I have agreed to be a
designated driver.
Warrant = My safety is the most important
thing.
Additional elements of Toulmin
Argument:



Rebuttal: recognizes restrictions that
may be applied to the claim
Backing: defends the warrant or
assumption
Qualifier: expresses under which
conditions or to what degree the claim is
true

Ex: usually, possibly, etc
Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail
Data
Claim
Qualifier
Warrant
Backing
Rebuttal
Example:
Data
Qualifier
Rogerian Model






Named after the psychologist Carl Rogers, who
believed that people could only resolve an issue
or solve a problem once they found the
"common ground."
Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to
consensus
Allows the author to appear open-minded or
even objective
Best when you need to convince a hostile
audience to at least respect your views
May rely heavily on ethos and pathos (good for
emotionally charged arguments)
Six elements

Because it focuses on building
bridges between writer and
audience, and places considerable
weight on the values, beliefs, and
opinions the two share, a Rogerian
argument doesn’t emphasize an "I
win–you lose" outcome as much as
classical or Toulmin arguments do.
Component 1: Introduction



State problem to be solved or
question to be answered
Focus on how this is a problem for
everyone
Explore common ground author
shares with audience
Component 2: Summary of Opposing
Views


Summarize opponent’s viewpoint as
accurately and objectively as
possible
This shows that you can listen
without judgment and that you
understand all sides (establishes
ethos)
Component 3: Statement of
Understanding


Explain which parts of the
opponent’s viewpoint with which
you agree
Explain conditions under which the
opponent is right
Component 4: Statement of Your
Position


State your position and reasons for
believing this
Avoid language that is loaded,
attacks the audience, or suggests
your view is morally superior
Component 5: Statement of
Contexts


Describe the context under which
your position works
Recognize that your opponent may
not agree with you all the time, but
by showing the merit of your claim
under specific circumstances, the
audience should be able to find
common ground
Component 6: Statement of
Benefits




Show how your position benefits
your audience
Appeal to your audience’s selfinterest
Show the concessions you have
made and invite your audience to
make concessions as well
Close your argument on a hopeful
note, where both sides win
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 your
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.
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?
1.
2. Statement of background:
Dogs are loyal, loving, perpetually optimistic, athletic, and obedient.
3. Proposition (Thesis):
Dogs have been essential to human society since the dawn of our
civilization, evolving from hunting companions and personal protection
to the modern utility of seeing eye dogs and police canine units. Dogs
are essential to our society because they aid humans physically,
emotionally, and socially.
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, always there to greet you
at the door, their love 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:
The ‘cat people’ would say that cat’s 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 been abused, mistreated, or
is responding to a threat, or assumes they are protecting their loved ones. Do cats
only attack when provoked? Absolutely not.
6. Conclusion:
Ultimately, Dogs are not only ‘mans best friend’ but also an essential and valuable cog
in the machinery of human society. They help us to better function, help us to better
feed not only our stomachs, but also our hearts and souls.