13 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Argument 1. Definition of Argument According to Toulmin, an argument is a chain of reasoning in one sense. The sequence of interconnected claims and the reason that connects them establishes the content and force of the speaker's position. 1 According to Scriven, an argument's purpose is to persuade writer that must also accept the conclusion if the premise is true. 2 According to Anthony Blair, an argument is a proposition accompanied by a rationale, and argumentation is a conversation between two or more parties that results in the assertion of one or more ideas, as well as anticipated or actual critical responses. 3 A logically good argument has sufficient grounds for the purposes at hand ( true, probable, plausible, and acceptable to the audience ), and the feet support the conclusion adequately. The standards for good logic in arguments are distinct from the criteria for good argumentation. 1 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 2 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56. 3 Anthony Blair, ― Argument and Its Uses‖, Informal Logic,Vol. 24, No.2,( 2004 ), 137-151.
26
Embed
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Argument 1. Definition of ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
13
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Argument
1. Definition of Argument
According to Toulmin, an argument is a chain of reasoning in
one sense. The sequence of interconnected claims and the reason that
connects them establishes the content and force of the speaker's
position.1 According to Scriven, an argument's purpose is to persuade
writer that must also accept the conclusion if the premise is true.2
According to Anthony Blair, an argument is a proposition
accompanied by a rationale, and argumentation is a conversation
between two or more parties that results in the assertion of one or
more ideas, as well as anticipated or actual critical responses.3 A
logically good argument has sufficient grounds for the purposes at
hand ( true, probable, plausible, and acceptable to the audience ), and
the feet support the conclusion adequately. The standards for good
logic in arguments are distinct from the criteria for good
argumentation.
1 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan
Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 2 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56. 3 Anthony Blair, ― Argument and Its Uses‖, Informal Logic,Vol. 24, No.2,( 2004 ),
137-151.
14
In general, good argument is understood to have two sides, a
claim and a counterclaim. A claim will aid in the establishment of an
argument. The thesis statement should situate the argument within a
broader discussion, which will almost certainly include addressing
potential counterclaims or objections. Counterclaims aid in
developing a well-rounded argument by illustrating the breadth of
possible positions on a subject in argumentative writing. According
to Toulmin, an argument is a " claim of reasoning " in one sense. The
series of interconnected claims and arguments together establish the
content and force of the speaker's position.4 According to Scriven, an
argument's purpose is to persuade you that you must also accept the
conclusion if the premise is true.5
In everyday language, the term "argument" refers to a
disagreement or conflict between two or more people. However, the
presence of an argument does not always imply disagreement in
written academic work. An argument can bolster a position, a point
of view, a program, or an object that we believe has merit. An
argument's purpose is to persuade others to think about what you are
asserting or claiming. This means that an argument is unnecessary if
4 Toulmin, S., R, Rieke and A. Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, ( Macmillan
Publishing Co : New York, 1979 ),14. 5 Scriven, Reasoning, ( McGraw-Hill Book Company : New York, 1976 ), 55-56.
15
you describe something, list specific items, explain how something
works, or identify key points or factors. However, you must use an
argument if your topic is not widely known or widely accepted ( it is
not self-evidently true ) or if you are aware of some disagreement or
alternative perspective. As a result, the writer must provide evidence
to support our position.
2. Arguments structure of Toulmin model
The ability to justify and explain statements is a component of
the ability to create arguments. Meanwhile, Toulmin categorizes the
arguments. The first elements (1) Claim, (2) Evidance, and (3)
Warrant, belong to the essential components of the practical argument.
While the second elements Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier.6 serve as
a complement and may be unavailable in certain circumstances.
(1) Claim
Claims stating the writer’s position. Claims are the stances and
assertions that the author want the audience to agree with. These
assertions may be conclusions, recommendations, advice, beliefs, and
so on. Claims should be specific and they should be interest to the
audience, that is to say, on the topic at hand. Claim that are not very
6 Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Update Edition ( Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press,2003 ), 133.
