In chapter 9 of Writing
Analytically, the chapter talks about the purpose of an argument with an introduction
to the rules of an argument. There are three viewpoints on an argument:
- Formal Argument Analysis: The Syllogism and the Toulmin Model
- Rogerian Argument and Practical Reasoning
- Figurative Logic: Reasoning with Metaphors
The Rules of an Argument:
Syllogism and Enthymeme
The Aristotelian model is the syllogism. There are three
parts that consist in this model. The major premise is a general proposition
presumed to be true. A minor premise is a subordinate proposition also presumed
to be true. The conclusion is a claim that follows logically from the two
premises, if the argument has been properly framed. It gives an example to
understand easier:
And here is my example of what I understand:
All actors
are handsome.
Chris
Hemsworth is an actor.
Therefore,
Chris Hemsworth is handsome.
Toulmin’s Alternative
Model of the Sylopgiam
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin studies arguments as we see them
in everyday life instead of mathematical formulations. A good argument connects
the whole discussion together. You need a claim that is a standpoint which is
presented by a writer. Data is the evidence which supports the claim. A warrant
is a general principle or reason for connecting particular data to a particular
claim. A claim is a conclusion about the data. Here is Toulmin’s example:
Data: Harry
was born in Bermuda.
Warrant:
The relevant statutes provide that people born in the colonies of British
parents are entitled to British citizenship.
Claim: So,
presumably, Harry is a British citizen.
Rogerian Argument and
Practical Reasoning
Both Rogers and Booth’s goal is the need to be able to
understand and accurately represent the positions of “opponents” in an argument
(196). This goal is important because of the standard in academic writing,
where you try to put different points of views into the conversation rather
than just argue about one view point. Also, there are two examples to
illustrate how qualifying your claims and checking for the unstated assumptions
upon which your claims depend on, can remedy the two primary problems created
by categorical thinking: unqualified claims and overstated positions. So, you
should more carefully limit the claims.
Figurative Logic:
Reasoning with Metaphors
The Logic of Metaphor
- Metaphors pervade our ways of thinking
- Metaphor is a way of thinking by analogy
- The logic of metaphors is implicit
- The implicit logic of metaphors can be made explicit by scrutinizing the language
- We can recast figurative language to see and evaluate its arguments just as we recast language to examine its logic in syllogistic form
The last section of this chapter is about fallacies. Fallacies
are false moves that can subvert arguments and interpretations. It is in the
categories Pathos, Ethos, and Logos from classical rhetoric. It is important
because it appeals to the audience’s emotions. If you understand fallacies, you
can easily to avoid them in constructing arguments and in analyzing the
arguments of others.