arguments and thinking ralph waldo emerson once wrote, “what’s the hardest task in the world? to...

Arguments and Thinking

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “What’s the hardest task in the world? To think.”

Schools push “critical thinking” skills; what does it mean to “think critically”?

Arguments are applied critical thinking. You already know about logical appeals:

Logical reasoning = critical thinking.

TIA Chapter 1

Four different purposes (or contexts) for argument. To INQUIRE TO ASSERT TO DOMINATE TO NEGOTIATE DIFFERENCES

You should note that these purposes can and

do OVERLAP.

There are three modes of persuasion

Logical Ethical Emotional

You will notice overlaps here as well, particularly b/w Ethical and Emotional.

What does work “ethic” mean? Try to keep the “ethical” focus on the trustworthiness

of the writer/speaker and on GENERAL assumptions about “the good.” Example: “Dentists prefer Trident” or “Four out of five pediatricians recommend Cheerios as a food for toddlers.”

Logical Reasoning

Inductive reasoning means DRAWING CONCLUSIONS and is often based on observation, research, expert opinion, facts, statistics, etc.

It moves from SPECIFIC pieces of evidence to a conclusion.

Induction uses what we have observed as a basis for asserting something NEW.

Inductive Reasoning is like a triangle:

The argument moves from SPECIFIC to General

Reason reason+reason---------------Conclusion

Logical Reasoning

Deductive Reasoning is best used when the argument is based on a FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH that the audience should accept.

Deduction makes explicit something concealed in what we already accept.

Deductive reasoning is like an upside down triangle:

Begins with LARGER, MORE GENERAL idea and moves to specifics by means of DEDUCTION.

Major premise

Minor premise

conclusion

“All men are created equal”

A syllogism is simply a way to organize the logic from general to specific.

Ma. P: All men are mortals. (Major Premise)

Mi. P: John is a man. (Minor Premise)

C: John is mortal. (Conclusion)

Sound Arguments

To create a sound argument using deductive reasoning, The premises (plural) must be TRUE. The syllogism must be VALID – in other words,

the conclusion must follow from the premises.

Example

All large fish have scales.

A whale is a large fish.

Therefore, whales have scales.

Where is the problem??

This is VALID, but not TRUE.

Another example:

MaP: All Americans prefer vanilla ice cream to other flavors.

MiP: Tiger Woods is an American.

C: Therefore, Tiger Woods prefers vanilla ice cream to other flavors.

Example of an INVALID syllogism:

All terrorists seek publicity for their violent acts.

John Doe seeks publicity for his violent acts. Therefore, John Doe is a terrorist.

If you can accept the premises and NOT the conclusion, the syllogism is INVALID.

Finding faults…

A syllogism can be correctly structured, but still be wrong:

All women like to cook. Jane is a woman. Jane likes to cook.

Think about this:

All women like to cook. Is this true?

Jane is a woman. Are we sure?

Jane likes to cook. ?????

Enthymemes

In real life and real writing situations, even when using logical arguments, part of the syllogisms are often abbreviated, even unstated or ASSUMED. A structure of this type is called an ENTHEMEME – Greek for “In the mind”.

The assumption is a statement or proposition that the writer/speaker PRESUMES is widely held. In a syllogism, this would be the MAJOR PREMISE.

It also assumes some degree of COMMON GROUND

Examples of Enthymemes:

Your grades are important to you because you take AP classes. ASSUMPTION: AP students care about their

grades.

What is the unstated assumption in the following enthymemes?

Flat taxes are fair because they treat everyone the same way.

He must be a musician because he has long hair.

I’ll buy a Honda Civic because it is cheap and reliable.

He must have studied hard because he got an A on the test.

Toulmin Logic:

Instead of using major premise, minor premise, and conclusion:

Claim – thesis, main argument Conclusion, point, purpose, goal, aim This is stated directly, not “led up to” as in a syllogism.

Data (reason) – support for the claim This also appears in inductive reasoning

Warrant – connects the claim and data; ties them together This is what really makes it different – this step MUST be

obvious IN YOUR WRITING. (May not be so obvious in what you read/analyze.)