16
specific to the topic are received by readers as vague and confusing.
Claims derive their strength from direct, clear grammar and from their
related evidence.
(2) Evidence or Ground
Ground or evidence to prove the argument. Ground in the
context of arguments refers to the information that supports the calim.
This information can take many forms such as objective facts,
examples, images, results from statistical of graphic analysis,
descriptions of artifacts, comparisons, and even expert opinions.
(3) Reason or Warrent
The third of the key structural parts of argument is warrent.
Warrants or reason that serve as a bridge between claims and ground.
This element connects the claim and the evidence, helping the audience
to understand. The explanation is persuasive, and therefore successful,
when it fits the audience’s understanding of the argument. That is to
say, explanations that are confusing, off target, or poorly developed
will not aid the understanding of the audience and will not be
successful.
(4) Backing
17
Backing in the form of a statement that serves to support
warrants. The backing contains additional information that helps the
reader to understand the explanation. In the example argument, thr
reasoning of the explanation is better understood if we know
specifically what kind of people will gain from the new tools.
(5) Modals or Qualifier.
Modals or qualifier are statements that limit the strength of
arguments or propose condition in the correct argument. The qualifier
can appear in the text as a single word, for example very, somewhat,
more, probably, or as a short phrase. The qualifier can also be longer,
one or more sentences, in order to add nuance to or information about
special circumstances to an argument. In this role, qualifiers may be
crafted to identify and reduce bias. Because nuance may be difficult to
communicate, qualifiers tend expand the size of the argument and its
complexity. Thus, care must be taken to write qualifiers that are not
difficult to digest.
(6) Rebutal
Rebuttals is other opinions if modals have not been received. A
reservation provides information about expections to an argument.
This information help the reader to clearly understand how universal
18
the argument is or is not. Reservations can be placed in arguments to
indicate that they are not universal and to eliminate misinterpretations.
The last sentence of the example above is a reservation that shows the
argumet is reservation that shows the argument is broadly, not
narrowly , applicable.
3. Examples Element of Toulmin Models
Example of the text below.
Current negotiation models lack completeness as they may
exclude activities before or after the main negotiation interactions.
Further, they may lack features such as feedback loops which return
negotiators to previous phrases with new information and decision
gates to quit or continue, such features would make models more
accurate and useble to theoreticians, educators, and practitioners or
negotiation who will benefit by gaining new theory building tools,
teaching insights, and best practice.7
a. Claim
The claim in the example above that current negotiation
models lack completenes is deliverd in a simple format. The
grammar is an affirmative statement and style is direct with no
7 Baber w, ― A lifecycle Macro Phase Model for Negotiation in M Schoop and D M
Kilgour eds Group Decision and Negotiation‖, Proceeding Springer International
Publishing, (2017),107-114.
19
adverbs, adjectives, or complex phrasing. Writers should not blur
multiple claims into one claim.
b. Ground or evidence
In the example above, the ground is may exclude activities
before or after the main negotiators to previous phases with new
information and decision gates to quit or continue. Evidence in this
argument is simple; it is merely a list of features. The deeper analysis
behind this data is located in a different part of the paper.
c. Warrant or reason
The explanation in the example above is such features
would make models more accurate and usable to theoreticians,
educators, and practitioners of negotiation. The Explanation is the
most complex element of the argument. The explanation typically
relies conditional grammar with would,should,could and similar
structures.
d. Backing
In the above sample argument, some backing is found in the
phrase, who will benefit by gaining new theory building tools,
teaching insights, and best practices.
20
4. The Difference between Classical, Rogerian, and Toulmin
Argument Structure.
The three methods of argument structure share some
similarities but also have some distinctions. When composing an
argumentative essay, the author may employ one of these
strategies.
1. Classical – This method is intended to be simple to understand
and will assist you in structuring your argument in such a way
that the reader's needs are met. It is founded on formal logic and
consists of six major components: an introduction, a background
story explanation, the proposition or thesis statement, supporting
evidence, ideas of opposing viewpoints, and a conclusion.
