I came, I saw, I learned.

Fallacies: Definition and Classification

2009-02-03T07:55:00.000-08:00

The knowledge on the different kinds of fallacies is essential for students of argumentation and debate. According to Francisco Africa, in his book on The Art of Argumentation and Debate, “A knowledge of the means of avoiding mistakes in inference will guide them in arriving at valid conclusions and in detecting the weakness of arguments of their opponents.”

Fallacies are generally classified into (1) rhetorical fallacies and (2) logical fallacies. If it involves errors of understanding or of interpretation, it refers to rhetorical fallacies. On the other hand, if it merely involves errors in reasoning, it refers to logical fallacies.

For further presentation, an outline is presented on the general classification and sub-classifications of these fallacies with their definitions and examples.

I. Rhetorical fallacies – These are also called hermeneutic fallacies.

1. Incorrect obversion – this arises when, in changing the original proposition from affirmative to negative or from negative to affirmative, the meaning of the original proposition is changed.

Example: a. All members of the Philippine Senate are Filipino citizens.
b. No members of the Philippine Senate are Filipino citizens.

Note: In order to avoid this fallacy, the change should be effected in the predicate.

Correct: b. No members of the Philippine Senate are aliens.

2. Incorrect conversion – This arises when in the transposition of the subject and the predicate the meaning of the original proposition is changed.

Example: a. All contracts give rise to obligations.
b. All obligations arise from contracts.

Note: If a term is not distributed in the original proposition but it is distributed in the second proposition, this fallacy arises.

Correct: b. Some obligations arise from contracts.

3. The fallacy of accent – This is committed when the meaning of a proposition is misinterpreted on account of a misplaced accent or emphasis on a term.

Example: We should be merciful to our neighbors.

Note: An emphasis on the word neighbors may imply that we may not be merciful to those who are not our neighbors.

4. The fallacy of amphibology – This arises on account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which gives rise to miscomprehension.

Example: Do not bring the newspapers to your room. It might disturb other residents.

Note: Was it the newspapers that might disturb other residents or you?

II. Logical fallacies - These are errors in inferring.

A. Formal fallacies – Those that rise from violations of the syllogism. This arises to a mistake of inference.

1. Formal fallacies in categorical syllogisms – These are committed when the rules of syllogism are violated.

a. The fallacy of four terms – This fallacy is committed when more than three terms are used in the syllogism.
Example: Filipinos are orientals;
French are Europeans;
.·. Filipinos are Europeans.

b. The fallacy of undistributed middle – This fallacy is committed when the rule of the syllogism, which says that the middle term must be distributed at least once, is violated.

Example: Cat is a noun;
A cat eats mice;
.·. A noun eats mice.

c. The fallacy of illicit major – This fallacy arises when the major term is distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the major premise.

Example: Men are human beings;
Women are not men;
.·. Women are not human beings.

d. The fallacy of illicit minor – This fallacy is a violation of the rule that the minor term should not be distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the minor premise.

Example: All cows are animals;
All cows eat grass;
.·. All animals eat grass.

e. The fallacy of negative premises – When the premises are both negative, the fallacy of negative premises occurs.

Example: A star is not a planet.
A comet is not a planet.
(No conclusion.)

f. The fallacy of particular premises – This fallacy is committed when the two premises of the syllogism are both particular.

Example: Some government officials are truthful to the public.
Some government officials are not transparent to the public.
(No conclusion.)

2. Formal fallacies in disjunctive syllogism – This arises from the use of the disjunctive syllogism.

a. Alternatives not mutually exclusive – This arises when the use of one of the alternatives does not preclude the use of the other.

Example: He is either a non-believer or an atheist;
He is not an atheist;
.·. He is a non-believer.

b. Possibilities not exhaustive – When the possibilities used in the predicate of the disjunctive major premise are not exhaustive, this fallacy arises.

Example: Senator A is either a Nacionalista or a Liberal;
Senator A is not a Nacionalista;
.·.Senator A is Liberal.