Think of this as being able to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING until you “hit a wall.” You must have a dialog with yourself and answer all the questions you can thoroughly.

Then, there is no placeleft to go. Don’t stopuntil you CANNOT reason any further.

Why am I teaching you this?

The Toulmin Model is another TOOL you can use when you Write your own argument papers Analyze the arguments of others NOT so you can use the word “Toulmin” because

it makes you sound smart! You can create “Toulmin” paragraphs within a

“Rogerian” essay.

Again, it is the concept that is important!

No one will be impressed if you use the word “Rogerian” or “Toulmin.” But if you recognize, explain, or use something showing the concepts in action, THAT is impressive.

Toulmin Logicsecondary elements

Instead of using major premise, minor premise, and conclusion:

Claim – thesis, main argument Conclusion, point, purpose, goal, aim

Data (reason) – support for the claim GROUNDS support DATA

Warrant – connects the claim and data; ties them together BACKING supports WARRANT

You should not eat that mushroom because it’s poisonous.

Data: The mushroom

Is poisonous.

Claim: You should Not eat that Mushroom.

Warrant: IfSomething is

poisonousIt’s dangerous to eat.

This would be an ASSUMPTION!

Enthymeme: You should not eat that mushroom because it’s poisonous.

Data: The mushroom

Is poisonous.(grounds)

Claim: You should Not eat that Mushroom.

Warrant: IfSomething is

poisonousIt’s dangerous to eat.

(backing)

Note that the data and The warrant may needAdditional support.

The GROUNDS supportthe DATA.The BACKING Supports the WARRANT.

Enthymeme: You should not eat that mushroom because it’s poisonous.

Data: The mushroom

Is poisonous.(grounds)

Claim: You should Not eat that Mushroom.

Warrant: IfSomething is

poisonousIt’s dangerous to eat.

(backing)

1. The mushroom is a toadstool; toadstools are lethal.

2. The Field Guide to Mushrooms

Says it’s poisonous.3. My cousin ate one and died.If you eat something that’s

Poisonous, you might die. You Could get very sick.

Note that the data and The warrant may needAdditional support.

.

Three Examples:

As you look at the next three examples, write down the ASSUMPTION behind each ENTHYMEME.

ENTHYMEME #1

We should buy this Geo Metro because it is extremely economical.

ECONOMY is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car.

We should buy the car that is most economical.

Enthymeme #2

We should buy this used Volvo because it is very safe

Safety is the major criterion we should use in selecting a car.

We should by the car that is safest.

Enthymeme #3

We should buy this Ford Falcon because it is red.

We should buy a car that is red. The color red is the major criterion we should

use in selecting a car.

Next exercise:

Now, practice setting up the Claim, Data, Warrant for each of the previous enthymemes and assumptions.

Geo Metro

Claim: We should buy this Geo Metro. Data: It is extremely economical. grounds Warrant: We should buy the car that is most

economical. backing What kind of GROUNDS and BACKING

might you provide here?

Used Volvo

Claim: We should buy this used Volvo. Data: It is very safe grounds Warrant: We should buy the car that is the

safest. backing What kind of GROUNDS and BACKING

might you provide here?

Red Ford Falcon

Claim: We should buy this Ford Falcon. Data: It is red.

grounds Warrant: If we find a car that is red, we

should buy it. Backing What kind of GROUNDS and BACKING might

you provide here?

Red Ford Falcon

Claim: We should buy this Ford Falcon. Data: It is red.

Grounds: Direct observation 100% consensus on informal survey Says “red” under “color” on sales form. Scientific analysis of light spectrum as reflected from car’s

surface. Warrant: If we find a car that is red, we should buy

it. Backing - ???

Something for you to do…

Devise BACKING for the warrant “If we find a car that is red, we should buy it.”

A longer and more detailed example:

To understand the following examples you should first know that a split infinitive occurs when an infinitive verb (such as "to go") is "split" by an adverb (as in "to boldly go").

Classical syllogism:

Major premise: Split infinitives are ungrammatical.

