Embedded Files
Argument
Argument
(Persuasive Statements, Reasoning, & Facts)
Definition: A coherent series of statements, reasons, and facts intended to support a point of view or persuade an audience. Arguments involve the strategic use of language to persuade and call audiences to action. Most arguments are generally composed of the following five elements:
Claim: The main point or assertion that the speaker or writer aims to prove.
Evidence: The supporting information, such as facts, data, examples, or expert testimony, that bolsters the claim.
Reasoning: The logical connections and explanations that link the evidence to the claim, showing why the evidence supports the claim.
Counterarguments: Consideration and refutation of opposing viewpoints to strengthen the original argument.
Appeals: The use of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical reasoning) to persuade the audience.
An effective argument in rhetoric is well-structured, clear, and compelling and aims to persuade an audience through a balanced combination of logical reasoning, credible evidence, & emotional appeals.
Argument Strategies
Argument Strategies
(Structures, Tactics, & Focal Points)
These models provide different strategies and focal points for constructing arguments, each suited to specific contexts and audiences.
Rhetorical Modes: Text Structures that can construct arguments. Examples include narration, comparison, causal analysis, process, description, definition, classification, & exemplification.
Persuasion: Attempts to change perspectives or opinions about a topic and calls the audience to action (i.e. sign petition, vote, write letter, boycott, strike, etc.).
Evaluation: Assesses value or worth based on specific criteria and supporting evidence.
Fact & Explanation: Establishes the truth of an idea (fact) or explains the details of a topic (explanation).
Interpretation: Analyzes data and argues its meaning. Data can come from various sources, including texts, objects, surveys, and scientific experiments.
Argument Types
Argument Types
(Classical, Rogerian, Toulmin)
These models provide different strategies and structures for constructing arguments, each suited to specific contexts and audiences.
Classical (Aristotelian)
Classical (Aristotelian)
Approach: Employs a straightforward, systematic aggressive approach designed to present a clear and compelling case in a structured format that logically leads the audience to accept the speaker's position.
Use: Effective for clear, direct persuasion, especially in situations where the audience is neutral, supportive, obsequious, or already respects the speaker. Highly aggressive. Often used to establish power
Audience: Most persuasive with Friendly, Skeptical, Indifferent, Undecided, Uninformed, Passive, or Mixed audiences that are neutral, open-minded, or already somewhat supportive of the topic being presented. These types of audiences are receptive to logical reasoning and well-structured evidence-based arguments.
Structure: This traditional model is structured to persuade the audience through a clear presentation of claims and evidence.
Introduction (Exordium): Introduces the topic, engages the audience, and provides a clear thesis statement.
Narration (Narratio): Provides a statement of background, explaining any context, circumstances, exigence, facts, or conditions needed to understand the topic and forthcoming case.
Confirmation (Confirmatio): Presents the main points and lines of reasoning that support the thesis. Organizes evidence such as facts, statistics, expert opinions, and examples from strongest to weakest.
Refutation (Refutatio): Acknowledges opposing viewpoints. Addresses, counters, and demonstrates weaknesses in opposing arguments.
Conclusion (Peroratio): Summarizes main points. Restates the thesis in a compelling way. Appeals to audience emotions, values, and beliefs. And ends with a memorable statement or call to action.
Classical Argument Example
Classical Argument Example
Introduction: The increasing pollution of our oceans and landfills is a serious environmental crisis. Single-use plastics are one of the primary contributors to this problem. To protect the environment, we must ban single-use plastics.
Narration: Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste end up in the ocean, harming marine life and ecosystems. Plastic takes hundreds of years to decompose, leading to long-lasting pollution. Despite efforts to recycle, a large percentage of plastics still end up in landfills or oceans.
Confirmation: Banning single-use plastics would significantly reduce waste and pollution. Countries like France and Canada, which have already implemented partial bans, have seen reductions in plastic waste. Alternatives such as reusable bags, containers, and biodegradable materials are readily available and more environmentally friendly.
Refutation: Some argue that banning single-use plastics would be inconvenient and costly for businesses. However, many companies have successfully transitioned to sustainable alternatives, and initial costs are offset by long-term environmental and economic benefits. Moreover, government incentives and policies can help ease this transition.
Conclusion: The environmental damage caused by single-use plastics is too great to ignore. Banning them is a necessary step toward preserving the planet for future generations. While the transition may be challenging, the benefits for the environment far outweigh any temporary inconveniences.
Rogerian (roh-JEER-ee-uhn))
Rogerian (roh-JEER-ee-uhn))
Approach: Emphasizes understanding and empathy, aiming to find common ground between opposing viewpoints. Based on the work of American psychologist Carl Rogers.
