Fall 2005: ENC 1102: Argument & Persuasion: Invoking the Professional Voice
Forms of Argumentation
The Classical Argument
Beginning in about the fifth century B.C., Greece rhetoricians established
the classical form of argument. This argument works best when you believe
you can argue your position logically and plausibly to an open-minded
audience. In its simplest form, the classical argument has five main parts,
as listed below. Each of these categories represents a "chunk"
of the paper, but the number of paragraphs allotted to each part will
depend upon your particular topic and how much
· The introduction, which warms up the audience,
establishes goodwill and rapport with the readers, and announces the general
theme or thesis
of the argument. Thus, the introduction has three jobs: to capture your
audience’s interest, establish their perception of you as a writer,
and set out your point of view for the argument.
· The narration, which summarizes relevant background
material, provides any information the audience needs to know about the
environment and circumstances that produce the argument, and set up the
stakes–what’s at risk in this question. By the end of this
chunk, the readers should understand what’s at stake in this argument–the
issues and alternatives the community faces–so that they can evaluate
your claims fairly.
· The confirmation, which lays out in a logical
order (usually strongest to weakest or most obvious to most subtle) the
claims that support the thesis, providing evidence for each claim. In
this section, you explain why you believe in your thesis. It takes up
several supporting claims individually, so that you can develop each one
by bringing in facts, examples, testimony, definitions, and so on. It’s
important that you explain why the evidence for each claim supports it
and the larger thesis; this builds a chain of reasoning in support of
your argument.
· The refutation and concession, which looks at
opposing viewpoints to the writer’s claims, anticipating objections
from the audience, and allowing as much of the opposing viewpoints as
possible without weakening the thesis. This section can often be the strongest
part of an argument, for when you show an audience that you have anticipated
potential opposition and objections, and have an answer for them, you
defuse the audience’s ability to oppose you while you persuade them
to accept your point of view. If there are places where you agree with
your opposition, conceding their points creates goodwill and respect (and
projects an “ethos” of reasonableness) without weakening your
thesis.
· The summation (or conclusion), which provides
a strong conclusion, amplifying the force of the argument, and showing
the readers that this solution is the best at meeting the circumstances.
To write this section, try to harken back to the narration and the issues–remind
your readers what’s at stake here, and try to show why your thesis
provides the best solution to the issue being faced. This gives an impression
of the rightness and importance of your argument, and suggests its larger
significance or long-range impact. You may be tempted in the conclusion
just to restate the claims and thesis, but this doesn’t give a sense
of momentum or closure to your argument. Instead, whatever you do, end
strongly. Finish with conviction. After all, if you aren't convinced,
why should your reader be? You might end with an amplification (ringing
conclusion), a review of your main points, a reference to something in
your introduction, or a plea for action. In this way, you can give your
readers a psychological sense of closure–the argument winds up instead
of breaking off.
Information from http://www.winthrop.edu/wcenter/handoutsandlinks/classica.htm
The Rogerian Argument
A Rogerian argument focuses on building bridges between writer and audience,
and places considerable weight on the values, beliefs, and opinions the
two share. Thus, a Rogerian argument doesn’t emphasize an "I
win–you lose" outcome as much as classical (i.e. Toulmin arguments)
do. Rather it emphasizes a "You win and I win too" solution,
one where negotiation and mutual respect are valued. Thus, it is particularly
useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos
rather than logos and strict logic predominate.
Why use it? In a Rogerian argument, the writer tries to show how the readers'
position is valid in certain contexts and under certain conditions. Thus
you attempt to get your reader to see the ways in which both sides can
agree on shared values, experiences, attitudes, and perceptions. This
form of argument features non-judgmental, genuine agreement with the opposition.
In fact, since it tries to avoid truly “oppositional” positions,
it can make consensus more likely. Thus, you may find this a useful form
for “arguing” when your real aim is negotiation.
· Introduce Issue. Provide any necessary background,
definition, or history, but be sure that you do so without using judgmental
or inflammatory terminology. Try to present the issue as fairly and objectively
as possible.
· Explore common ground. Begin by assuming that
your reader may disagree with your position. To make a Rogerian argument,
you’ll want to start by exploring the common ground you share with
the opposing point of view. You may try restating the opposition’s
point of view in ways that emphasize the similarities of positions rather
than the differences. However, in exploring this common ground, you must
state the opposing side of the issue fairly and objectively, so that the
reader sees that you are treating it with respect.
· Establish contexts and conditions. In the body
of a Rogerian argument, the writer gives an objective statement of her
or his position, again trying to avoid loaded and attacking language and
trying not to imply that this position is somehow morally superior to
any other position. The writer explains the contexts in which his or her
position is valid and explores how they differ from the opposing viewpoint.
Therefore, in this section, you acknowledge how the opposition’s
argument is also valid under certain conditions and contexts.
