Transcript The Rogerian Argument and The Five Canons of Rhetoric.ppt

The 5 Canons of Rhetoric:
A Process of Persuasion
•
Driving Questions:
• How can understanding each canon help me
develop arguments/ persuade?
• How can understanding each canon help me
rhetorically analyze others’ works?
• For each canon, what questions should I ask
myself when analyzing that canon in of a piece
of work?
The Five Canons of Rhetoric:
Were originally identified by Cicero around
50BC
 Constitute a system and guide on crafting
powerful speeches and writing.
 Can act as a template for developing
strong arguments
 Are a template by which to judge and
analyze effective rhetoric

Five Canons of Rhetoric

First seen in Cicero’s De Inventione, the Five Canons:
1. inventio (invention): The process of developing and
refining your arguments.
2. dispositio (arrangement): The process of arranging and
organizing your arguments for maximum impact.
3. elocutio (style): The process of determining how you
present your arguments using figures of speech and other
rhetorical techniques.
4. memoria (memory): The process of learning and
memorizing your speech so you can deliver it without the
use of notes. Memory-work not only consisted of
memorizing the words of a specific speech, but also
storing up famous quotes, literary references, and other
facts that could be used in impromptu speeches.
5. actio (delivery): The process of practicing how you deliver
your speech using gestures, pronunciation, and tone of
voice.
Further Definition as verbs…

Invention: To discover the available
means of persuasion.
Arrangement: To select and assemble
the argument effectively.
Style: To present the argument cogently
and eloquently.
Memory: To speak extemporaneously.
Delivery: To effectively use voice,
gestures, text, and images.
In other words, when you
create an argument:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Invention: Brainstorm, prewrite, outlines
drafting
Arrangement: Particular order, a set
pattern – revise for a distinct purpose
Style: Grammatically correct, clear and
appropriate for their subject and audience,
uses appeals and devices
Evidence/Examples: Every
anecdote/fact/allusion comes from
memory, or that which you have learned.
Delivery: AP essay, speech, blog, etc.
Arrangement:
Organizational Patterns
for Argument
•
Driving Questions for Section:
• What are the basic parts of an argument?
• What are the best arrangements for
arguments?
• What do these methods have in common?
• How can these methods help me to build a
better argument?
Cicero
Aristotle
Classical Method and the 6-Part
Oration: Similar organization
6-Part Oration/ Classical Oration






Exordium - Intro
These three often
Narratio – background
work together
Partitio – thesis
Confirmatio –development of thesis
Refutatio –consideration of opposing
opinion
Peroratio- conclusion
The proof
Arrangement of a Classical Oration
1. Introduction
exordium
2. Statement of Facts narratio
3. Division
partitio
4. Proof
confirmatio
5. Refutation
refutatio
6. Conclusion
peroratio
prooimion
diegesis
pistis
epilogos
“6-part oration” and Classical Oration
align… Switch between the slides and
create a chart of where they align!
Appeals in Classical Oration

Cicero aligned certain rhetorical appeals
with specific parts of the oration.
◦ In the exordium or introduction, it is necessary
for one to establish his or her own authority.
Therefore, one employs ethical appeals
(see ethos).
◦ In the next four parts of the oration (statement
of facts, division, proof, and refutation), one
chiefly employs logical arguments (see logos).
◦ In the conclusion, one finishes up by employing
emotional appeals (see pathos).
Introduction (exordium):

Introduce the subject (or problem) and
purpose of the discourse, usually employing
the persuasive appeal of ethos
◦ gains your readers’ interest and willingness to listen

demonstrates that you are fair and
reasonable
◦ shows how the issue is important to the audience,
the good of the community, everyone
◦ establishes your qualifications on this topic
◦ establishes some common ground with your
audience
Statement of Facts/ Background
(narratio)

Provide background material (context) that’s
important to the topic or argument
◦ with a timed writing, assume that your reader has
not seen the prompt and, thus, will require some
setting up of the topic
 if the task asks you to respond to another writer’s idea,
then you must mention his/her name and paraphrase
his/her idea
◦ you might sketch out what people generally talk about
when the topic comes up or what has compelled you to
discuss it

the amount of background needed will
depend on your audience’s prior knowledge
on the topic
Thesis/ Division (partito)
Commit to a thesis (the main claim), a
position that reflects your original
thinking;
 previews which part or parts you intend to
address and how those parts will be
arranged.