3. Formal fallacies in hypothetical syllogism – This arises from the use of hypothetical syllogism.

a. The fallacy of denying the antecedent – This fallacy is committed when the minor premise denies the antecedent of the major premise.

Example: If Mr. X will pass the bar, he will be happy;
Mr. X did not pass the bar;
.·.Mr. X will not be happy.

b. The fallacy of affirming the consequent – This fallacy arises when the minor premise affirms the consequent.

Example: If Ms. Y graduated with honors, she will be admitted in this university;

Ms. Y was admitted in this university;

.·. She graduated with honors.

B. Material fallacies – These arise, not from the violations of the rules of the syllogism, but from the confusion in the connotation or denotation of the terms used or from a faulty assumption of facts.

1. The fallacies of equivocation – This arises from the assumption that what is true of a term used in one sense is also of the same term used in other sense.

a. Fallacies of quantity – These fallacies arises when we assert that what is true of a whole taken collectively is true of a part taken individually or that what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively.

1.) The fallacy of composition – This is sometimes called as false synthesis. This a fallacy in which we assert that what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively.

Example: This is an excellent class;
A, B, C and D are members of this class;
.·.A, B, C and D are excellent.

2.) The fallacy of division – This is a fallacy of quantity which arises when we assert that what is true of the whole taken collectively is true of a part taken singly.

Example: Makati is a prosperous city;
Mr. X lives in Makati;
.·.Mr. X is prosperous.

b. Fallacy of quality – This arises from the confusion in the attributes connoted by terms used in the proposition.

1.) The fallacy of simple accident – This fallacy is committed when we argue from genus to species, from essence to accident, from abstract to concrete, from conferentia to differentia.

Example: Paper is good for binding books;
My notebook is made of paper;
.·.My notebook is good for binding books.

2.) The fallacy of converse accident – This fallacy arises when in the major premise we use a term in its specific term, that is, in its narrower connotation, and in the minor premise we use the same term in its generic sense; that is, in its broader meaning.

Example: Opium acts as a poison in the human body;
Dr. X prescribes opium for his patients;
.·.Dr. X poisons his patients.

3.) The fallacy of specific accident – This is often called the fallacy of ambiguous middle.

Example: All criminals must be sent to prison;
Attorney Z is a criminal lawyer;
.·.Attorney Z must be sent to prison.

2. The fallacies of presumption – These arise when the disputant assumes, without presenting evidence or argument, the truth of the conclusion which it is his duty to prove.

a. Begging the question – This is often called petition principii.

1.) Assumptio non-probata – This means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise. This arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as the means of proving it.

Example: All rapists should be sentenced with death penalty;
Mr. A is a rapist.
.·.Mr. A should be sentenced with death penalty.

2.) Circulus in probando – This is often called arguing in a circle. This arises when the arguer uses to unproved propositions, each to establish the validity of the order.

Example: Your answer is correct because it is my answer.

b. The fallacy of ignorantio elenchi – This is also called irrelevant conclusion. This is committed when the disputant brushes aside or ignores the real question at issue and attempts to prove something which has no bearing on the question under discussion.

1.) Argumentum ad hominem – This is committed when the debater befogs the issue, thus evading the arguments of his opponent, and instead directs his attack at the character, personality, or belief of his adversary.

Example: During the campaign for the presidency of the Philippines, where the candidates were Manuel Roxas and Sergio Osmeña, a group of electors discussed the merits of the two candidates. A hunchback was discussing the merits of Sergio Osmeña, while a tall man with with pock-marked face was extolling Manuel Roxas. The people assembled were applauding the hunchback. Exasperated, the tall man shouted at the top of his voice: “How can I expect straight arguments from a crooked body?”

2.) Argumentum ad populum – This is committed when the disputant evades the real question and appeals to the passions or prejudices of his hearers.

Example: On the question that Philippine retail trade should be nationalized, a speaker, ignoring the real question, inflamed his hearers by picturing the Chinese as a vicious, corrupt, bribe-giving, and communist-inclined race.

3.) Argumentum ad ignorantiam – This is committed when the debater ignores the question at issue, and asserts that a case that he has not yet established is good, because his opponent cannot disprove it.

