Essay 1: Persuasive based on Values or Humor Average was 67% Highest: 96% Lowest: 31% Biggest problems – Didn’t persuade – Organization – Grammar: Punctuation,

Essay 1: Persuasive based on Values or Humor

• Average was 67%• Highest: 96%• Lowest: 31%

• Biggest problems– Didn’t persuade– Organization– Grammar:

Punctuation, Semicolons, commas, etc.

What are we going to do about it? 1. Make corrections and resubmit2. Examine your arguments. 3. Approach them in a different way. • Toulmin’s argument theory• Rogerian theory

Fast Food Nation- Chpts 3-4

• Discussion questions– Partners– Open Book

• Then be prepared to discuss:• Was it an extended history lesson?

Why/What was the purpose of section 1?

Argument Models

Teri Tosspon, English 255Meeting 5

Rogerian Model• Developed by psychologist Carl

Rogers (also in the ’50s)

• Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus

• Unlike in Classical argument, is not an argument to win; instead, emphasizes a “win-win” solution benefiting both parties

• Useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos dominate.

Benefits of Rogerian Argument• 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

An Example of Rogerian Argument: Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.’s “Whiskey Speech”

• Author/Speaker was a legislator, lawyer, and judge

• Known as Judge “Soggy” Sweat; “Soggy” was short for “Sorghum Top” = the tassel at the top of a sugar cane plant

• Occasion/Context: Debate in Mississippi Legislature in 1948regarding the possible legalization of liquor

Essay Restructure/Analysis 1: Rogerian Argument

Write down your original (or updated) topic as if you were writing a Rogerian Argument. Use the sheet provided.

• 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

The Toulmin Model

A tool for diagramming“informal” arguments

Stephen Toulmin

– originally a British logician– now a professor at USC.

– He became frustrated with the inability of formal logic to explain everyday arguments, which prompted him to develop his own model of practical reasoning.

The three basic elements:• Claim (assertion or proposition)

• Grounds (proof, grounds, support)

• Warrant (inferential leap)

Claim Grounds

Warrant

Biff was probably in a fight

He has a black eye

(unstated) Sign: A black eye is a reliable indicator that a person has been in a fight

Claims

• A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the conclusion, proposition, or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.

• The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?”

–example: “Rosario is an American citizen, because she was born in the United States.”–example: “Because the groundhog saw his

shadow, there will be six more weeks of winter.”

More about claims...

• There are four basic types of claims:• fact: claims which focus on empirically

verifiable phenomena

• judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things

• policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken

• definition/classification: indicates what criteria are being used to to define a term or what category something falls into

Grounds (proof or data)• Grounds refers to the proof or

evidence an arguer offers.• Grounds can consist of statistics,

quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning– example: “I’m a vegetarian. One

reason is that I feel sorry for the animals. Another reason is for my own health.”

– example: “I made the dinner, so you can do the dishes.

More about grounds...• Grounds are the support the arguer

offers on behalf of his/her claim. The grounds answer questions such as:– "What is your proof?“– "How do you know?“– "Why?”– example: “It looks like rain. The barometer is

falling.” – example: "The other Ritz Carlton hotels I've

stayed at had great pools, so I'll bet this one has a great pool too."

Still more about grounds...• grounds can be based on:

– evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof

– source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so

– analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof

– premises already held by the listener

Clue words for identifying grounds

• The grounds for an argument often follow words such as “because,” “since,” “given that…”– example: “Airports should x-ray all

luggage because a bomb could be placed in a checked baggage.”

– example: “I expect to do well on the test, since I studied all night for it.”

Warrants

• inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.

• implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the connection between the claim and grounds

• The implicit nature of warrants means the “meaning” of an argument is as much a part of the receiver as it is a part of the message.

• Some arguments are “multi-warranted,” e.g., based on more than one inferential leap

More about warrants...

• The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim– example: “Muffin is running a temperature. I’ll bet

she has an infection.”

– example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever.”

(warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection)

(warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly)

Still more about warrants...• warrants can be based on:

• ethos: source credibility, authority

• logos: reason-giving, induction, deduction

• pathos: emotional or motivational appeals

• value premises: values shared by, or presumed to be shared by, the receiver(s)

• note: these categories aren'tmutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the three

PathosEmotional appeals

EthosEthical appeals

Logos/ Logical appeals

sample argument 1

Claim Grounds

Warrant

The Angels are likely to win the ballgame tonight

They are playingat home

(unstated) Generalization: The home team enjoys an advantage in baseball

The Angels are likely to win the ballgame tonight. They are playing at home.

sample argument 2

Claim Grounds

Warrant

“Juno” is a wonderful movie.

It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards

(unstated) Sign: a movie’s greatness can be measured in the number of Oscar nominations it receives

Juno is a wonderful movie. It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards.

sample argument 3: Qualifiers

Claim Grounds

Warrant

If you surf at Huntington Beach right after it rains you risk getting a bacterial infection

Runoff from the rain washes bacteria into the ocean

(unstated) Cause-effect: bacteria in the water causes surfers to get ill.

If you surf at Huntington Beach right after it rains you risk getting a bacterial infection. Runoff from the rain washes the bacteria into the oceans.

QualifiersQualifiers

Qualifiers add conditions, Get rid of absolutes

Limitations regarding the Toulmin model

• The Toulmin model offers a somewhat static view of an argument

• Focuses on the argument maker, not the target or respondent

• Real-life arguments aren’t always neat or clear

• The Toulmin model is an analytical tool– Useful for dissecting arguments before or after they’ve

been made– Not as useful, practical in the “heat” of an argument

• Since warrants are unstated, different listeners may perceive them differently

Doesn’t have to be linear

• CLAIM: Our swimming program is effective for weight loss.

• GROUNDS: Studies show that after four weeks of following our program, the participants boast a 10% decrease in body weight.

• WARRANTS:– The audience wants to lose

weight– The studies are trustworthy– No other factors contributed to

the 10% decrease in weight loss– All participants lost 10%

of their body weight

Using Toulmin: continued• Including backing (b), a qualifier (q), and a rebuttal (r) can

diminish skepticism:•  • CLAIM: If you are like most Americans and are keen to lose a

few pounds (b), you should try our swimming program.• GROUNDS: Studies show that after four weeks of following

our program, combined with a restricted diet (q), the majority of (r) participants boast a 10% decrease in body weight.

• QUALIFIER: Limits to argument; conditionality.• REBUTTAL: Exception to argument.• WARRANTS:

– The audience wants to lose weight– The studies are trustworthy

• BACKING: Support or justification of the warrant.

Essay Restructure/Analysis 2Choose ONE of these

Toulmin Worksheet• What is 1 claim you

are making?• What grounds?• What is your Warrant?• What backing do you

have?• Conditions of rebuttal?• Qualifier?

Evidence Gathering• Worksheets to state

your point• Break down the

reasons• Select evidence/proofs• Tell why that evidence

matters. • Address opponent’s

view.

Essay 2Persuasive Essay with Arguments

Based on Evidence, Fact, Definition and/or Cause

Requirements • Outline required –

Structured with thesis and main points.

• Typed – 12-point Times Roman

type– double spaced

• 1,000-2,000 words. • five (5) references to

valid sources/other people’s work.

• MLA format• Works Cited page

Timeline• Starting 1 week early• Outline (or Evidence

Gathering Sheet) & Draft due 5/24

• Final draft due 5/31