Minor premise: Good writing requires proper grammar. 

Conclusion: Therefore, writers should avoid split infinitives if they want to write well.

Toulmin logic recognizes the three parts, but renames & rearranges them:

claim: Writers should avoid split infinitives.

Data (reason): Because split infinitives are ungrammatical.

Warrant: Good writing requires proper grammar.

Add the GROUNDS to support the DATA

  claim: Writers should avoid split infinitives. data (reason): because split infinitives are

ungrammatical. (why are they ungrammatical?) grounds: In Latin, the infinitive was formed by

a single word; hence, it was impossible to put an adverb inside the infinitive.

Warrant: Good writing requires proper grammar.

Add the BACKING to support the WARRANT

claim: Writers should avoid split infinitives. Data (reason): because split infinitives are

ungrammatical. (why are they ungrammatical?) grounds: In Latin, the infinitive was formed by a single

word; hence, it was impossible to put an adverb inside the infinitive.

Warrant: Good writing requires proper grammar. (why do you say so?) backing: The most successful, most widely-read

writers follow standard rules of grammar.

The Rebuttal

The next step is to insert the opposing argument -- the rebuttal.  For a longer paper, you can use the claim/reason/assumption model to examine each rebuttal, and your outline would grow much deeper.

The Rebuttal of the GROUNDS:

Data (reason): because split infinitives are ungrammatical. grounds: In Latin, the infinitive was formed by a

single word; hence, it was impossible to put an adverb inside the infinitive. rebuttal: The rules of Latin do not automatically

apply to English.

The REBUTTAL of the BACKING:

Warrant: Good writing requires proper grammar. backing: The most successful, most widely-read

writers follow standard rules of grammar. rebuttal: The fact that all the popular works follow

standard grammar simply means that publishers and editors won't distribute writing that doesn't conform to the grammar rules they've learned.

QUALIFYING

Next, we handle the rebuttal by qualifying the claim (changing it to handle special cases as raised by the rebuttal).

Here is the claim with the qualifier:

claim: Writers should usually avoid split infinitives, unless they are translating Latin (in which case they should always avoid them) or unless they are willing to risk the appearance of error (in order to achieve some effect).

Qualifiers LIMIT the degree or extent to which a claim is TRUE. Here are some qualifier words:

Few probably perhapsRarely it may be possiblySome many under these

conditions

Sometimes routinelyIn some cases mostIt is possible oftenIt seems for the most partMore or less to an extent

There are many others.

To qualify, or not to qualify?

This is the “Q” in a DCQ essay. But you should NEVER be wishy washy in your essays, even if you QUALIFY.

Qualifying is a complex process and does not mean that you agree with both sides.

Qualifying requires a defense of the rebuttals:

Data (reason): because split infinitives are ungrammatical. grounds: In Latin, the infinitive was formed by a single word;

hence, it was impossible to put an adverb inside the infinitive. rebuttal: The rules of Latin do not automatically apply to

English. defense: Although the historical reasons for

adopting the rule may have been illogical, in the real world, many readers do in fact apply this particular rule to English.

Qualifying requires a defense of the rebuttals:

warrant: Good writing requires proper grammar. backing: The most successful, most widely-read writers

follow standard rules of grammar. rebuttal: The fact that all the popular works follow standard

grammar simply means that professors and publishers penalize all writing that doesn't conform to the grammar rules they've learned. defense: Philosophical opposition to strict grammar rules

won't help you get your writing approved by the professors and publishers (and employers and customers, etc.) who expect you to communicate in standard written English.

Furthering your defense: Note that each of the "defense" items could easily

be turned into another claim/reason/assumption outline; the defense to the assumption above 1) presumes that the goal of a writer is to meet the formal expectations of professors and publishers, and further presumes that 2) standard written English is the way to meet those expectations.  Well, some writing (such as ad campaigns, political slogans, song lyrics, etc.) is supposed to surprise, delight or motivate, rather than simply satisfy expectations. The Toulmin model will help the author modify the original claim in order to handle special cases or issues raised by the analysis.