Friday May 10
Meet at Mainstage by 8:15 to walk to Memorial Art Gallery
AP English
Toulmin Argumentation Model
Academic
writing typically presents claims and arguments about knowledge. Readers
of academic writing need to learn to look for a writer’s claims, arguments,
reasoning, evidence, etc. Stephen Toulmin, a historian and philosopher,
developed a model for analyzing arguments based on the way lawyers argue cases
in court (The Uses of Argument, 1958). Toulmin’s model for
argument is also a generally accepted standard for the logical, objective
examination of claims in science.
An
argument must have
- argument form: a claim + support with at least one reason/evidence
- intention: relation of reader and writer (implied or explicit)
A
good argument must be sound and fair (not one-sided). Propaganda and
coercion are not arguments. Stories are not always arguments, but they can
be. Stories persuade through feelings, narrative of events, etc., rather
than reasoning. Stories also tend to rely on readers to suspend disbelief
while reading. Yet stories can be evidence to support a reason or claim
with great power.
How
to approach a text when analyzing its argument:
Skim for the framework.
What question/problem is the writer addressing?
What answer/solution is the author offering?
What reasons support the author’s claim?
What evidence supports the author’s claim?
Look
at the introduction. It usually identifies the problem, question,
possibly the main point or answer (usually at the very end of the
introduction).
Look
at conclusion. Find the main point.
Look
through body of article for headings that reveal the organization/sequence.
Skim
the first paragraph of each section.
Toulmin’s
argument analysis:
Claim…because
of…Reason based on Evidence
(Reasons we think up. Evidence we don’t. It’s facts
already out there.)
Warrant:
Principle that connects a reason to a claim (premise, assumption)
Warrant shows the relevance of the evidence to the claim--that it counts.
Principle of
the reasoning—a generalization or rule
EXAMPLE:
Harry was born in Bermuda -----------à So Harry is a British
subject
Since a man born in Bermuda
will be a British subject (warrant)
Core
Elements
Claim:
What is the writer’s thesis, charge, or main assertion?
What conclusion does the writer want the reader to come to after
considering all
of the evidence?
Reasons
/ Evidence: What reasons support the claim?
What evidence supports the claim (and the reasons)?
How reliable is the evidence?
Warrant:
What connection is there between the
data and the claim?
What assumed principles does the writer base the argument on?
Other
elements:
Backing:
Does the writer
present any evidence to back the warrant? If so, what kind?
Rebuttal:
Does the writer
present any counterarguments to the claim?
Does the writer describe any situations where the claim may not be true?
If so, does the writer refute these counterarguments?
Qualifier:
Does the writer modify the strength or
certainty of the claim with words
like sometimes, often, usually, generally, or except?
Toulmin
Schema: E/R à C since W unless
Q
Evidence/Reason ------------àClaim (or
conclusion) [or can be reversed C<--- b="">E
]
Reason…therefore Claim
OR Claim…because of Reason
Since W (warrant) possibly with backing B
Unless (Q qualifier)
Harry was born in Bermuda -----------à So Harry is a British
subject
Since (W) a man born in Bermuda will be a British subject
[Backing (B): the legal provisions for this]
Unless (Q) both his parents were aliens
Warrants
are sometimes difficult to detect but they are very important. One
of the best ways to critique an argument is through invalid warrants.
EXAMPLES:
What is the claim? What is the evidence? What are the
warrants?
A. Dogs are more intelligent than cats because dogs can do tricks.
B.
Bill is going to be a really good teacher. He really loves kids.
C. Alien abduction is a real phenomenon. Many
people who have been
hypnotized recall alien abduction scenarios.
No comments:
Post a Comment