Models of Argumentation

The Classical/Aristotlean Approach

Source 1:
The classical approach to argument is a model of argumentation invented by the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. It is best used when the purpose of
your argument is to persuade your audience to agree with your point of view, take your side on an issue, or make a decision in your favor. The classical
approach/Aristotelian model relies heavily on the use of ethos, pathos, and logos appeals.
The following is the typical organization pattern for this approach:
Introduction
State your case--Clarify your issue. Give any necessary background for understanding the issues. Define any important terms of conditions here.
Propostion--State your central proposition or thesis. Present the subtopics or supportive points to forecast your argument for your reader.
Refutation--Analyze the opposition's argument and summarize it; refute or address the points; point out faulty reasoning and inappropriate appeals.
Substantiation and Proof--Develop your own case. Use ethos, pathos, and logos appeals to make your case. Use good evidence such as examples.
Conclusion
Source 2:
The Classical Argument
One of the oldest organizing devices in rhetoric is the classical argument, which incorporates the five parts of a discourse that ancient teachers of
rhetoric believed were necessary for persuasion, especially when the audience included a mixture of reactions from favorable to hostile. They often
prescribed this order to students, not because it was absolutely ideal, but because using the scheme encouraged the writer to take account of some of
the most important elements of composing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

beginning in an interesting way

providing background or context that was relevant to their specific audience
stating their claims and evidence clearly and emphatically
taking account of opposing viewpoints and anticipating objections
and concluding in a satisfying and effective way.

The classical argument isnt a cookie-cutter template: simply filling in the parts does not by itself make you successful. But if you use the structure as a
way to make sure you cover all the needs of all parts of your audience, you will find it a very useful heuristic for developing effective arguments.
The classical argument traditionally consists of five parts:
1. Introduction

attract the interest of a specific audience and focus it on the subject of the argument.

provide enough background information to make sure that the audience is aware of both the general problem as well as the specific issue or
issues the writer is addressing

it must clearly signal the writers specific position on the issue and/or the direction of her/his argument. Usually a classical argument has a
written thesis statement early in the paperusually in the first paragraph or two.

It must establish the writers role or any special relationship the writer may have to the subject or the audience (i.e. why do you care?) It
should also establish the image of the writer (the ethos) that he/she wants to project in the argument: caring, aggressive, passionate, etc.
2. Confirmation
What are the arguments that support my thesis that my audience is most likely to respond to?
What arguments that support my thesis is my audience least likely to respond to?
How can I demonstrate that these are valid arguments?
What kind of inartistic proofs does my audience respect and respond well to?
Where can I find the facts and testimony that will support my arguments?
What kinds of artistic proofs will help reinforce my position?
3. Concession
You want to concede any points that you would agree on or that will make your audience more willing to listen to you (as long as they dont fatally
weaken your own side).
Here is a place to use both pathos and ethos: by conceding those matters of feeling and values that you can agree on, while stressing the character
issues, you can create the opportunity for listening and understanding.
4.Refutation
You will also have to refute (that is, counter or out-argue) the points your opposition will make. You can do this in four ways:

Show by the use of facts, reasons, and testimony that the opposing point is totally wrong. You must show that the opposing argument is based
on incorrect evidence, questionable assumptions, bad reasoning, prejudice, superstition, or ill will.
Show that the opposition has some merit but is flawed in some way. For instance, the opposing viewpoint may be true only in some
circumstances or within a limited sphere of application, or it may only apply to certain people, groups, or conditions. When you point out the
exceptions to the opposition rule, you show that its position is not as valid as its proponents claim it is.
Show that the opposition has merits but is outweighed by other considerations. You are claiming, in essence, that truth is relative: when a
difficult choice has to be made, we must put first things first. For instance, you may say that its undesirable for young girls to have abortions,
but when girls as young as ten become pregnant, theyre too young to take on the burdens of motherhood and must not be forced to carry the
pregnancy to term. Or you may say that yes, its true that my proposal to halt global warming, but consider the costs if we do not undertake it,
or how much the price will go up if we wait to undertake it.
Show that the reasoning used by the opposition is flawed: in other words, that it contains logical fallacies.

