english quiz argumentation

Toulmin model

approach to argument by British philosopher Stephen toulmin. there are 6 elements

claim

TM, arguable assertion

warrant

TM, expresses assumption necessarily shared by the speaker and the audience

assumption

TM, links claim to the evidence. audience has to agree

backing

TM, further assurances of data without which the assumption lacks authority

qualifier

TM, tempers claim, makes less absolute

reservation

TM, explains the terms and conditions necessitated by the qualifier

rebuttal

TM, gives voice to objections

because (1), therefore (2), since (3), on account of (4), unless (5)

1. evidence as support

2. claim

3. assumption

4. backing

5. reservation

induction

Latin “inducere”, “to lead into”. means arranging an argument so that it leads from particulars to universals, using specific cases to draw a conclusion
exercise leads to weight loss, lower stress, better mood. so exercise contributes to better health.

arguments of induction are considered….

strong/weak, NEVER wrong/right

deduction

reach a conclusion by starting w/ general principle or universal truth (major premise) and applying it to a specific case (minor premise). usually structured as a syllogism. prone to stereotype

syllogism

a logical structure that uses the major premise and minor premise to reach a necessary conclusion.
EX. 
major: Exercise contributes to better health.
minor: Yoga is a type of exercise.
conclusion: Yoga contributes to better health.

introduction

CO, “exordium” → “beginning a web”, introduces the reader to the subject under discussion. piques interest, challenges audience, gets attention. usually where author establishes ethos

narration

CO, “”, provides factual info/background material on the subject at hand. begins the developmental paragraphs and establishes why subject is a problem that needs addressing. level of detail usually determined by audience knowledge. often appeals to pathos although usually described in CO as appealing to logos

confirmation

CO, “”, includes the development/proof needed to make the writer’s case, contains most specific and concrete detail in text, makes strongest case/appeal to logos.

refutation

CO, “”, addresses counterargument. bridge between proof and conclusion. usually at the end but not limited to this structure. largely logos appeal.

conclusion

CO, “peroratio”, brings essay to satisfying close. writer appeals to pathos and reminds readers of ethos established earlier. brings all writer’s ideas together and answers question

Fallacies:

a failure to make a logical connection between the claim and the evidence used to support that claim. May be accidental, but also can be used deliberately 

Logical fallacies:

potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in an argument. Logical breakdown in most weak arguments occurs in the use of evidence, since evidence is what we use to prove arguments. Work against the clear, civil discourse that should be at the heart of argument. By checking for logical fallacies in published argument, can identify weak points. By checking for own fallacies, revise to strengthen argument.

Fallacies of relevance:

fallacies that result from using evidence that's irrelevant to the claim fall under the general heading of red herrings. 

Red herring:

occurs when speaker skips to new and irrelevant topic in order to avoid the topic of discussion.

Ad hominem fallacy:

latin “against the man” refers to diversionary tactic of switching the argument from the issue to the character of the other speaker.

Faulty analogy:

analogy is the most vulnerable type of evidence because always susceptible to the charge that 2 things are not comparable. Some analogies are more vulnerable than others, particularly those that focus on irrelevant or inconsequential similarities between 2 things. Important to question whether the similarities really fit or just add emotional appeal.

Fallacies of accuracy:

using evidence that is either intentionally or unintentionally inaccurate will result in a fallacy.

Straw man fallacy:

when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example to ridicule and refute an opponent’s viewpoint. 

either/or fallacy, false dilemma:

speaker presents 2 extreme options as the only possible choices. 

Fallacies of insufficiency:

when evidence is insufficient

Hasty generalization:

not enough evidence to support a particular conclusion. Ex. anecdote

Circular reasoning:

repeating the claim as a way to provide evidence, resulting in no evidence at all.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc:

Latin, “after which therefore because of which”. Incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier. Correlation DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

Appeal to false authority:

when someone who has no expertise to speak on an issue is cited as an authority. Verify background & qualifications. Ex. A TV star is not a medical expert.

Bandwagon appeal, ad populum fallacy:

“everybody’s doing in, so it must be a good thing to do”. Sometimes statistics can be used to prove that everyone’s doing it and give a bandwagon appeal the appearance of cold, hard fact.