TYPES OF ARGUMENT

There is more than ONE way to write an argument. In fact, there is an infinite

number of ways to construct an argument on the same issue depending on your own

writing situation.

We will discuss a few commonly used models, their purposes, and basic structures.

Then we will practice one.

THE CLASSICAL APPROACH

1) This a model of argumentation invented by the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle.

2) 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.

3) This is more of a win-lose scenario and is the most well-known model.

COMMON OUTLINE:

The following is the typical organization pattern for this approach:

Introduction- Start with something interesting

State your case--Clarify your issue. Give any necessary background for understanding the issues. Define any important terms of conditions here.

Proposition--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

THE TOULMIN APPROACH

1. This model of argument was developed by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin.

2. 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.

3. Considered a more practical argument

COMMON OUTLINE

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.

Qualifier--Use language that seeks to qualify the claims you make in order to bring your argument to a close.

THE ROGERIAN APPROACH

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."

2. 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.

3. Considered a win-win type of negotiating argument

COMMON OUTLINE

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

YOUR APPROACH

1) Even within the previous models, there can be variation. You’ll notice that each of these arguments has similarities: having a claim, providing reasons and evidence, considering other opinions, considering the needs of the audience

2) The above approaches provide proven organizational tools you could use for your argument.

3) What approach you use, however, doesn't necessarily have to conform exactly to one of these approaches. In fact, it is quite common for people to combine some of the elements of these approaches based on the needs of their argument, their audience and the situation.

TH

E R

UL

ES

FO

R C

ON

SI D

ER

I NG

YO

UR

AU

DI E

NC

E A

ND

ME

ET

I NG

I N T

HE

MI D

DL

E

ENGL 112

Principles and Structure of Rogerian Argument

PART I

Rogerian “Principles ofCommunication”

ROGERIAN “PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNICATION”

Carl Rogers’ “Principles of Communication” assert that anyone engaged in

communication essentially follows certain principles or ideas. These “universal” ideas

and principles affect the way he/she

• will engage in any form of communication (whether writing or verbal).

• will react to, and interact with, others involved in the discussion.

PRINCIPLE 1

Threat hinders communication–

When a person feels threatened by what another person is saying (or writing), he/she is apt to stop listening (or reading) in order to protect the ego and reduce anxiety.

Think about being involved in any discussion where there are conflicting opinions? Consider how you would respond if the other person raised their voice, made accusations, or wording things in a way that you felt was unfair. Many of us would not respond in a calm, rational way…and we certainly wouldn’t be eager to hear the other person’s side.

PRINCIPLE 2

Making strong statements of opinion stimulates an audience to respond with strong

opinions.

Once someone you are having a discussion with has expressed a strong or unyielding opinion, they are more likely to be interested in defending them than in discussing them.

The result If you are in disagreement, you are more likely to respond with a strong opinion of your own. Therefore, both sides find themselves “arguing with a wall.” Both side is right, and neither side is willing to listen.

PRINCIPLE 3

Biased language increases threat; neutral language reduces it. Be careful of how you word things and of how your choice of wording

sounds to others. When you word things in a biased way- in a way that assumes an opinion or even a truth about a situation (Ex. “This is just wrong” or “People who believe this are idiots.”), without leaving yourself open to consider other valid views, you increase the degree of threat inflicted on the audience…see principle 1.

PRINCIPLE 4

A speaker or writer reduces threat and increases the chance of communication

effectively with someone by demonstrating that he/she understands that person’s

point of view.

You are more likely to win people to your side, or at least have them hear you out, if you are willing to acknowledge when they have made a valid point. You can disagree with someone and still understand where they are coming from and still see how parts of their argument make sense.

PRINCIPLE 5

One improves communication by establishing an atmosphere of trust.

If you have followed the previous principles, you are likely to be better equipped to create an atmosphere where both parties are open to hearing each other out because neither side feels threatened or defensive.

The result You are more likely to find a solution and get something accomplished that will benefit both sides.

PART II

 Five Elements of Rogerian Argument

 FIVE ELEMENTS OF ROGERIAN ARGUMENT

These are the five basic structural elements of a Rogerian argument. Whether you are writing an essay, a letter, an email or perhaps giving a speech, this is the way you would set up your argument to fulfill the “principles of Rogerian Argument” and help you reach your audience.

ELEMENT 1

This is how you would want to begin…

Offer a brief and objectively phrased statement that defines the issue or the essence of the argument without placing blame or engaging in evaluation.

Ex. Instead of saying, “You were wrong when you said…,” try saying, “We argued about…”

ELEMENT 2

Explore common ground –What issues can both sides agree upon from the

beginning? What relevant goals, values and concerns do you both share that you can

work to meet?

Ex. Two opposing sides of an argument over handgun registration might be able to agree that both respect individual rights and the right to self-defense and the protection of one’s property.

These would be significant shared values and beliefs that could lead to a solution that benefits both sides.

ELEMENT 3

A complete and neutrally worded description of the other side’s position.

State the audience’s side to his/her satisfaction. Remember to be fair and objective and to avoid attacking language.

Basically, you would want to reword their side so that, when you finished, the listener or reader would feel that you have explained it like he/she would, not leaving out any points they may make, and wording it fairly and respectfully.

ELEMENT 4

A complete and neutrally worded description your position. You should carefully avoid

any suggestion that you are more moral or sensitive than your audience.

Again, avoid attacking language.

This part is difficult because it may be easy to “sugar-coat” the other side and then really shift gears when it’s “your turn.” Be careful to keep the same tone of fairness and respect even when discussing your own perspective.

ELEMENT 5

This may seem new, but it’s not a mistake. Your thesis or solution to the issue should

come at the end, once both sides have been explained and given fair consideration.

Thesis – Give an analysis of what your positions have in common. Next, produce a

proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the interests of both parties.

You should show some concession/compromise toward the goals, points and concerns of the other side.

You should be able to explain how any compromises the reader may have to adopt will benefit them and meet their needs/concerns.