What are the most important opposing arguments? What concessions can I make and still support my thesis adequately?
How can I refute opposing arguments or minimize their significance?
What are the possible objections to my own position?
What are the possible ways someone can misunderstand my own position?
How can I best deal with these objections and misunderstandings?
5. Conclusion
Too many times classical arguments dont closethey just stop, as if the last page is missing. And this sense of incompleteness leaves readers
dissatisfied and sometimes less likely to accept your argument. So spending a little extra time to round the conclusion out is almost always worthwhile in
making the argument more successful.
How can I best leave a strong impression of the rightness and importance of my view?
How can I best summarize or exemplify the most important elements of my argument?
What is the larger significance of the argument? What long-range implications will have the most resonance with my readers?
How can I bring the argument full circle and leave my readers satisfied with the ending of my argument?

Key Points:
A common, accepted order of parts, which help you to structure your argument.
Require concession, yet affirmation.
Places the argument in a rhetorical mode, which has a beginning and an end (intro/conclusion) which the other types do not.
A way of thinking to help you cover the needs of your audience.
Exit question:

ARISTOTLE
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was born circa 384 B.C. in Stagira, Greece. When he turned 17, he enrolled in Platos Academy. In 338, he began
tutoring Alexander the Great. In 335, Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, in Athens, where he spent most of the rest of his life studying,
teaching and writing. Aristotle died in 322 B.C., after he left Athens and fled to Chalcis.
Early Life
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was born circa 384 B.C. in Stagira, a small town on the northern coast of Greece that was once a seaport. Aristotles
father, Nicomachus, was court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas II. Although Nicomachus died when Aristotle was just a young boy, Aristotle
remained closely affiliated with and influenced by the Macedonian court for the rest of his life. Little is known about his mother, Phaestis; she is also
believed to have died when Aristotle was young.
After Aristotles father died, Proxenus of Atarneus, who was married to Aristotles older sister, Arimneste, became Aristotles guardian until he came of
age. When Aristotle turned 17, Proxenus sent him to Athens to pursue a higher education. At the time, Athens was considered the academic center of
the universe. In Athens, Aristotle enrolled in Platos Academy, Greeks premier learning institution, and proved an exemplary scholar. Aristotle maintained
a relationship with Greek philosopher Plato, himself a student of Socrates, and his academy for two decades. Plato died in 347 B.C. Because Aristotle
had disagreed with some of Platos philosophical treatises, Aristotle did not inherit the position of director of the academy, as many imagined he would.
After Plato died, Aristotles friend Hermias, king of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia, invited Aristotle to court. During his three-year stay in Mysia, Aristotle
met and married his first wife, Pythias, Hermias niece. Together, the couple had a daughter, Pythias, named after her mother.
Teaching
In 338 B.C., Aristotle went home to Macedonia to start tutoring King Phillip IIs son, the then 13-year-old Alexander the Great. Phillip and Alexander both
held Aristotle in high esteem and ensured that the Macedonia court generously compensated him for his work.
In 335 B.C., after Alexander had succeeded his father as king and conquered Athens, Aristotle went back to the city. In Athens, Platos Academy, now
run by Xenocrates, was still the leading influence on Greek thought. With Alexanders permission, Aristotle started his own school in Athens, called the
Lyceum. On and off, Aristotle spent most of the remainder of his life working as a teacher, researcher and writer at the Lyceum in Athens.
Because Aristotle was known to walk around the school grounds while teaching, his students, forced to follow him, were nicknamed the Peripatetics,
meaning people who travel about. Lyceum members researched subjects ranging from science and math to philosophy and politics, and nearly
everything in between. Art was also a popular area of interest. Members of the Lyceum wrote up their findings in manuscripts. In so doing, they built the
schools massive collection of written materials, which by ancient accounts was credited as one of the first great libraries.
In the same year that Aristotle opened the Lyceum, his wife Pythias died. Soon after, Aristotle embarked on a romance with a woman named Herpyllis,
who hailed from his hometown of Stagira. According to some historians, Herpyllis may have been Aristotles slave, granted to him by the Macedonia
