Analyzing Argument
Induction:
See the pattern? What conclusion would logically follow from all of the evidence?
English teachers are poor dancers, have no dancing ability, etc.
Of course, we could also consider the cause of this phenomenon and possibly draw further conclusions. Does the evidence mean that becoming an English teacher somehow causes teachers to lose their dancing ability?
Are individuals who are drawn to the English teaching profession naturally clumsy to begin with?
Does teaching science, math, or social studies help to promote one’s dancing ability, while teaching English hinders it?
We draw conclusions based on evidence when using induction, BUT arguments developed inductively can NEVER be said to be fully true or false, truly right or wrong. They CAN, however, be considered strong or weak - so it's important to consider the conclusion's vulnerabilities.
Deduction:
Major Premise: All English teachers are terrible dancers.
Minor Premise: Mr. Bauer is an English teacher.
Therefore: ? What conclusion can you draw?
Logically, Mr. Bauer is a terrible dancer.
Note that this conclusion is the first statement in the inductive argument.
How do you create a deductive argument?
Start with the conclusion: Let's say you think your college (UE) should provide better lighting on campus, and you want to argue this point to UE administration.
Your conclusion, which is really the same as your thesis, should begin with therefore because it is a logical conclusion from the major/minor premises.
Conclusion: Therefore, UE should provide better lighting on campus.
Major Premise: The major premise should be a value or principal that almost everyone would accept as valid. It implies what should be just, fair, or ideal in the world or society.
Major Premise: The University has a responsibility to maintain student safety.
No one really refutes this. It's right. It's fair.
Minor Premise: The minor premise is your "stepping stone" or "link" from the Major Premise to your thesis/conclusion.
Major Premise: The University of Evansville has a responsibility to maintain student safety.
Minor Premise: What get's me to my conclusion???
Conclusion: Therefore, the University of Evansville should provide better lighting on campus.
Minor Premise: Poor lighting in many places around campus does not provide a safe environment for many students.
The Toulmin Model
1. Claim - a conclusion whose merits we are seeking to establish.
2. Support - your evidence.
3. Warrant - expresses the assumption necessarily shared by speaker and audience.
- Assumption - the assumption links the claim to the evidence.
4. Backing - consists of further assurances or data without which the assumption lacks authority.
5. Qualifier - temper the claim a bit (usually, probably, maybe, in most cases).
6. Reservation - explains the terms and conditions necessitated by the qualifier.
Occasionally, Rebuttal - voices objections.
Example:
Qualifier: If a university does not have a diverse student body
Claim: ...it should use affirmative action admissions policies.
Support: Affirmative action policies provide equal access to education for all ethnic groups.
Warrant: Equality of access is a basic American value.
Backing: Equality before the law is a fundamental right of all Americans.
Rebuttal: Affirmative action policies do not result in "reverse discrimination" because they are only part of a process that attempts to ensure fairness in college admissions.
- Mr. Bauer is a terrible dancer.
- Mr. Hendrix is known to have “two left feet” and is a disaster on the dance floor.
- Mrs. Coy fell and hurt herself while attempting to dance and has never attempted to dance since.
- Mrs. Turpin is taking dance lessons, but her instructor has stated that she is beyond help.
- Mr. Fleenor has won national awards for his dancing talent.
- Coach Speer is known for his dancing skills and teaches dance part-time.
- Mrs. Loete has written several books on ballroom dancing.
- Most of the faculty members at Harrison High School are participating in a dance competition and representing HHS in a state-wide dance competition.
- However, there are no members of the English department on the dance team.
See the pattern? What conclusion would logically follow from all of the evidence?
English teachers are poor dancers, have no dancing ability, etc.
Of course, we could also consider the cause of this phenomenon and possibly draw further conclusions. Does the evidence mean that becoming an English teacher somehow causes teachers to lose their dancing ability?
Are individuals who are drawn to the English teaching profession naturally clumsy to begin with?
Does teaching science, math, or social studies help to promote one’s dancing ability, while teaching English hinders it?
We draw conclusions based on evidence when using induction, BUT arguments developed inductively can NEVER be said to be fully true or false, truly right or wrong. They CAN, however, be considered strong or weak - so it's important to consider the conclusion's vulnerabilities.
Deduction:
Major Premise: All English teachers are terrible dancers.
Minor Premise: Mr. Bauer is an English teacher.
Therefore: ? What conclusion can you draw?
Logically, Mr. Bauer is a terrible dancer.
Note that this conclusion is the first statement in the inductive argument.
How do you create a deductive argument?
Start with the conclusion: Let's say you think your college (UE) should provide better lighting on campus, and you want to argue this point to UE administration.
Your conclusion, which is really the same as your thesis, should begin with therefore because it is a logical conclusion from the major/minor premises.
Conclusion: Therefore, UE should provide better lighting on campus.
Major Premise: The major premise should be a value or principal that almost everyone would accept as valid. It implies what should be just, fair, or ideal in the world or society.
Major Premise: The University has a responsibility to maintain student safety.
No one really refutes this. It's right. It's fair.
Minor Premise: The minor premise is your "stepping stone" or "link" from the Major Premise to your thesis/conclusion.
Major Premise: The University of Evansville has a responsibility to maintain student safety.
Minor Premise: What get's me to my conclusion???
Conclusion: Therefore, the University of Evansville should provide better lighting on campus.
Minor Premise: Poor lighting in many places around campus does not provide a safe environment for many students.
The Toulmin Model
1. Claim - a conclusion whose merits we are seeking to establish.
2. Support - your evidence.
3. Warrant - expresses the assumption necessarily shared by speaker and audience.
- Assumption - the assumption links the claim to the evidence.
4. Backing - consists of further assurances or data without which the assumption lacks authority.
5. Qualifier - temper the claim a bit (usually, probably, maybe, in most cases).
6. Reservation - explains the terms and conditions necessitated by the qualifier.
Occasionally, Rebuttal - voices objections.
Example:
Qualifier: If a university does not have a diverse student body
Claim: ...it should use affirmative action admissions policies.
Support: Affirmative action policies provide equal access to education for all ethnic groups.
Warrant: Equality of access is a basic American value.
Backing: Equality before the law is a fundamental right of all Americans.
Rebuttal: Affirmative action policies do not result in "reverse discrimination" because they are only part of a process that attempts to ensure fairness in college admissions.
An Effective Argumentative Essay
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.