For instance, a pro-gun registration writer might note that gun collections
are frequent targets for thieves, and point out that registration might
help the owners retrieve such stolen property before it is used to commit
a crime. You should avoid implying that the opposition is wrong.
· Conclude with thesis and concessions. In your
conclusion, you finally presents your thesis, usually phrased in such
a way that you show the reader that you’ve made some concessions
toward the oppositional position. For instance, the gun registration writer
might concede that this law should only apply to new sales of handguns,
not to guns the audience already owns. By giving some ground, the writer
invites the audience to concede as well, and hopefully to reach an agreement
about the issue. Ask yourself if you have you tried to offer a solution
that encourages cooperation and compromise. If you can show in your conclusion
how the reader will benefit from adopting (at least to some degree) your
position, you create an even better chance that s/he will be persuaded.
Information from http://www.winthrop.edu/wcenter/handoutsandlinks/rogerian.htm
The Toulmin Argument
Many writers of arguments look to terminology developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin to describe the elements of an argumentative essay. To use this method to construct your argument, you must use logical structure, not in an attempt to prove any point, but in the hopes of convincing your readers of the validity of the points used in the argument. Using claim, because clause, grounds, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers, you attempt to convince the reader to accept the claim of the argument. (You can also use Toulmin criteria to check that your argument has all the key ingredients it needs to be successful.) Here are the main components of a Toulmin argument:
· Make a claim. (Many papers will include more
than one.) Within Toulmin’s schema, the writer must first choose
a topic and then form an opinion about the topic. This information is
written in one sentence, which is called the claim. (Ex: Standardized
tests are biased against female and minority students.) A because clause
is added to a claim as a reason that supports the claim. A claim (proposition,
thesis) answers the question "What point will your paper will try
to make?" or "What belief or opinion is are you defending?"
· Provide grounds for your claim: Grounds are
evidence in the form of facts, data, or any information that supports
the claim. To be credible to an audience, claims must usually be supported
with specific evidence. In a Toulmin argument, readers ask, "How
do you know that is true?" or "What is that based on?"
Such questions are challenging the writer to prove the claim with support.
Thus, grounds (or support) answer the question, “How do you know?”
· Explore the warrant for the claim. A warrant
is the unstated assumption underlying a claim--a value, belief, principle,
or perhaps the inferences or assumptions that are taken for granted by
the writer (and sometimes by the argument). Warrants connect (conspicuously
or inconspicuously) the claim and the support; they derive from our cultural
experiences and personal observations. [For instance, if over the last
five years, girls at Madison High have received higher grades than boys
in every subject and yet the Madison boys consistently score higher on
the SAT than the girls do, someone might claim that the SAT was biased
against girls. The warrant for this claim is the belief that something
must be preventing the girls from showing their academic excellence on
the SAT.]
· Provide backing for the warrant. Backing is
support for the warrant and answers the question, “Why do you believe
that?” Thus, you must provide additional evidence (in the form of
examples, facts and data) that helps to support the warrant and further
strengthen the claim. Depending upon your audience, this backing could
also include emotional appeals, quotations from famous people or recognized
experts, or statements based on the writer’s personal credibility.
[For example, in the argument on test bias, readers might expect to see
statistics that prove the test questions are biased, samples of misleading
questions, quotations from educators and testing experts, and testimony
from students who have taken such tests. All of these might be good kinds
of backing, depending on the identity of the audience.]
· Explore the rebuttal to the claim. A rebuttal
acknowledges the limitations of the claim. That is, you might acknowledge
that under some circumstances, the claim may not be true. Also, you should
consider the ways in which an opponent might dispute the reasons, grounds,
warrant, or the backing. [In order to defuse an audience’s potential
challenges, some writers use qualifiers to clarify their claims and protect
their credibility. Qualifiers are usually adverbs that modify the verb
in the claim or adjectives that modify a key noun; some common ones are
typically, usually, for the most part, some, several, few, and sometimes.
Use these qualifiers sparingly but appropriately. Acknowledging that the
claim may not be absolute protects you from having to prove that your
claim is true in every case. However, when you qualify your claim, you
make it easier to prove, but you also weaken it.]
Note: You cannot simply state the rebuttal. You must rebut the rebuttal!
If you can discredit the opposition’s counter-arguments by proving
that their logic is faulty, their support is weak or their warrants are
invalid, you have created a rebuttal that supports your own original position
and furthers your claim.
· End with a concession. Finally, a key point
in Toulmin arguments is the concession, which brings differing opinions
together by acknowledging a part of the opposing argument that cannot
be refuted. Conceding that an opposing point is valid and then building
upon it to further one's own claim allows a writer to make the audience
feel appreciated without giving up her or his own position.
Information from http://www.winthrop.edu/wcenter/handoutsandlinks/toulmin.htm