court. They presume that he eventually freed and married her. Regardless, it is known that Herpyllis bore Aristotle children, including one son named
Nicomachus, after Aristotles father. Aristotle is believed to have named his famed philosophical work Nicomachean Ethics in tribute to his son.
When Aristotles former student Alexander the Great died suddenly in 323 B.C., the pro-Macedonian government was overthrown, and in light of antiMacedonia sentiment, Aristotle was charge with impiety. To avoid being prosecuted, he left Athens and fled to Chalcis on the island of Euboea, where he
would remain until his death.
Science
Although Aristotle was not technically a scientist by todays definitions, science was among the subjects that he researched at length during his time at
the Lyceum. Aristotle believed that knowledge could be obtained through interacting with physical objects. He concluded that objects were made up of a
potential that circumstances then manipulated to determine the objects outcome. He also recognized that human interpretation and personal
associations played a role in our understanding of those objects.
Aristotles research in the sciences included a study of biology. He attempted, with some error, to classify animals into genera based on their similar
characteristics. He further classified animals into species based on those that had red blood and those that did not. The animals with red blood were
mostly vertebrates, while the bloodless animals were labeled cephalopods. Despite the relative inaccuracy of his hypothesis, Aristotles classification
was regarded as the standard system for hundreds of years.
Marine biology was also an area of fascination for Aristotle. Through dissection, he closely examined the anatomy of marine creatures. In contrast to his
biological classifications, his observations of marine life, as expressed in his books, are considerably more accurate.
As evidenced in his treatise Meteorology, Aristotle also dabbled in the earth sciences. By meteorology, Aristotle didnt simply mean the study of weather.
His more expansive definition of meteorology included all the affectations we may call common to air and water, and the kinds and parts of the earth
and the affectations of its parts. In Meteorology, Aristotle identified the water cycle and discussed topics ranging from natural disasters to astrological
events. Although many of his views on the Earth were controversial at the time, they were readopted and popularized during the late Middle Ages.
Philosophy
One of the main focuses of Aristotles philosophy was his systematic concept of logic. Aristotles objective was to come up with a universal process of
reasoning that would allow man to learn every conceivable thing about reality. The initial process involved describing objects based on their
characteristics, states of being and actions. In his philosophical treatises, Aristotle also discussed how man might next obtain information about objects
through deduction and inference. To Aristotle, a deduction was a reasonable argument in which when certain things are laid down, something else
follows out of necessity in virtue of their being so. His theory of deduction is the basis of what philosophers now call a syllogism, a logical argument
where the conclusion is inferred from two or more other premises of a certain form.
In his book Prior Analytics, Aristotle explains the syllogism as a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the
things supposed results of necessity because these things are so. Aristotle defined the main components of reasoning in terms of inclusive and
exclusive relationships. These sorts of relationships were visually grafted in the future through the use of Venn diagrams.
Aristotles philosophy not only provided man with a system of reasoning, but also touched upon ethics. In Nichomachean Ethics, he prescribed a moral
code of conduct for what he called good living. He asserted that good living to some degree defied the more restrictive laws of logic, since the real
world poses circumstances that can present a conflict of personal values. That said, it was up to the individual to reason cautiously while developing his
or her own judgment.
Major Writings
Aristotle wrote an estimated 200 works, most in the form of notes and manuscript drafts. They consist of dialogues, records of scientific observations and
systematic works. His student Theophrastus reportedly looked after Aristotles writings and later passed them to his own student Neleus, who stored
them in a vault to protect them from moisture until they were taken to Rome and used by scholars there. Of Aristotles estimated 200 works, only 31 are
still in circulation. Most date to Aristotles time at the Lyceum.
Aristotles major writings on logic include Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics. In them, he discusses his system for
reasoning and for developing sound arguments.

