Argumentation, defined.
- Generally, argumentation is the process of explaining or organizing an argument. This is done by way of ordering discussions dealing with a contentious situation. It deals with the setting forth of reasons together with the conclusion drawn from them.
Argumentation, an art.
- Argumentation entails a lot of style. It is an art with an objective of convincing and persuading people.
- Convincing requires good reasoning. The one delivering the argument must lead the thoughts of his listeners to support with his point. In short, convincing power requires logic.
- On the other hand, persuading listeners requires the use of metaphorical words which pleases them. This requires the use of adjectives. Thus, the emotion of the listener should be taken into account when it comes to persuasion.
- Lastly, it should also be considered that too much use of logic or emblematic words can make one’s argument ineffective. A lack of logic will deprive an argument of reasoning; however, a lack of the use of these emblematic words will make an argument boring. Therefore, to make an effective argument, a balance of these two requisites should be critically regarded.
Why do we argue?
- As mentioned before, the main objectives of argumentation is to convince and persuade people. However, argumentation has also secondary objectives. Namely;
- First, we argue in order to convince the listener that our view is truer, expedient, practical to moral feelings and logical for them.
- Second, we argue to make the other side with opposite view uncomfortable.
- Lastly, we argue to drip the other side with an opposite view.
Below are guidelines which I cited from the work of a foreign author.
- Dr. Kari McBride, a professor in the University of a Women's Studies Department, provides some guidelines for argumentation.
- To produce a sustained argument (rather than a chaotic jumble or a five-paragraph essay), always use functional topic sentences and PIE.
- Functional topic sentences:
1. Tell the point of the paragraph and
2. Tell what that point has to do with the thesis
- Make sure that everything you discuss in the paragraph sticks to the topic of the paragraph. You may also find it helpful to end each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the point you've made.
- When you finish drafting your paper, string together all the topic sentences; they should summarize your argument. If they don't, fix the essay by moving paragraphs around, dividing up topics, or adding paragraphs where argumentative points are missing.
- You can use the strung-together topic sentences as a basis for your opening paragraph or thesis statement, if you're having trouble writing that.
- PIE is a method for effectively incorporating outside sources into your essay.
- Point: Make your argumentative point.
- Illustration: Illustrate the point with a quotation, example, reference to scholarly opinion, statistic.
- Explanation: Explain what the quote/example/statistic/opinion means in the context of your argument.
- Notice that a quote can never make your argumentative point for you; it can only illustrate a point you've already made. Also notice that there will always be twice as much of your ideas as of other people's and that you will never begin or end a paragraph with a quotation.
A Toulmin Model of Argument is provided which was cited from http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/toulmin2.htm.
- 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.
- The first triad of his model consists of three basic elements:
1. Ground
2. Warrant
3. Claim
1. A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.
- The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?"
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." - There are three basic types of claims:
- 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.
2. Grounds refer to the proof or evidence an arguer offers. Grounds answer the questions, "What is your proof?" or "How come?" or "Why?"
- Grounds 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." - Grounds can be based on:
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.
3. The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.
- The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the underlying reasoning that makes sense of the claim in light of the grounds.
- The warrant 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.
The second triad of the Toulmin model involves three additional elements:
1. Backing provides additional justification for the warrant.
- Backing usually consists of evidence to support the type of reasoning employed by the warrant.
2. 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
3. The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or limitations to the argument.
- The rebuttal admits to those circumstances or situations where the argument would not hold.
