Blog #13

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.