Example: I maintain that this is a straight line, because no one among you can prove that it is crooked.

4.) Argumentum ad verecundiam – Literally, this fallacy means an argument to that which inspires reverence. This is committed when the debater contends that what he alleges is valid because it is supported by a person who commands respect and reverence.

Example: When a debater maintains that his stand on a proposition is valid because he used the view of a person recognized not as an authority but because his name commands the respect and reverence of his audience.

5.) Argumentum ad judicium – This is committed when the debater ignores the real question and maintains that his contention is valid, because people in general believe it to be so.

Example: A certain University with seven thousand students used to advertise in this way: “Seven thousand students cannot be wrong.”

6.) Argumentum ad baculum – It is committed when a debater ignores the real question and appeals to force rather than reason.

Example: When a suitor fails to win the hand of a girl in courtship, he appeals to force by abducting her.

7.) Argumentum ex concession – This is an argument from a previous admission. This arises when the disputant ignores the real question and asserts that his contention is valid because his opponent has previously admitted it to be so.

c. The fallacy of complex question – This is sometimes called fallacious question. It arises when a debater asks a question that implies the truth of an assumption.

Example: A defendant in a civil action for alimony, while on the stand, was asked by the opposing counsel the following question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

d. The fallacy of non sequitur – Non sequitur is a Latin term which means it does not follow. In this fallacy, the debater draws a conclusion from a premise, without showing a valid connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion.

1.) Simple sequitur – This arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and the effect.

Example: Maria is the most beautiful girl in our university; therefore, she should be given a scholarship abroad.

2.) False cause – This fallacy arises when the debater assumes that since one occurrence precedes another in point of time, that event is the cause of the one that follows.

Example: After the United Nations was organized on October 24, 1945, the Communists became dominant in China; and Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. In Indo-China, the communist serpent began to raise its ugly head. In the Philippines, the Huks became more defiant of the duly constituted authorities. Therefore, the attempt of civilized man to establish permanent world peace has incited a great portion of mankind to plunge it into chaos.

Source: The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa

The Issue on Charter Change and My Stand

2008-12-29T21:56:00.000-08:00

What is cha-cha?

The issue on Charter Change is not new to us. I’ve heard this issue before when I was at my elementary days during the time of Pres. Ramos. I didn’t know its meaning back then. But now, apparently, I can answer the question that puzzled my mind before. What is Charter Change?

Charter Change or popularly known as “cha-cha” in the Philippines is the act of amending or revising the provisions of the current 1987 Philippine Constitution. Article XVII of this current constitution states that it can be amended or revised in three different methods: first, through a Constitutional Convention that is popularly elected; second, through a Constituent Assembly composed of both Houses of Congress; and third, via a ‘People’s Initiative’, which requires the support of 12 per cent of the total registered voters in the country and at least 3 per cent of the voters in each legislative district. This article also states that any amendment or revision under any of those three modes shall be valid after the ratification by the majority of Filipinos casting their votes in a plebiscite.

People’s awareness on the proposed amendments or revisions.

In Lambino vs. COMELEC, October 25, 2006, when the issue was first revived during Pres. Arroyo’s administration, the Supreme Court voted 8-7 to throw out the people’s initiative petition for cha-cha. From the report of Fidel Jimenez, GMANews.Tv, it appeared that a lot of Filipino voters did not know what the proposed changes to our current constitution are. The SWS survey noted that 73 percent of respondents did not know the nature of the proposed people’s initiative sought by Sigaw ng Bayan.

If this the same issue still exists in the new proposal of cha-cha then how can I agree in revising or amending the present constitution if the voters who will ratify it are not even aware on what amendments and revisions are being proposed?

Issue on Pres. Arroyo’s hidden plot.

One of the main contentions of the anti-cha-cha politicians and ordinary citizens is that Pres. Arroyo is just making this move to extend her term beyond 2010. I cannot blame them for that idea.

The Arroyo administration went through a lot of controversies involving deception, fraud and corruption. I believe these led to the distrust of a lot of people to the current administration. Therefore, for me, it is not the right time for the revival of the issue on charter change.

