Диссертация (1146783), страница 35
Текст из файла (страница 35)
(Aristotle, Plato, etc.) Practicalarguments reverse the order - first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification forit. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discoveringof new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas by trying tojustify them.How to Build a Toulmin Argument: The first three elements, “claim,” “data,” and“warrant,” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments. The nextthree, “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal,” may not be needed in some arguments.Start with a Claim, a conclusion whose merit must be established.Claim A: No unhealthy drinks should be sold on campus.Claim B: I am an American citizen.Next, provide Evidence or Data, a fact one appeals to as a foundation for the claim.
(Oftenmultiple evidence is required.)Soda pop or coffee drinks are unhealthy.I was born in California.Then formulate the Warrant, or a statement authorizing movement from the data to theclaim. The warrant is the assumption on which the claim and the evidence depend.
Warrantscan be implied (unstated) or explicit (directly stated). Which is stronger, and has more ethicalappeal?Warrant 1) People on this campus drink soda pop or coffee, which damages their health.Warrant 2) The school should not sell things which damages a persons health.In order to move from the data, “I was born in California,” to the claim, “I am anAmerican,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between data and claim withthe statement “A man born in California will legally be an American.”Backing = Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant.Backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to thereaders or the listeners.
Backing defends the warrant, or the assumption. Do you need somekind of backing to show that a man born in California will legally be an American, or is thewarrant enough? Do you need backing to show people on this campus drink soda or coffee?Do you need backing to demonstrate that a school should not sell things which damage aperson's health?Rebuttal = statements recognizing the restrictions which may legitimately be applied to theclaim.223A man born in CA will legally be an American citizen, unless he has betrayed the USA andhas become a spy of another country; or if he is born on the foreign soil of an embassy, or ifhe renounces US citizenship.Qualifier = Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certaintyconcerning the claim. They express how strong you judge your claim to be.Such words or phrases include probably, possible, certainly, some, always, never,usually, as far as the evidence goes, etc.Do we need a qualifier for "I am an American citizen" (such as most likely, or almostcertainly?)Do we need qualifiers for "no unhealthy drinks should be sold on campus."Claim: You should buy our tooth-whitening product.Data: Studies show that teeth are 50% whiter after using the product for a specified time.Warrant: <People want whiter teeth.>When you research both sides of a question, you may find yourself being convinced firstby one side, and then by the other.
Each argument sounds good - at least while you arereading it. When you read an argument which takes an opposite position--that sounds goodtoo, and soon you may feel completely confused. By identifying the parts of an argument soeach can be evaluated separately, Toulmin created a very useful model for analyzing thevalidity of an argument.
Submit each source you study to rigorous Toulmin analysis:Identify each argument's claims, data, and warrants.Look for qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing for the warrants.Compare one claim with another. Compare data between the two arguments.Compare warrants and their backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals.By analyzing the separate parts of an argument, you'll be much better equipped toevaluate each argument's validity.
Then, as you begin to write, use Toulmin's methods tosubmit your own argument to the same rigorous analysis.9. 2 Complete the text with the words from the box.claim, data, warrant, qualifier, backing, rebuttalThe first three elements, _ _ _ , _ _ _ and _ _ _ are considered as the essential components ofpractical arguments. The next three, _ _ _ ,_ _ _ and_ _ _ may not be needed in somearguments.10.2 Read the sentence below. Use the word given in capitals at the end of each line to forma word that fits in the space in the same line.224The warrant is typically _ _ _ (unstated) and requiresIMPLICATIONthe listener to _ _ _ the underlying reasoning thatCOGNITIONmakes _ _ _ of the claim in light of the grounds.SENSATION11.2 Work in pairs. Explain each of the term below. Discuss your ideas with the partner.Then compare your answers with the teacher’s version. Make a summary of the text.The list of the terms:1.2.3.4.5.6.Practical argumentsClaim and its justificationArgument analysisData, Claim and WarrantQualifiers, Backing and RebuttalsTesting ideasTeacher’s version:1).
