COMM 305 1st EditionLecture 18Outline of Last Lecture 1. Toulmin’s Model of Arguments a. Preliminaries i. Two sense of “argument” ii. Justification, Correctness, and Persuasiveness b. Argument Form c. Argument Prototypes d. Applying the Model to Arguments 2. Theories of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior 3. Elaboration Likelihood Model 4. Aristotle’s Logos, Ethos, and PathosOutline of Current Lecture 1. Toulmin’s Model of Arguments a. Preliminaries b. Argument Form c. Argument Prototypes d. Applying the Model to Arguments 2. Theories of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior 3. Elaboration Likelihood Model4. Aristotle’s Logos, Ethos, and Pathos Current Lecture Generalization: In case A, X. In case B, X. In Case C, X. Generally, XWhat is true of these cases is probably true generally? Similar to classification but different. Critiquing an argument is also about attacking an argument. Bringing the warrant out gives us another line of attack.Cause-to-Effect Known case X. - Hypothesized effect Y. X causes Y.Effect-to-CauseKnown effect Y. - Hypothesized cause X. X causes Y. Arguing from a known effect to a hypothesized cause. All the grass is wet. - I bet it rained yesterday. Rain causes wet grass. Analogy In instance A, X. - in instance B, X. B is similar to A in essential respects. In California, legislation reduced agriculture runoff into ground water. - In Texas, legislation could reduce agricultural runoff into ground water. California and Texas are similar in essential presence. Authority Source A says “X”. - X A is an authority on X. Dr. Spaceman says that I should take aspirin for my headache. - I’m going to take aspirin. Dr. Space man is an…Three Criteria for Good Arguments Acceptability, Relevance, and Efficiency Acceptability points to all the pieces of the model. The elements offered as underlying reasons must be acceptable for the claim. Are all the statements made relevant to one another that bear on a claim? Show why the grounds are relevant to that claim. Sufficiency shows the elements taken together as a whole. Do the statements provide a sufficient statement for the claim? Is the evidence strong enough? Does it answer reasonable counter claims? Is there enough evidence offered to counter write the claim? Do we have enough to buy the claim? Sometimes arguers aren’t good at what they argue. We have to discern what are the elements and are they sufficient? You start with the claims, then the grounds, then look for the underlying warrant. What claim are we going to analyze? It has to be first because that is key. With the claim in mind we can look for evidence and the grounds. To get to the warrant we have to start with theclaim then get to the grounds.COMM 305 1st EditionThe qualifier shows the strength of the
View Full Document
Unlocking...