Development of Thesis/ Proof
(confirmatio)
Offer detailed support for the position in
your thesis (the main claim)
 organize paragraphs by ideas that support
your thesis and not by evidence type
 support can be in the form of logical
reasoning, factual evidence, examples,
illustrations, etc. (the CHELPSS)
 mostly logical appeals (logos), but could
also include emotional appeals (pathos)

Refutation of Facts, Considering
Opposing Opinion/position
(refutatio)

Reasonably consider possible objections to
your thesis and try to levelheadedly counter
those objections
◦ Show why your thesis and supporting arguments
are still better than the others


support can be in the form of logical
reasoning, factual evidence, examples,
illustrations, etc. (the CHELPSS)
consists of concession and/or refutation
and/or qualification
Conclusion (peroratio)


Draw together the entire argument and move
the audience to action (ie: CALL TO ACTION)
Should include one or more of the following:
◦ addresses the “so what” question—why your thesis
matters
◦ reinforces your credibility and offers an emotional
appeal
◦ makes clear what you want the audience to think or
to do
◦ sounds like a conclusion by offering a satisfying
closure
◦ summarizes your argument(s) [Probably not
needed with an essay as short as a timed writing]
“Rogerian Argument”
Arrangement of Argument
Arrangement/ Organization:
“Rogerian Arguement”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduce the Issue
Summary of Opposing View
Statement of Understanding and
Exploration of Common Ground
Establish Position with Contexts and
Conditions
Statement of Context
Statement of Benefits and Conclusion
Introduce the Issue

Presenting your issue as objectively and
fairly as possible
◦ Providing any necessary background, definition
or history
◦ Avoid inflammatory or judgmental terms
Summary of Opposing Views

Acknowledging the opposition
◦ Gives value
◦ Shows neither side is 100% correct
 (similar to a concession- Toulmin)
Statement of Understanding
and Exploration of Common
Ground
Begin by assuming your reader disagrees
 Perhaps try restating points of view to
focus on the similarities
 State the opposing points of view fairly
and objectively: respect!

Establish Position with
Contexts and Conditions

In the body the writer gives an objective
statement about their position
◦ Avoid loaded/aggressive language

Explain the contexts where your position
is valid, and explores how it differs from
the opposition
◦ Gun registration example
Statement of Context

Similar to the statement of understanding
in which you describe situations in which
you would share the oppositions point of
view
Statement of Benefits and
Conclusion


You finally present your thesis!
Phrased in a way that shows your reader
that you’ve made some concessions
toward the oppositional position
◦ As you concede, it invites the audience to
concede as well

Can ask yourself if you’ve offered a
solution that encourages cooperation and
compromise
Understanding
Arguments
•
Driving Questions to answer when finished:
• What makes an argument successful?
• What makes a strong argument?
• How can I apply Toulmin’s method in my
own writing?
• How can I apply Toulmin’s method when I
am asked to analyze argument?
Toulmin’s Method for
Argument
Stephen Toulmin, originally a British logician, is now a professor at
USC. He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to
explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his
own model of practical reasoning.
Toulmin’s Method of Logic
(Argument)

Toulmin asserts arguments all have following six
parts:
◦ 1st Traid:
 Claim
 Grounds reason or evidence,
 Warrant
◦ 2nd Triad :
 Backing
 Rebuttal
 Qualifier
◦ Other Important Parts to include:
 assumptions,
 counter-arguments and counter-examples
 Implications (so what?)
The Toulmin Method of Logic
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of
the argument.
Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that
connects the grounds/reason to the claim.
Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and
rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.
Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and
backing. The degree of conditionality asserted.
Before moving on, read the example of each step provided on
Purdue Owl: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/03/
Toulmin’s theory: First Triad

First triad of model consists of three basic
elements:
A Claim:


Is the point an arguer is trying to make;
is the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to
accept.

Answers the questions "So what is your point?"

There are three basic types of claims:
◦ example: "You should send a birthday card to Mimi, because she
sent you one on your birthday."
◦ example: "I drove last time, so this time it is your turn to drive."
◦ 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
Grounds:


refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers.
answers the questions: "What is your proof?" or "How
come?" or "Why?"

can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings,
physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning.
◦ example: "It looks like rain. The barometer is falling."
◦ example: "The other Howard Johnson's restaurants I've been in
had clean restrooms, so I'll bet this one has clean restrooms too.“

can be based on:
1.
2.
3.
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
A warrant:


Is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.
is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the
underlying reasoning that makes sense of the claim in light of the grounds.