Practical arguments--how real people argue, not the syllogisms of philosophers.2). Begin with a claim, then justify the claim (i.e. defend the reasoning by which one arrivesat the claim)3). Toulmin is good for testing ideas and argument analysis (since they require thejustification of every step of thought).4). Data, Claim and Warrant are always needed, and should always be stated clearly (inwriting an argument or analyzing another)5).
Qualifiers, Backing and Rebuttals may not be needed, but should be considered.6). While testing ideas don’t try to bridge the gap, but probe, carefully test how you think ofa claim, until you are satisfied by the truth and strength of the claim.12.2 Find the claim, warrants, data and rebuttal.
Make a counterclaim.1). Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.2). Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air polluting activity.3). Because cars are the largest source of private, as opposed to industry produced, airpollution switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.4). Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years.5).
Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that a decision to switch to a hybrid car willmake a long-term impact on pollution levels.6). Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.2257). This combination of technologies means that less pollution is produced. Accordingto ineedtoknow.org "the hybrid engine of the Prius, made by Toyota, produces 90 percentfewer harmful emissions than a comparable gasoline engine."8).
Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages a culture of driving even if it cutsdown on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging use of mass transitsystems.9). While mass transit is an environmentally sound idea that should be encouraged, it is notfeasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work; thushybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population.https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/03/13.2 Work in pairs.
Link the parts of the argument together. Use the model in the box:Because ____data as support_____, therefore/so _____qualifier_____,____claim____, since ____warrant_____, because _____backing_____, unless_____reservation_____.Parts of the argument:Claim - People should wear seatbeltsSupport - High rate of serious injury in accidents when seatbelts are not wornWarrant -Serious injury should be avoidedBacking - serious injury is costly, painful, and dangerousQualifier - TypicallyReservation - cases where seatbelts may be dangerous like small childrenRebuttal -High rate of serious injury when seatbelts are wornThere is an example at:https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h4tLZKKWI7X9huYfbimYAsJclSDbvW1PO1Lm2UsyhpU/edit#slide=id.i33114.2 Write your own arguments using the model in the previous exercise.16.2 Dilemmas.
Read the following dilemmas and decide which of two alternatives youprefer. Make your choices individually. Write down your argumentation, using the Model ofArgumentation from the ex.13.2. Discuss the dilemmas in groups of three.1) Would you prefer to be the only child in your family or to have siblings? Why?2) If you could have two weeks visiting ten different towns or two weeks in one particularinteresting place, which kind of holiday would you go for?18. 2 Writing.You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.Write about the following topic:How your life would have been different if you had been born of the opposite gender.Use the outline:1) Introduction: problem 2) Advantages 3) Disadvantages 4) Conclusion226Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your ownknowledge.Write at least 250 words.
Use the model of argumentation.Part 3 Argumentative training3.1 Listen to a dialogue at the office. Who are the participants? What is this conversationabout? How do the participants feel? Why do you think so?Office Space - Working Tomorrowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjJCdCXFslY3.2 Repeat the dialogue line by line after the speakers.3.3 Work in pairs. Roleplay the dialogue, developing the ideas.3.4 Argumentative stand. Poleplay different job situations using the strategies you know:collaborating, avoiding, competing, compromising, accommodating.Situation: Individual ConsultingTechnique: Role PlayProblem: Relationships at workWays of solving the problem: transactional analysisBooks to read: Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships by Eric BerneTA today.
A New Introduction to Transactional Analysis by Ian Steward and Vann Joines. –Lifespace Publishing, Nottingham and Chapel Hill. - 1987Strategies of Argumentation: collaborating, avoiding, competing, compromising,accommodating.Sample 1:Situation: Individual ConsultingTechnique: Role PlayProblem: Working relationshipsWays of solving the problem: transactional analysisPosition: I am OK.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
