Arguments

Analyzing Arguments -

Henrik Juel

An argument can be defined as two or more statements (premisses) that together supports a third

(a conclusion).

We use arguments in an attempt to show that our claim or point of view is not just an isolated or random, crazy statement, but that is part of a nicely ordered whole and in agreement with the true state of affairs and proper opinions and values

All (3 or more) parts of an argument are rarely explicitly stated - but might be (re-)constructed in the analysis

The basic Toulmin Model:

Data Claim

Warrant

The Toulmin Model:

Data Claim

Warrant

The Toulmin Model

old and new (Henrik's) Danish terms:

Data Claim

Belæg Påstand

Begrundelse Pointe

Warrant

Hjemmel

Grundantagelse

The Toulmin Model

with new arrows (Henrik Juel version)

Data Claim

Specific observation, The point I

premis or "relevant want to make

fact"

Warrant

General rule, norm, accepted idea

It is your turn to do the dishes!

Saddam Hussein has weapons

of mass destruction!

"Nous sommes en guerre"

(We are at war)

Not all said

Backward reasoning

Not explicit what place

Reasons given//motives

No logical frame inside

Arguments within arguments

Ambiguity, irony, change focus

New book in Danish,

Henrik Juel (ed.):

Hvor er Pointen?

-Kommunikationsfaglige

vinkler på argumentation.

Handelshøjskolens Forlag, 2011.

Critical analysis is difficult but important because:

La Conclusion

Les Données

La Garantie

Dirty tricks

Impute (misrepresent your opponent

Red herring (introduce stinking case)

Bad company (bad guys also claim that)

Smoke screen (talk a lot to hide truth)

Boost detail (in your favour, forget the rest)

Open door (argue for what we all agree on)

Gallery (cater for the lowest taste)

Old saying (seems to add credibility)

Bogey (knock down a scare crow)

Change subject (to where you are stronger)

Wilkinson is guilty

Toulmin's first illustration

(that might however be effective)

Two officers saw him

driving too fast

When you are driving too fast, then you are guilty

or

3 main types of appealing (being convincing):

Topic

Logos (subject matter, reason)

Fronesis (knowledge)

Areté (virtue)

Speaker

Ethos

(character)

Eunoia (benevolence)

Audience

Pathos (emotions)

We use arguments in both scientific discourse, public debate, private discussions, and heated quarrels (word-fights). We cannot help using some sort of logic - even when we are furious or mistaken about facts or have strange values and priorities. Logic is basic - but it does not help us in finding good reasons.

Very often we orient ourselves in the world and in discussions by applying some general rule or norm to a specific case or observation and from there try to conclude (or reinforce/justify our claim or original point).

Roman Jakobson:

6 communicative functions:

We can do many things with language (and other means of communication). Our statements can be - among many other things - "referential" i.e. they try to describe, reveal or create a case, the world, a subject matter. But not all language use is about stating facts or arguments.