Toulmin Assignment
Due:
Format:
-
Typed; staples only (no paper clips or report covers); at
least 1-inch margins.
-
Name on reverse of back page ONLY. Do not put your name on
the front of any paper.
-
You must respond to all the requirements listed below, but
you are not required to follow the exact format of the example Iíve
provided. For example, you donít have to draw boxes in the Toulmin
model, but the connection between elements should be clarified, if not
illustrated. Level of detail is your choice, but remember; I must be able
to understand your argument to evaluate it.
Instructions and Guidelines:
-
Analyze each of the following arguments, using the criteria
below as well as other criteria available from your Speakerís Handbook
or from the online lecture notes: "Reasoning."
-
For purposes of clarity, you should assume that the audience
is uninformed. Do not presume I can follow your reasoning process or that
I will fill in the gaps. More information is better than less. Think carefully
about each argument and make your answers as precise and complete as possible.
Remember, analyzing argument is much like doing math story problems: You
should provide the steps you take as well as provide the answer in a math
problem. Here, you should clarify your own reasoning if you think it would
help the reader understand your response.
-
In other words, you are not only analyzing these arguments
for yourself, you are presenting your analysis for a reader (me), who will
analyze your "presentation." You are, in effect, not only convincing me
that you can analyze the statements, but that you understand the process
and concepts of argumentation, and have read the materials that can help
you with this assignment.
With that said, please complete the following steps for each of the
statements:
1. Map the argument, using Toulminís model
of argument analysis.
-
In your Toulmin map, you should identify and label the main
claim, a warrant, and grounds. (you do not need to map the argument further
than these three elements).
-
Tip: Each statement will probably have more than one
claim, so find the MAIN claim and go from there.
-
Tip: the main claim may not be obvious. The warrant
may be implied rather than stated. Any of the three elements (claim, warrant,
grounds) may need to be simplified for analysis purposes.
2. Identify and illustrate one syllogism operating
in this argument (one form of the deductive logic--Categorical, Hypothetical,
or Disjunctive), following the form offered in class and in the online
lecture notes.
-
Although you will supply all three statements of the deductive
logic form, one or more of these statements may be implied in the argument,
rather than stated.
-
Write the syllogism as it is USED in the argument. You should
not correct the argument if it is faulty. Just identify and illustrate
(write out in logical form) one example of the logical reasoning at work
in each statement.
-
Tip: In most arguments, a categorical syllogism could
be identified.
-
Tip: In many arguments, both categorical and hypothetical
syllogisms could be identified. You can choose which type of reasoning
to illustrate.
-
Tip: A categorical syllogism has a major/universal
premise as well as the minor premise. Usually (but not always), the "logical
conclusion" is the same as the main claim of the argument.
-
Tip: Map the argument using Toulminís model
first, to identify the main claim. Then, this claim can (in many cases)
become the "conclusion" statement for your syllogism.
Example:
"No wonder there are so many shootings in the U.S.;
anyone can walk into a store and buy a gun."
-
First, consider what is being argued, both in actual words
and implied links. Often, weíll only supply partial arguments, and
the audience fills in the missing links, missing evidence, and implied
reasoning.
-
Lay out the elements of the argument, using the Toulmin model.
You could lay out the argument in several ways, depending on your interpretation
(some of you may see the "big picture" argument, while others will see
the specific details. Both can be correct).
-
Explain yourself where necessary (the level of explanation
depends on your judgment of whether youíve been clear enough or
not. Iíve put a lot of detail below because I want the reader to
follow my reasoning as clearly as possible. In this case, I donít
want to go back and re-explain myselfÖ.so Iím putting the detail
here. You might choose to do the same.).
If I were doing this assignment, I would present the following
information:
I argue that in this statement, the main claim could be
stated as: "Shootings are the result of gun ownership." Much of the "big
picture" argument is implied, but the advocate seems to be arguing that
because we in the U.S. have the freedom to buy and possess firearms, the
crime rate (as defined by shootings) is high. The argument is causal, specifically
"Effect to Cause."
(You arenít required to provide this basic explanation,
but it may be a good idea to explain how you approached the statement as
well as how youíre interpreting the argument. If you complete your
illustrations and feel like you need to supply more information, you may
choose to come back and write an introductory paragraph like this one.
You also arenít required to identify the specific type of argument
in your assignment, but it is useful to know what type of argument youíre
working with, and also helps me (the evaluator) see what youíre
thinking and how youíre interpreting the statement).
Grounds:
Buying a gun is legal.
("Anyone can walk into a store and buy a gun.")
|
Warrant:
People who own guns will shoot them (implied). |
Claim:
The high number of shootings in the U.S. is the result of easy accessibility. |
A possible hypothetical syllogism
working in this example is:
1. If people can readily buy
guns, they will shoot other people.
2. Owning a gun in the United
States is easy (affirms the antecedent)
3. Therefore, there are so many
shootings in the U.S.
(This is a faulty argument; the major
premise of the argument is not universally accepted. You don't
have to identify or correct the fault, so this is just FYI. You should
be aware of whether the logic is faulty or not)
Hereís another example of
a syllogism operating in this example?you donít have to provide
two, Iím just giving this as an example:
1. Gun ownership (All A) is
associated with high incidence of shooting (is B)
2. In the U.S. (C), you can buy
a gun anywhere (is A)
3. Therefore, in the U.S. (C),
there will be a high shooting rate (is B).
Again, the logic in this argument is
faulty. You donít have to identify the fault or correct the argument,
but FYI: The major premise here is not universal and all-inclusive. Although
the minor premise may be true, the conclusion is not warranted, because
the universal premise is not necessarily true)
Please analyze the following
statements for your assignment:
1. Fords are lousy cars. Iíve
had nothing but trouble with my Ford since I first bought it. Iíll
never buy another Ford product again.
2. You said that in
order to receive an A for this course we students needed to do very well
on the final exam. I did very well on the final exam. So why did you give
me only a B for the course?
3. You must be doing
something wrong. We never had any problem with the windows in this apartment
until after you moved in.
4. Our records show
that students who do poorly in college tend to be overstressed. It seems
clear that stress contributes to doing poorly in college.
5. No wonder we were
so unsuccessful in the Vietnam War; nearly half the army was on drugs.
6. Iíve noticed
that when my dog barks for a long time, it makes him really hungry. Whenever
I feed him just after heís been barking for a long time, he really
gobbles up his food.
7. All three sex offenders
arrested this month by municipal police had previous records for the same
crime. It seems that once a sex offender, always a sex offender.