Risks involved in changing a Republican form of government into a Federal form.

According to Philippine Press Secretary Jesus Dureza, Pres. Arroyo was supporting a Senate resolution introduced by Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. seeking to turn the two chambers of Congress into a constituent assembly to amend the 1987 Constitution and adopt a federal system of government.

For me, the only risk involved in changing the current form of government into a federal form is that we have not tried it in our country yet and in effect it might not work out. However, this risk was minimized for other Nations in Europe with the United States and Canada adopted this form of government and it is proven that countries having this form of government have been succeeding in their respective political and economic undertakings.

My conclusion.

I believe that a change in our charter would improve our government and our country. However, this change must be done at the right time with public awareness.

Right time does not only involve the change of administration, from Pres. Arroyo’s to the next. For me, right time includes the attitude of our leaders, which leads to their capability. If deception, fraud and corruption are still rampant in their administration, then the leader running that administration is not capable. I also believe in the saying, “If you want to change the world then start the change in your self.”

Therefore, before changing the kind of charter that we currently have, we must exert our efforts first in changing the kind of leaders that we have.

Forensics Research Plan

2008-12-19T03:53:00.000-08:00

Hi Groupmates. Save a copy of this schedule. This is our schedule for our activities regarding our Moot Court.

Ayaw mo saba ani sa ubang groups ha kay mahibaw an nila atong plano. Hehehe

December 21-january 4

Read the Moot Court Problem at least 5 times and research the assigned topics including Laws and Jurisprudence.
Internalize the Moot Problem.
Make all possible arguments and relate it to the facts based on laws and jurisprudence you have researched.

January 5

Submission of output.

January 6-10

Make an Outline of the Arguments you have researched.
Internalize what you have researched and made.

Januray 10 (after our class in Crim Law 2)

Present your output to the rest of the members.

January 12

Submit our output.

January 13-17

Compile all arguments.
Research on how to make Memorials.
Internalize all arguments.

January 17(after our class in Crim Law 2)

Present your output to the rest of the group.

January 19

Submit our output.

January 20-24

Make the Memorials and internalize its content.

January 24

Finalize the Memorial made.

January 26

Submission of the memorials.

January 27-31

Oralists prepare your speech.
The rest of the group, prepare your questions regarding the memorial and supply its suggested answers.

January31-February 1

Practice for the Judgment Day.

February 2

JUDGMENT DAY :D

Note:

o Authority of the President to enter into international agreements; extent of such power and authority -Tito

o Authority of the Senate to concur in international agreements entered into by the President; extent of such power and authority-Vircel

o Right to information: extent, effects of violation thereof-Franz

o Right to participate in decision-making: extent, effects of violation thereof-Primo

o Right to a balanced and healthful ecology: extent, effects of violation thereof-Norcka

o Effect of conflict between an international trade agreement and the Constitution-Jeff

o Effect of conflict between an international trade agreement and Philippine law-Yntig

o Effects of conflict between an international trade agreement and an international environmental agreement, both of which the Philippines is a signatory to -Tito and Vircel

Opposite: The Obama-McCain Debate

2008-12-11T05:25:00.000-08:00

This is the first time that I’ve witnessed a debate between two presidential candidates. For me, the final debate between the presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama is quite good. If compared to contest debates, their debate is similar to a Lincoln-Douglas debate type where there is only one speaker on each side, John McCain and Barack Obama, and they alternately delivered their explanations and solutions regarding the different issues and problems that their country is currently facing.
In my opinion, McCain’s aggressiveness during the final debate did not bring him any good perception to the public. It was like he was trying to pick a fight against Obama. Though it was a good tactic, it failed to work against Obama. On the other hand, Obama answered and discussed the issues decently and confidently.
Though I could not say that the overall substance of both candidates’ explanations is perfect, for me it is still remarkable. It’s just so sad to say that most of us, the public, judge that debate not by substance but by the candidates’ character perception and style. Obama’s clear and direct answers to the issues, his firm and strong voice, and his eye contact to the public through the camera against McCain’s aggressiveness and claim that he has the experience and he is more knowledgeable than Obama. Who do you think have won the final debate, the old and hot, white one or the young and cool, black one? If you’ll ask me that question, there is no need for me to give my answer because it’s quite obvious who I declared as the winner.