Aristotles written work also discussed the topics of matter and form. In his book Metaphysics, he clarified the distinction between the two. To Aristotle,
matter was the physical substance of things, while form was the unique nature of a thing that gave it its identity.
Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics are Aristotles major treatises on the behavior and judgment that constitute good living. In Politics, Aristotle
examined human behavior in the context of society and government.
Aristotle also composed a number of works on the arts, including Rhetoric, and science, including On the Heavens, which was followed by On the Soul,
in which Aristotle moves from discussing astronomy to examining human psychology. Aristotles writings about how people perceive the world continue
to underlie many principles of modern psychology.
Death and Legacy
In 322 B.C., just a year after he fled to Chalcis to escape prosecution under charges of impiety, Aristotle contracted a disease of the digestive organs
and died. In the century following his passing, his works fell out of use, but were revived during the first century. Over time, they came to lay the
foundation of more than seven centuries of philosophy. Solely regarding his influence on philosophy, Aristotles work influenced ideas from late antiquity
all the way through the Renaissance. Aristotles influence on Western thought in the humanities and social sciences is largely considered unparalleled,
with the exception of his teacher Platos contributions, and Platos teacher Socrates before him. The two-millennia-strong academic practice of
interpreting and debating Aristotles philosophical works continues to endure.

The Toulmin Approach

Source 1:
This model of argument was developed by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin. The Toulmin Model is especially helpful when you try to make a
case on controversial issues that do not have an absolute truth as the Toulmin Model seeks to establish probabilities rather than truth.
The following is a typical organization for the Toulmin Model:
Claims--There're several different types of claims: claims of fact, claims of definition, claims of cause, claims of value, and claims of policy. You can use
any one or more of these claims to introduce your issue and to establish your case.
Data--Information you use to support your claims.
Warrant--The assumption made by a writer in order for the claim to be true.
Backing--What you use to support the warrant.
Rebuttal--This is where you consider the opposing viewpoint and refute it.
Qualifer--Use language that seeks to qualify the claims you make in order to bring your argument to a close.
Source 2:
Toulmin Argument
Toulmin arguments are PRACTICAL rather than theoretical or philosophical arguments, and thus work well with common, everyday situations.
Theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim. (Aristotle, Plato, etc.)
Practical arguments reverse the order--first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it.
Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already
existing ideas by trying to justify them.
How to Build a Toulmin Argument:
The first three elements, claim, data, and warrant, are considered as the essential components of practical arguments,
The next three, qualifier, backing, and rebuttal, may not be needed in some arguments.
Start with a Claim, a conclusion whose merit must be established.
Claim A: No unhealthy drinks should be sold on campus.
Claim B: I am an American citizen.
Next, provide Evidence or Data, a fact one appeals to as a foundation for the claim. (Often multiple evidence is required.)
Soda pop or coffee drinks are unhealthy.
I was born in California.
Then formulate the Warrant, or a statement authorizing movement from the data to the claim. The warrant is the assumption on which the claim and the
evidence depend. Warrants can be implied (unstated) or explicit (directly stated). Which is stronger, and has more ethical appeal?
Warrant 1) People on this campus drink soda pop or coffee, which damages their health. Warrant 2) The school should not sell things which damages a
persons health.
In order to move from the data, I was born in California, to the claim, I am an American, the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between
data and claim with the statement A man born in California will legally be an American.
Backing = Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant.
Backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. Backing defends the warrant, or the
assumption.
Do you need some kind of backing to show that a man born in California will legally be an American, or is the warrant enough?
Do you need backing to show people on this campus drink soda or coffee? Do you need backing to demonstrate that a school should not sell things
which damage a person's health?
Rebuttal = statements recognizing the restrictions which may legitimately be applied to the claim.
A man born in CA will legally be an American citizen, unless he has betrayed the USA and has become a spy of another country; or if he is born on the
foreign soil of an embassy, or if he renounces US citizenship.
Qualifier = Words or phrases expressing the speakers degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. They express how strong you judge your claim
to be.
Such words or phrases include probably, possible, certainly, some, always, never, usually, as far as the evidence goes, etc.
Do we need a qualifer for "I am an American citizen" (such as most likely, or almost certainly?)
Do we need qualifiers for "no unhealthy drinks should be sold on campus."
*****
Claim: You should buy our tooth-whitening product.
Data: Studies show that teeth are 50% whiter after using the product for a specified time.
Warrant: <People want whiter teeth.>
When you research both sides of a question, you may find yourself being convinced first by one side, and then by the other
Each argument sounds good--at least while you are reading it. When you read an argument which takes an opposite position--that sounds good too, and
soon you may feel completely confused.
By identifying the parts of an argument so each can be evaluated separately, Toulmin created a very useful model for analyzing the validity of an
argument. Submit each source you study to rigorous Toulmin analysis:
Identify each argument's claims, data, and warrants.
Look for qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing for the warrants.
Compare one claim with another. Compare data between the two arguments.