Use: Effective in highly polarized or emotionally charged situations. Particularly useful in situations where there is significant disagreement or emotional investment in the issue at hand.
Audience: Most persuasive with Hostile audiences that may be overly sensitive to the issue or disagree with, have authority over, or disrespect the speaker. Acknowledges the audience's views, finds common ground, makes concessions, and presents evidence respectfully.
Structure: Designed to create a more open and respectful dialogue fostering mutual respect and cooperation.
Introduction: States the issue without taking an immediate stance.
Summary of Opposing Views: Fairly and accurately presents the opposing side's perspective.
Statement of Understanding: Acknowledges the validity of opposing views in certain contexts.
Statement of Position: Clearly presents the speaker's own position. The main point or thesis
Statement of Contexts: Explains situations where the author's position is valid.
Statement of Benefits: Shows how the opposing side could benefit from accepting the author's position.
Rogerian Argument Example
Rogerian Argument Example
Introduction: The rise of remote work during the pandemic has sparked a debate over whether it should continue as a permanent option for employees. Some argue that remote work leads to lower productivity and weaker team cohesion, while others believe it enhances flexibility and work-life balance. Both perspectives have valid points, and finding common ground is important.
Summary of Opposing Views: Employers who oppose permanent remote work often believe that face-to-face interaction fosters collaboration and innovation, which can be difficult to replicate in a virtual environment. They argue that in-office work strengthens team dynamics and keeps employees more accountable. On the other hand, proponents of remote work highlight its benefits, such as increased employee satisfaction, better work-life balance, and reduced commuting time. Studies have shown that many employees are more productive when working from home, with the added flexibility of managing their own schedules.
Statement of Understanding: Because in-office work strengthens team dynamics while remote work enhances flexibility and work-life balance, a solution that includes both outcomes should be sought.
Statement of Position: To capitalize on the benefits of both remote and offic work, employers should institute a hybrid work model, where employees split their time between the office and home.
Statement of Contexts: Both sides agree that the key to a successful workplace is maintaining productivity and a healthy work culture. It’s clear that not all tasks or jobs are suited for remote work, but certain roles may thrive in a remote setting. (Common Ground)
Statement of Benefits: Implementing a hybrid work model, in which employees divide their time between the office and home, will help address concerns from both sides. This approach allows for in-person collaboration while also giving employees the flexibility they desire, creating a more balanced and productive work environment.
Toulmin (TOOL-min)
Toulmin (TOOL-min)
Approach: Focuses on justifying claims by analyzing one's own argument from all sides thereby making it stronger. Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin.
Use: Effective for detailed analysis and argumentation in academic or technical contexts, especially where no clear truths or absolute solutions are present. Embraces the complex nature of most situations.
Audience: Most persuasive with Expert, Scientific, Technical, Analytical, and highly Logical audiences that require clear evidence and detailed justification for claims.
Structure: Font-loaded with facts, this argument builds credibility by addressing objections first and then makes a well-supported case to meet the high standards of intellectually charged audiences.
Claim: The main point or thesis.
Grounds: Evidence and facts that support the claim.
Warrant: A logical assumption that is either stated or implied linking the grounds to the claim.
Backing: Additional support for the warrant. Often, the warrant is implied, so the backing provides justification for the warrant by offering a specific example that validates it.
Qualifier: Words and phrases that place limits on claims (e.g., "usually," "probably" "in some cases," "under these conditions," "possibly," "routinely," etc.).
Rebuttal: An acknowledgment of another valid view of the situation.
Toulmin Argument Example
Toulmin Argument Example
Claim: The government should implement universal basic income to reduce poverty and support citizens in an increasingly automated economy.
Grounds: Many jobs are being replaced by automation, leaving a significant number of workers without employment. Studies show that a UBI would provide financial stability, allowing people to meet their basic needs even if they lose their jobs due to technological advancements.
Warrant: If people can’t find work due to automation, providing them with a guaranteed income is necessary to prevent widespread poverty and economic instability.
Backing: In pilot programs where UBI has been tested, participants reported lower stress levels, improved mental health, and greater economic security. For example, a UBI experiment in Finland found that recipients felt happier and more secure, even if they didn’t immediately find jobs.
Qualifier: While UBI may not completely eliminate poverty, it would significantly reduce economic hardship for those most affected by job displacement.
Rebuttal: Critics argue that UBI may discourage people from seeking work. However, studies suggest that most people continue to work even when receiving UBI, using the financial security to pursue jobs that are more fulfilling or to start their own businesses.
Page updated
Report abuse