Transcript Argumentation Strategies

Argumentation
Strategies
The Structure of Arguments
The Toulmin Model
Data
Claim
The argument you
are trying to make
Evidence (logos)
Warrant
Ties your evidence to
your argument
Types of Claims

Fact


Value



Makes a statement about something that can be proven
true or false
 The New York Islanders won first pick in the draft lottery.
Suggests that one idea is favorable over another
An object or an action is important to or cherished by an
individual or society
 National security is more important than personal freedom.
Policy

Calls for a change to the established program
 The federal government should guarantee healthcare for all
of its citizens.
Reasoning from Evidence



Argumentation involves reasoning or logic
This is the WARRANT
Types of reasoning:





Inductive
Deductive
Sign
Analogy
Cause-effect
Inductive Reasoning

Bases a general conclusion on an examination of
several specific instances or examples


ESL programs in five states failed to improve standardized
test scores for language minority students. Therefore, the
same results would occur with a federal plan based on the
same principles.
Test your inductive reasoning:



Are there a sufficient number of examples?
Are the examples typical?
Does the conclusion allow for exceptions?
Deductive Reasoning


Takes generally accepted claims and applies them to specific
situations in order to prove that what is true in a general sense is
also true in a specific case.
The traditional structure is called a SYLLOGISM = major premise
(a statement of fact, value, or policy about a general class of
situations, events, or people), minor premise (relates specific
situations, events, or people to the general class), and a
conclusion (the logical step linking the two).




Major premise: The right of privacy is important to our society.
Minor premise: Protection of medical records is a privacy right.
Conclusion: Protection of medical records is important to our society.
Testing your deductive claim:
 Is your major premise true or accurate?
 Is your minor premise true or accurate?
 Do your major and minor premises relate to one another?
Sign

A way of reaching a logical conclusion based
of physical evidence



Think about Law and Order, CSI, etc.
This is helpful for environment debates
Testing for sign


Is the conclusion based on the sign applicable in
all instances?
Is it possible to draw more than one conclusion
from the sign?
Analogies


Are comparisons
Can be literal or figurative



Literal – compares similar things
 If Canada has a health care system that had worked, you
could argue that there are sufficient similarities between
Canada and the United States to believe that the system
would work in the U.S. as well.
Figurative – compares dissimilar things
 Cutting federal funds would be the same as cutting off
oxygen supply to the body
Use analogies to add emphasis to your argument
Cause-Effect




If you are claiming a causal link between two things,
you need to prove that one actually causes the
other.
Important in establishing the need to change a
policy
There is a difference between a causal link and a
correlation
Testing cause-effect:


Can you separate cause from effect?
Is the cause strong enough to produce the effect?