Structuring and Analyzing

Arguments:
The Classical, Toulmin, and
Rogerian Models
Junior AP English

Key Terms: Deductive vs. Inductive

Reasoning

Deductive Reasoning = in traditional Aristotelian

logic, the process of reasoning in which a conclusion
follows necessarily from the stated premises;
inference by reasoning from the general to the
specific

Inductive Reasoning = the process of reasoning

from the specific to the general, in which the
premises of an argument are believed to support the
conclusion but do not ensure it. Inductive reasoning
is used to formulate laws based on limited
observations of recurring patterns.

Key Terms: The Syllogism

Three-part deductive argument, in
which conclusion follows from two
premises
A straightforward example:
Major premise: All people have hearts.
Minor premise: John is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a
heart.

Classical Argument

Began in ancient Greece, approximately fifth

century B.C.

Communicated orally and designed to be

easily understood by listeners

Based on formal logic, including the

syllogism

Six main components

Classical Argument: Six Elements

1) Introduction: captures attention of audience; urges
audience to consider your case
2) Statement of Background: narrates the key facts
and/or events leading up to your case
3) Proposition: states the position you are taking, based
on the information youve already presented, and
sets up the structure of the rest of your argument
4) Proof: discusses your reasons for your position and
provides evidence to support each reason
5) Refutation: anticipates opposing viewpoints; then
demonstrates why your approach is the only
acceptable one (i.e. better than your opponents)
6) Conclusion: summarizes your most important points
and can include appeals to feelings or values
(pathos)

Classical Argument: example

Introduction:
Dog is said to be mans best friend, but is their function in our human
society even more integral than this quote portrays?
1.

2. Statement of background:
Dogs are loyal, loving, perpetually optimistic, athletic, and obedient.
3. Proposition (Thesis):
Dogs have been essential to human society since the dawn of our
civilization, evolving from hunting companions and personal protection
to the modern utility of seeing eye dogs and police canine units. Dogs
are essential to our society because they aid humans physically,
emotionally, and socially.

Classical Argument: example cont.

4. Proof:
Physically, dogs are integral helpers and motivators, from sheep herders to taking your dog
on walks. Emotionally, dogs are loyal and loving, always there to greet you at the door,
their love unconditional (even when undeserved). Socially, dogs not only invite interactions
with other humans, but can also aid people who have socially debilitating handicaps.
5. Refutation:
The cat people would say that cats too can be loving and loyal, but no cat could drag a
grown man from a burning building to save his life. The cat people would say that no
human beings die from cat attacks, while dog attacks create injuries or even take lives
every year. While this is a factual statement, it oversimplifies the issue. Dogs do not
attack humans unprovoked a dog who attacks has been abused, mistreated, or is
responding to a threat, or assumes they are protecting their loved ones. Do cats only
attack when provoked? Absolutely not.
6. Conclusion:
Ultimately, Dogs are not only mans best friend but also an essential and valuable cog in
the machinery of human society. They help us to better function, help us to better feed
not only our stomachs, but also our hearts and souls.

The Toulmin Model

Developed by British philosopher

Stephen Toulmin in the 1950s
Emphasizes that logic often based
on probability rather than certainty
Focuses on claims
Three primary components

Toulmin Model: Three Components

Three components:
Claim = the main point or position
Data = the evidence supporting the
claim, aka the reasons
Warrant = an underlying assumption
or basic principle that connects data
and claim; often implied rather than
explicit

Toulmin Model: An Example

Claim = My parents should allow me to go
to my friends party on Friday night.
Data = The parents of nearly all of the
juniors at UNHP have given their children
permission to attend this party.
Warrant = My parents should act in
accordance with the other parents of
juniors at UNHP.

Uh-oh, a potential snag

What if my parents dont buy my
warrant? What if they dont think
they should necessarily do what
other parents are doing?
How can I still get permission to
attend the party? Or at least have
a better chance of getting
permission?

Try new data and a new warrant.

What might be more convincing
data for an audience of parents?

What might be a warrant that most

parents will share?

Toulmin Argumentation in More Detail

Data

Claim
Qualifier
Warrant
Backing

Rebuttal

Rogerian Model

Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers

(also in the 50s)
Emphasizes problem-solving and/or
coming to consensus
Allows the author to appear open-minded
or even objective
Appropriate in contexts where you need
to convince a resistant opponent to at
least respect your views

Rogerian Arguments:Structure

Introduction: statement of problem to be solved

or question to be answered
Summary of Opposing Views: described using
a seemingly objective persona
Statement of Understanding: concedes
circumstances under which opposing views might
be valid
Statement of Your Position
Statement of Contexts: describes contexts in
which your position applies/works well
Statement of Benefits: appeals to self-interest
of readers who may not yet agree with you;
demonstrates how your position benefits them

Rogerian Arguments: example

1. Introduction: Should students wear uniforms?
2. Summary of opposing views: Some argue YES as uniforms create a sense of
equality and highlight the person, not the materials they wear. Others say NO
because uniforms limit self expression and individuality.
3. Statement of Understanding: I understand the point of view that uniforms, in
making students look the same, may also make them feel they are all the same,
unable to express their personal style and individuality.
4. Statement of Your Position: However, I think the above belief is mistaken,
because in reality it should not be the materials we wear that define who we are,
but rather our actions, our words, our talents. With this in mind, I believe uniforms
are a quality addition to any school policy.
5. Statement of Contexts: If your shoes are Nike brand, that does not tell me your
are a talented athlete, merely that you or your parents have the money to purchase
Brand names. If you wear purple, that does not tell me you are a talented artist,
merely that you have a preference for purple.
6. State of Benefits: Meanwhile, in a uniform, brand names do not exist, and
economic status is no longer a barrier. In a uniform, rather than your clothes
speaking for you, you speak for yourself. In a uniform, you must prove to the world
and yourself that you are a talented athlete, or artist, or mathematician. Ironically,
by making everyone look the same, uniforms allow us to TRULY become unique.