Compare warrants and their backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals.

By analyzing the separate parts of an argument, you'll be much better equipped to evaluate each argument's validity. Then, as you begin to write, use
Toulmin's methods to submit your own argument to the same rigorous analysis.
Test yourself on the Toulmin argument
Another nice little test
Key points:
Practical arguments--how real people argue, not the syllogisms of philosophers.
Begin with a claim, then justify the claim (i.e. defend the reasoning by which one arrives at the claim)
Toulmin is good for testing ideas and argument analysis (since they require the justification of every step of thought).
Data, Claim and Warrant are always needed, and should always be stated clearly (in writing an argument or analyzing another)
Qualifiers, Backing and Rebuttals may not be needed, but should be considered.
Toulmin arguments are a very useful tool for argument analysis.
Toulmin arguments are good for real arguments, about real things argued about by real people.
Not so much bridging the gap, but probing, carefully testing how you think of a claim, until you are satisfied by the truth and strength of the claim.

STEPHEN TOULMIN
Stephen Edelston Toulmin (/tulmn/; 25 March 1922 4 December 2009) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Influenced by Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning. Throughout his writings, he sought to develop practical arguments which can
be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical
arguments. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments, was considered his
most influential work, particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication, and in computer science.
Biography
Stephen Toulmin was born in London, UK, on 25 March 1922 to Geoffrey Edelson Toulmin and Doris Holman Toulmin.[a] He earned his Bachelor of Arts
degree from King's College, Cambridge in 1942, where he was a Cambridge Apostle. Soon after, Toulmin was hired by the Ministry of Aircraft Production
as a junior scientific officer, first at the Malvern Radar Research and Development Station and later at the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied
Expeditionary Force in Germany. At the end of World War II, he returned to England to earn a Master of Arts degree in 1947 and a PhD in philosophy
from Cambridge University, subsequently publishing his dissertation as An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics (1950). While at Cambridge,
Toulmin came into contact with the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose examination on the relationship between the uses and the
meanings of language shaped much of Toulmin's own work.
After graduating from Cambridge, he was appointed University Lecturer in Philosophy of Science at Oxford University from 1949 to 1954, during which
period he wrote a second book, The Philosophy of Science: an Introduction (1953). Soon after, he was appointed to the position of Visiting Professor of
History and Philosophy of Science at Melbourne University in Australia from 1954 to 1955, after which he returned to England, and served as Professor
and Head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Leeds from 1955 to 1959. While at Leeds, he published one of his most influential books
in the field of rhetoric, The Uses of Argument (1958), which investigated the flaws of traditional logic. Although it was poorly received in England and
satirized as "Toulmin's anti-logic book" by Toulmin's fellow philosophers at Leeds, the book was applauded by the rhetoricians in the United States,
where Toulmin served as a visiting professor at New York, Stanford, and Columbia Universities in 1959.[1] While in the States, Wayne Brockriede and
Douglas Ehninger introduced Toulmin's work to communication scholars, as they recognized that his work provided a good structural model useful for
the analysis and criticism of rhetorical arguments. In 1960, Toulmin returned to London to hold the position of director of the Unit for History of Ideas of
the Nuffield Foundation. He was married to June Goodfield[2] and collaborated with her on a series of books on the history of science.
In 1965, Toulmin returned to the United States, where he held positions at various universities. In 1967, Toulmin served as literary executor for close
friend N.R. Hanson, helping in the posthumous publication of several volumes. While at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Toulmin published
Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (1972), which examines the causes and the processes of conceptual change. In
this book, Toulmin uses the unprecedented comparison between conceptual change and Darwin's model of biological evolution to purport the process of
conceptual change as an evolutionary process. The book confronts major philosophical questions as well.[3] In 1973, while a professor in the Committee
on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, he collaborated with Allan Janik, a philosophy professor at La Salle University, to publish Wittgenstein's
