Structuring and Analyzing

Arguments:
The Classical, Toulmin, and
Rogerian and Ad Herennium
Models
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 you’ve 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)
The Toulmin Model

 Developed by British philosopher

Stephen Toulmin in the 1950’s
 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 friend’s party on Friday night.

Data = The parents of nearly all of the

juniors at IHS have given their children
permission to attend this party.

Warrant = My parents should act in

accordance with the other parents of
juniors at IHS.
Uh-oh, a potential snag…
What if my parents don’t “buy” my
warrant? What if they don’t 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
Ad Herennium
 Exordium: Grab the audience’s attention
 Narration: Set out the area of argument with
facts of the case
 Division: Show both sides; what you agree and
disagree on with the issue.
 Proof: Set out arguments supporting your case.
Go all out using logos here.
 Refutation: More logos. Smash your opponent's
arguments show what’s wrong.
 Peroration: Your big finish! Reiterate your
strongest points. Bring on the pathos here. Make
‘em laugh, cry, or mad.
Exordium
 Putting the audience in a receptive mind.
 Discuss your own person.
 Discuss the person of our adversaries.
 Discuss the members of the audience
 Discuss the facts.

 Use a tricolon: a series of three parallel words.

 "You are talking to a man who has laughed in the
face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at
catastrophe." (The Wizard in The Wizard of Oz,
1939)
Narration
 Make sure it contains the following three qualities:
 Brevity: concise and exact use of words in writing
or speech.
 Clarity: the quality of being clear, in particular.
 Plausibility: valid, likely , or acceptable.

 It is the Who, What, When, and Where, of the

case.
 It’s HOW you define the argument using ethos and
pathos.
Division
 Summarize the most notable or important points of
the agreement.
 Then set out the points of your issue, but not too
many.
Proof
 Go hog wild with the logos.
 Set out to make your case.
 Use arguments of analogy and probability and
induction
 Provide pieces of evidence: laws, witnesses,
contracts, tortues, or oaths.
 Appealing to authority ALWAYS strengthens an
argument.
 *See pg 96
Refutation
 To prove your own case is to disprove your
opponent’s.
 Your goal is to misrepresent your opponent’s case in
such a way as to make it easier to attack.
 Apologize.
Peroration
 End with a BIG SHA-BANG!
 Lay on the pathos…..THICK
 auxesis is a form of hyperbole that intentionally
overstates something or implies that it is greater in
significance or size than it really is. USE IT!
 REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT.
 Restate words or themes from earlier in the speech
 Define your tone