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
◦ example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever."
 warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly

warrants can be based on:
◦
◦
◦
◦
ethos: source credibility, authority
logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction
pathos: emotional or motivational appeals
shared values: free speech, right to know, fairness, etc.
 *note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the
three
Warrants/General Strategies of
Argument

Warrants/General Strategies of Argument

Example:
◦ Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and
evidence/reason.
◦ A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that
connects the grounds/reason to the claim.
◦ Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or
reason, and they are not normally explicit.
◦ “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because
they only cause more people to use drugs.” [reason]
◦ The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you
encourage more people to engage in it.”
*When a warrant is unstated, it is called an enthymeme.
Digression on Enthymemes

An enthymeme is an argument in which a premise or
conclusion is not explicitly stated
◦ When an unstated warrant is stated it is an enthymeme.

Draw parallels between the Toulmin method and what
you already know:
◦ An argument is made up of a major premise, a minor
premise, and a conclusion.
 Example: “I can’t trust this man because he has lied in the past.”
In this enthymeme, the major premise of the
complete
syllogism is missing:
◦ Those who lie cannot be trusted. (Major premise/ warrant omitted)
◦ This man has lied in the past. (Minor
premise/reason/grounds - stated)
◦ Therefore, this man is not to be trusted. (Conclusion/ claim
- stated)
Digression on Enthymemes cont.
Also defined as a figure of speech which
bases a conclusion on the truth of its
contrary.
 Example: If to be foolish is evil, then it is
virtuous to be wise.

◦ This also an example of chiasmus
Argumentative strategies:

There are 6 main argumentative strategies for how the
relationship between evidence and claim are established:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Generalization
Analogy
Sign
Causality
Authority
Principle

They have the acronym “GASCAP.”

These strategies are used at various different levels of
generality (and specificity) within an argument, and rarely
come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected
and work in combination.
Common Warrants
Argument based on Generalization: A very common form of
reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is
likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain
things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the
group/population.
 Argument based on Analogy: Extrapolating from one situation
or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or
event. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning
used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to
which relevant similarities can be established between 2
contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant
similarities?
 Argument via Sign/Clue: The notion that certain types of
evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or
outcome. For example, smoke is often considered a sign for
fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is
smart and will do well in college.

Common Warrants Cont.



Causal Argument: Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the
result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most
complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it
are: Mixing up correlation with causation, and falling into the post
hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation
and causation, this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore
because of the fact').
Argument from Authority: Does person X or text X constitute an
authoritative source on the issue in question? What political,
ideological or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the
sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to
agree on?
Argument from Principle: Locating a principle that is widely
regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this
principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does
it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly
agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a
different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the
principle sufficiently desirable?
Toulmin’s theory: Second Triad

The second triad of the Toulmin model
involves three additional elements:
◦ Backing,
◦ Qualifier,
◦ Rebuttal
Second Triad: Explained

Backing provides additional justification for the
warrant.
◦ Backing usually consists of evidence to support the type
of reasoning employed by the warrant.

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

The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or
limitations to the argument.
◦ The rebuttal admits to those circumstances or situations
where the argument would not hold.
Rebuttals and
Main/Faulty/Return Paths

Unlike many forms of writing, academic arguments will
often include discussions of possible objections and
counterarguments to the position being advanced.

Academic arguments typically take place in disciplinary
communities in which a variety of competing or divergent
positions exist.

When preparing to 'speak' to the community by writing an
argument, writers are aware of the arguments against
which they must build their claims, and of the
counterarguments which are likely to emerge.
◦ Dealing with counterarguments and objections is thus a key part of
the process of building arguments, refining them, interpreting and
analyzing them.
Reasons for introducing
counterarguments and objections:
1.
It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views,
and is not trying to 'sweep them under the table'. It thus is
more likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or
'fair' to readers, and as a consequence be persuasive.
2.
It shows that the writer is thinking carefully about the
responses of readers, anticipating the objections that many
readers may have. Introducing the reader to some of the
positions opposed to your own, and showing how you can deal
with possible objections can thus work to 'inoculate' the reader
against counterarguments.
3.
By contrasting one's position with the arguments or alternative
hypotheses one is against, one clarifies the position that is
being argued for.
Counter-arguments:

When dealing with objections or counterarguments,
authors tend to take one of 3 approaches:
◦ Strategic concession: acknowledgment of some of the
merits of a different view. In some cases, this may mean
accepting or incorporating some components of an authors'
argument, while rejecting other parts of it.
◦ Refutation: this involves being able to show important
weaknesses and shortcomings in an opponent's position
that demonstrate that his/her argument ought to be
rejected.
◦ Demonstration of irrelevance: showing that the issue in
question is to be understood such that opposing views,
while perhaps valid in certain respects, do not in fact meet
the criteria of relevance that you believe define the issue.
Rhetorical Analysis of Argument

How well authors produce rebuttals and
deal with counter-arguments is an
important part of how we evaluate the
success of an argument.

How does this relate to the rhetorical
analysis of an argument?