From the work of Gil Kaufman entitled “Barack Obama And John McCain's Final Debate Decoded: Health Care, Abortion, Plumbers And More”
Here’s a breakdown of some of the most important topics discussed by the candidates according to Kaufman.
The Competing Bailout Plans
McCain: On top of the $750 billion plan passed by Congress, McCain proposed a $52 billion plan this week that would cut taxes on capital gains (the profit from the sale of stocks or real estate, which not many people are making these days anyway), provide tax breaks for senior citizens tapping into their retirement accounts, and cut taxes on unemployment benefits.
Obama: His $60 billion plan focuses on tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans, as well as investment in renewable-energy industries and rebuilding the country's crumbling infrastructure.

Charter Schools and Education
McCain: Like Obama, McCain said he sees education as a national-security issue and thinks school choice and competition is critical to closing the achievement gap. He wants to reward good teachers and dump bad ones, give college students loan-repayment programs that are more reasonable and offer a full student-loan program for in-state tuition.
Obama: He supports charter schools — elementary and secondary schools that are an alternative to public education and sometimes provide a specialized curriculum — and performance-based pay for teachers. He wants to invest in early childhood education, recruit a "new generation" of teachers with higher pay and make college affordable by offering a $4,000 tuition credit to students for every year of school in exchange for community service. Obama disagrees with McCain on giving out vouchers as a solution to the education problem and questioned how McCain was going to pay for lowering college-loan rates.

Who's Really Helping 'Joe the Plumber'?
McCain: He claimed that Obama's tax increases would make it so Joe Wurzelbacher would be unable to buy the business he's had his eye on for many years.
Obama: He repeated that his plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans making less than $250,000, but it was unclear if it would make it impossible for Joe to buy the business.

Abortion
McCain: Staunchly anti-abortion, he said he believes Roe v. Wade is a "bad decision" and that it should be up to the states to decide the abortion question but that he would not impose an abortion "litmus test" on potential Supreme Court justices. McCain said Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois Senate on partial-birth abortion and late-term abortion put him in league with the "extreme pro-abortion" position.
Obama: A pro-choice supporter, Obama also said he would not apply a litmus test to a justice based on the abortion issue but that he thought Roe was a good decision. He said the Constitution has a right to privacy built into it, so the issue "shouldn't be subject to a state referendum." Obama explained his Illinois Senate votes by saying that to vote otherwise would have undermined Roe and that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required lifesaving treatment. He said he supports a ban on late-term and partial-birth abortions, as long as there is an exception for the health and life of the mother.

What Is ACORN?

McCain: He claimed that the nearly 40-year-old organization that advocates on behalf of low- and middle-income families is on the "verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." He was referring to allegations that the people hired by the organization in several swing states to register new voters had submitted tens of thousands of bogus names. He also questioned an $832,000 payment from the Obama campaign to ACORN for "lighting and site selection."
Obama: The senator said the organization has nothing to do with his campaign and that his only involvement with them was representing ACORN alongside the U.S. Justice Department in helping implement a "motor voter" registration plan in Illinois.
Controlling Health Care Costs
McCain: He proposes physical-fitness and nutrition programs for schools, rewards for employees who join health clubs and a $5,000 refundable tax credit that would allow you to go anywhere you want to find the right program for you. McCain claims Obama's plan will create a huge bureaucracy, mandating coverage and fining those who don't sign up.
Obama: He claims that if you have health insurance already, you don't have to do anything and that his plan would cut the average family's premium by $2,500 a year. If you don't have coverage, you would be eligible for the same plan members of Congress enjoy. He denies there will be fines for small businesses and claims McCain's $5,000 credit is fine for young, healthy Americans, but with the average policy priced at $12,000, the credit will actually provide a loss for many.

Effective Communication Through Argumentation

2008-11-22T06:15:00.000-08:00

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.