Vienna, which advanced a thesis that underscores the significance of history to human reasoning: Contrary to philosophers who believe the absolute
truth advocated in Plato's idealized formal logic, Toulmin argues that truth can be a relative quality, dependent on historical and cultural contexts (what
other authors have termed "conceptual schemata").
From 1975 to 1978, he worked with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established
by the United States Congress. During this time, he collaborated with Albert R. Jonsen to write The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning
(1988), which demonstrates the procedures for resolving moral cases. One of his most recent works, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity
(1990), written while Toulmin held the position of the Avalon Foundation Professor of the Humanities at Northwestern University, specifically criticizes the
practical use and the thinning morality underlying modern science.
Toulmin held distinguished professorships at numerous universities, including Columbia, Dartmouth, Michigan State, Northwestern, Stanford, the
University of Chicago, and the University of Southern California School of International Relations.
In 1997 the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) selected Toulmin for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government's highest honor for
achievement in the humanities.[4][5] His lecture, "A Dissenter's Story" (alternatively entitled "A Dissenter's Life"), discussed the roots of modernity in
rationalism and humanism, the "contrast of the reasonable and the rational," and warned of the "abstractions that may still tempt us back into the
dogmatism, chauvinism and sectarianism our needs have outgrown."[6] The NEH report of the speech further quoted Toulmin on the need to "make the
technical and the humanistic strands in modern thought work together more effectively than they have in the past."[7]
On 2 March 2006 Toulmin received the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art.[8] On 4 December 2009 Toulmin died of a heart failure at the age of 87
in Los Angeles, California.[9]
Arguing that absolutism lacks practical value, Toulmin aimed to develop a different type of argument, called practical arguments (also known as
substantial arguments). In contrast to absolutists' theoretical arguments, Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of
argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of
principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less
an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideasan act achievable
through the process of justification.
Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim. This, he believed, will ensure it stands up to
criticism and earns a favourable verdict. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for
analyzing arguments:
Claim (Conclusion)
A conclusion whose merit must be established. In argumentative essays, it may be called the thesis.[10] For example, if a person tries to convince a
listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be "I am a British citizen." (1)
Ground (Fact, Evidence, Data)
A fact one appeals to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data "I was born in
Bermuda." (2)
Warrant
A statement authorizing movement from the ground to the claim. In order to move from the ground established in 2, "I was born in Bermuda," to the claim
in 1, "I am a British citizen," the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 and 2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally
be a British citizen." (3)
Backing
Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to
the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions: "I trained
as a barrister in London, specialising in citizenship, so I know that a man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen."
Rebuttal
Statements recognizing the restrictions which may legitimately be applied to the claim. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows: "A man born in Bermuda
will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country."
Qualifier
Words or phrases expressing the speaker's degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include "probably," "possible,"
"impossible," "certainly," "presumably," "as far as the evidence goes," and "necessarily." The claim "I am definitely a British citizen" has a greater degree
of force than the claim "I am a British citizen, presumably."
The first three elements, "claim," "data," and "warrant," are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad,
"qualifier," "backing," and "rebuttal," may not be needed in some arguments.
When Toulmin first proposed it, this layout of argumentation was based on legal arguments and intended to be used to analyze the rationality of arguments typically found in
the courtroom. Toulmin did not realize that this layout could be applicable to the field of rhetoric and communication until his works were introduced to rhetoricians by Wayne
Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger. Only after Toulmin published Introduction to Reasoning (1979) were the rhetorical applications of this layout mentioned in his works.