2. Rogerian – In this method, the writer's point of view and
opposing points are expressed and evaluated to establish common
ground. It is less argumentative and aggressive than the Toulmin
method and is an excellent technique for resolving conflicts,
sensitive issues.
3. Toulmin – This technique analyzes arguments based on
asserted facts and supporting evidence. It helps evaluate ideas to
determine their truth and validity. Another advantage of the
Toulmin method is that it enables the writer to examine both his
21
own and opposing viewpoints without the necessity of finding
common ground between them.
The Toulmin argument essay is an effective method of
presenting evidence for your argument, and it is written to
convince the reader that the writer's viewpoints are reasonable.
Even if the reader is not convinced entirely that the writer is
correct, the evidence presented should be convincing enough that
the reader will see the logic and consider the argument for
himself. The Toulmin argument essay is an effective method of
presenting evidence for your idea, and it is written to convince the
reader that the writer's viewpoints are reasonable.
B. Critical Thinking
1. Definition of Critical Thinking Skills
Critical thinking abilities are essential for effectively
assessing one's thinking through intellectual tools at the university
level. All writing assignments require you to practice persuasion –
presenting arguments and defending them ( excepting story and
argumentative writing ), developing, evaluating, and offering ideas
are all developed skills during a critical thinking course—combined
with an understanding of how to write an argumentative essay and
how to apply critical frameworks.
22
According to Caroselli, critical is derived from the Greek
word krisis, which means "to separate." Consider the concept of "
excluded middless " to assist individuals in examining the statements
they make and the attitudes they hold, the very nature of which can
prevent us from solving problems and even create new ones.8 Facione
defines critical thinking as "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that
results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as
clarification of the evidential, conceptual, methodological,
criteriological, or contextual considerations that underpin that
judgment.9 Linda and Richard continue by stating that critical
thinking analyzes and evaluates one's thinking to improve it.10
Many experts shaped the study's definitions of critical
thinking in the critical thinking movement, including Ennis, Chaffee,
and Reichenbach. To begin, Ennis defined critical thinking as a process
aimed at arriving at a reasonable conclusion about what to believe and
what to do.11
Second, Chaffee asserts that critical thinking refers to a
well-organized commitment to critically evaluate and decide whether a
8 Marlene Caroselli, The Critical Thinking Tool Kit, ( New York : HRD Press,2011
),1. 9 Peter Facione, Critical Thinking : A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes
of Educational Assesment and Instruction, Research findings and Recommendations, ( Te
Delphi Report. Milbrae, CA : California Academia Press, 1990 ),3. 10 E. Linda & P. Richard, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and
Tools 3th
Edition ( The Foundation for Critical Thinking,2008 ),2. 11
Ennis, R.H, critical Thinking, ( New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1996 ), xvii.
23
judgment about the truth of a claim or recommendation to act in a
particular way should be accepted, rejected, or suspended.12
Thirdly,
critical thinking is defined as thinking that is explicitly directed toward
well-founded judgment and thus employs appropriate evaluative
standards in an attempt to ascertain something's actual worth, merit, or
value.13
Among all elements, various critical thinking elements such as
claims, argument, reasons, data ( evidence ), and opinion serve as the
central facts of critical thinking that shape the current study. The
concepts utilize these elements. Another aspect of critical thinking is
the application of critical thinking standards, which include (1) the
clarity of arguments, (2) the logical and relevance of the data and
evidence used to support the main point, (3) the accuracy of the
argument's quality, and (4) precision in the sense of being specific
about details.
According to Norris has states in his article on the Synthesis of
research on critical thinking that there are seven definitions for critical
thinking that are based on numerous studies. That is the case.14
Company, 2002 ), 364. 13 Paul, R. & Elder, L, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking : Concepts and
Tools. Retrieved From http://www.d.umn.edu/jetterso/documentd/criticalthinking.pdf,2007. 14 S.P. Norris, 1985. Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Published by
Association for Supervision and Curriculum development,40-45.