The Rogerian Approach

Source 1:
This is a model of argument named after the psychologist Carl Rogers, who believed that people could only resolve an issue or solve a problem once
they found the "common ground."
A group of rhetoricians, Young, Becker, and Pike, then developed a model of argument named the Rogerian argument, which advocates a way of
argument that is less confrontational, less one-sided, and more compromising and deliberately consensus-building. The following are the usual elements
of the Rogerian approach:
An introduction that briefly and objectively defines the issue or problem
A neutral, non-judgmental statement of the opponent's position, presented within valid contexts, that demonstrates the writer clearly understands it
A neutral statement and explanation of your position and the contexts in which it is valid
An analysis of what the two positions have in common and what goals and values they share
A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the itnerests of both parties, or a statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he
were to adopt elements of the writer's position
Source 2:
Rogerian Argumentation
One of the greatest challenges for a writer of arguments is to keep the audience from becoming so defensive and annoyed that it will not listen to
anything the writer has to say. Sometimes audiences can feel threatened by viewpoints different from their own, and in such cases persuasion can rarely
take place.Thus, psychologist Carl Rogers developed a negotiating strategy to help people avoid such situations; he called it "empathic listening".
In an empathic position, the writer refrains from passing judgment on the audiences ideas until he or she has listened attentively to the audiences
position, tried to follow the audiences reasoning, and acknowledged the validity of the audiences viewpoint (if only from a limited perspective). By trying
to understand where the audience is coming from and avoiding loaded or attacking language that might put the audience on the defensive, the writer
shows empathy for the audiences viewpoint and opens the door for mutual understanding and respect.
Because it focuses on building bridges between writer and audience, and places considerable weight on the values, beliefs, and opinions the two share,
a Rogerian argument doesnt emphasize an "I winyou lose" outcome as much as classical or 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.
How a Rogerian Argument is Created
A Rogerian argument usually begins with the writer exploring the common ground she or he shares with the audience. For instance, in an argument in
favor of handgun registration, the writer might begin by stating his or her respect for individual rights, especially the right to self-defense and protection of
ones property. The writer might also show appreciation for sportsmen and collectors, who regard handguns as equipment for an activity or collectibles to
be valued. In exploring this common ground, the writer tries to state the audiences side of the issue fairly and objectively, so that the audience realizes
the writer is treating it with respect.
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 the audiences position. The writer explains the contexts in which his or her
position is valid and explores how they differ from the audiences.
For instance, the 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. To conclude, the writer finally presents the thesis, usually phrased in such a
way that shows the audience that the writer has made some concessions toward the audiences positions.
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. If the conclusion can
show the audience how it will benefit from adopting (at least to some degree) the writers position, an even better chance for persuasion takes place.
Key points:
Rogerian argument is a negotiation strategy (everyone wins);
Useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos rather than logos and strict logic predominate.
Find common ground with audience, where you both might agree. Accept that the audience is right in some ways.
Don't disagree with the audience's view, but explain how your viewpoint is valid in certain contexts.
Give ground--concede in order to reach an agreement. Facts (claims) and truth can often be negotiated.
CARL ROGERS
Carl Rogers (19021987) is the most influential psychologist in American history. His contributions are outstanding in the fields of education, counseling,
psychotherapy, peace, and conflict resolution. A founder of humanistic psychology, he has profoundly influenced the world through his empathic
presence, his rigorous research, his authorship of sixteen books and more than 200 professional articles. His best known books are: On Becoming a
Person, Client Centered Therapy, Freedom to Learn, A way of Being, Carl Rogers on Personal Power, and Becoming Partners: Marriage and Its
Alternatives. Two of his books have been published posthumously: The Carl Rogers Reader, a collection of his most influential writings, and Carl
Rogers Dialogues, which features interchanges with such other giants in the field as Paul Tillich, B.F. Skinner, Gregory Bateson, and Rollo May.
His lifetime of research and experiential work focused on demonstrating the psychological conditions for allowing open communication and empowering
individuals to achieve their full potential. He pioneered the move away from traditional psychoanalysis, and developed client-centered psychotherapy,
which recognizes that each client has within him or herself the vast resources for self-understanding, for altering his or her self-concept, attitudes, and
self-directed behaviorand that these resources can be tapped by providing a definable climate of facilitative attitudes.
Carl Rogers last decade was devoted to applying his theories in areas of national social conflict, and he traveled worldwide to accomplish this. In
Belfast, Ireland, he brought together influential Protestants and Catholics; in South Africa, blacks and whites, in the United States, consumers and
providers in the health field. His last trip, at age 85, was to the Soviet Union, where he lectured and facilitated intensive experiential workshops fostering
communication and creativity. He was astonished at the numbers of Russians who knew of his work.
Recognition of his work has come through dozens of honorary awards and degrees bestowed on him from around the world, among them the American
Psychology Associations Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award the first year it was given. A few years later he also received the American
Psychology Associations Distinguished Professional Contribution Award.
Carl Rogers was a model for compassion and democratic ideals in his own life, and in his work as an educator, writer, and therapist.