1. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 1
Euclid Response Paper
Student Name: Luke Swem Beba
Student Country: Nigeria
Program Code: TPH-499
Course Code or Name: International Academic and Professional Paper Writing
Period 1
Professor / Assigned Tutor: Professor Laurent Cleenewerck
This page uses ☐ US (for spelling, punctuation rules and formatting of references).
The Rule of Style is: Turabian
Note: This document is in US letter (“8.5”x11”” format).
Zarefsky Lecture Notes Chapters 1-12
Introduction
My scope of summary ranges from definition of terms: rhetoric, logic, and dialectic.
The lectures move to identify a series of assumptions that undergird the practice of
argumentation: the importance of an audience, the regulation of uncertainty, the
difference between justification and proof, the cooperative nature of the enterprise, and
the acceptance of risk. These assumptions provide the philosophical base for
understanding what it means to argue as a means of reaching decisions.
In this paper response, I shall examine various aspects of argumentation in the light
of Zarefsky lecture notes based on chapters 1-12.
Introducing Argumentation and Rhetoric
Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning where reasons are justifications or
support for claims. To think of effective reasoning there has to be concern for an
audience. Because success it is said depends on audience assent, which in turn is based
on audience acceptance of the reasoning sequence. Consequently, argumentation is a way
in which one attempts to persuade.
Argumentation again is viewed as both a product and a process. It is a product
because it sometimes focuses on messages which could be both explicit and implicit. And
it is a process because it equally focuses on interaction in which I maintain what I think
are mutually exclusive positions, and I seek to resolve their disagreement.

2. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 2
On the other hand, rhetoric is the study of how messages influence me. Rhetoric
focuses on the development and communication of knowledge between I as the speaker
and my listeners. Thinking rhetorically means reasoning with audience predispositions in
mind.
Furthermore, Logic does not encompass only formal symbolic and mathematical
reasoning. Also informal logic from which argumentation borrows is grounded in
ordinary language and describes reasoning patterns that lack the certainty of mathematics.
Dialectic is a process of discovering and testing knowledge through questions and
answers. For example, Plato’s dialogues are real models of dialectic, etc.
Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation
Worthy of note is that, argumentation takes place under conditions of uncertainty.
Things that are uncertain are potentially controversial. For example, the Federalist Papers
and Lincoln-Douglas debate is a classical historical fact of an underlying assumption of
argumentation.
Controversies in argumentation involve genuine differences of opinion that matters
to me and which I crave for resolution. Controversies may be explicit or implicit,
unmixed or mixed, single or multiple, etc.
Uncertainty implies that things could be otherwise; the outcome is not known for
sure. Therefore, there is an inferential leap in the argument, from the known to the
unknown.
Argumentation again involves justification for claims. It is subjective and dependent
upon a particular audience. And it implies that I am willing to be convinced, though
skeptical and pessimistic accepting statements on faith.
Argumentation is fundamentally a cooperative enterprise. Arguers (“I”) share a
common goal of reaching the best possible decision under the circumstances. They (“I”)
share a frame of reference, some level of agreement on which their (“my”) disagreement
is built. They (“I”) also share a common language and system of meanings; procedural
assumptions and norms, etc.
Argumentation also involves risks. My decision to engage in argumentation suggests
a willingness to run the risks.
Formal and Informal Argumentation
Formal argumentation of logic is deductive in nature. It is the study of inference with
purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be
expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not
about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known
formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle.
Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is
important to informal logic. For example, the dialogues of Plato … .

3. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 3
In this lecture, two types of syllogisms featured, the conditional syllogisms which
begins with “if then” statement. And the “if” clause is said to be antecedent, while the
“then” clause is said to be the consequent.
Secondly, the disjunctive syllogisms that starts with an “either-or” statement. The
argument accepts or rejects one of the alternatives and draws a conclusion about the
other.
Everyday argumentation is not represented by a form in which the conclusion
contains no new information. Informal reasoning therefore, functions as the model for
everyday argumentation.
History of Argumentation Studies
The history of informal argumentation is traced back to the ancient Greek. The
Sophists lead by Protagoras was considered the father of debate and he held that there
were two sides to every question (Zarefsky, 2005: 18).
Other prominent Sophists were Gorgias and Isocrates. The Sophists generally
introduced the notion of commonplaces, mental storehouses where the materials of
argument could be found and they regarded winning an argument as an end in itself
(Ibid.).
Plato saw the excesses of the Sophists as inherent in rhetoric while Aristotle offered
a systematic treatment of argumentation and rhetoric to demonstrate the basis for
attempts to influence others.
Inspite of the dominance of the Aristotelian synthesis on argumentation during the
Roman era and the medieval period, Romans still adapted the theory of the Greeks for
pedagogical purposes. Hence, rhetoric was seen as a means of instruction.
Peter Ramus of the Renaissance era came to developed elaborate systems for
classifying figures of speech, gesture, and other stylistic devices. Rene Descartes
developed the method of systematic doubt maintain that one could reason only from self-
evident premises (Ibid, 19).
Toulmin’s attempt to explain ethical reasoning led to a more widely applicable
model of nonformal reasoning (Ibid, 20). Perelman’s attempt to explain how people
reason about justice led him to the revival of a rhetorical theory based on argumentation
(Ibid). Hamblin’s challenge to the conventional wisdom regarding fallacies fueled the
contemporary informal logic movement (Ibid). Van Eemeren and Grootendorst examined
the role of argumentation in critical discussions, and other interested in dialogue logic
charted how argumentation occurs in informal settings (Ibid).
Finally, Habermas and other social theorists emphasized the role of communication
in the constitution of society and offered normative standards for argumentation under
ideal speech conditions (Ibid).

4. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 4
Argument Analysis and Diagramming
Every conversation begins with a claim or statement that the arguer holds unto for
justification. In this lecture, four (4) main types of claims are mentioned and explained.
 The Claim of Fact, this involves description.
 Claims of definition, this involves interpretation.
 A Claim of value, involves judgment.
 Claims of policy, involves action.
Again in this lecture, some important components of an argument in addition to the
claim are explained. For example, what may become an argument is for an advocate to
advance a claim. If a claim is accepted immediately, the matter ends, and there is no
further argument. But if it is not accepted, then the advocate needs to produce evidence to
support the claim.
Here, a high level of technicality is advanced. For example, if the truth of evidence is
in dispute, then a separate argument will be advanced to establish it. If the truth of the
evidence is accepted but it is not seen as justifying the claim, then a warrant is provided
for the inference from evidence to claim. If the warrant is not accepted, then there will be
a separate argument to back it up (Ibid, 25).
Consequently, in line with the contemporary philosopher Stephen Toulmin, Zarefsky
believes that; evidence represents the grounds for making a claim. It is not identical to the
claim but it is used to support it and it must be accepted by the audience, or a separate
argument will be required to establish its truth (Ibid, 26).
Complex Structures of Argument
Concerning the complex structures of argument it is important to note that, the
resolution is a statement that captures the substance of the controversy. It is the ultimate
claim on which judgment is sought. It may be explicitly or implicitly stated and
discoursed by all participants.
According to Zarefsky, resolutions are of different types – fact, definition, value, and
policy, etc. And again, three major patterns for organizing arguments are identified: (i)
arguments may be arranged in a series of subordinate structure in which each argument is
dependent on the others and all must be carried in order to carry the resolution; (ii)
arguments may also be arranged in a convergent or coordinative structure in which each
argument is independent of the others; and finally, (iii) arguments could also be arranged
in the pattern of parallel or multiple structure in which each argument is independent of
the others.
Case Construction – Requirements and Options
A case is the structure of subsidiary claims and evidence selected for supporting or
opposing a resolution for a specific audience. Constructing a case involves choices and
choices are made regarding which arguments to use. Choices are audience-specific.

5. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 5
The lecture here introduces the term “topoi” meaning “places,” which are patterns
of issues that recur with given types of claims and situations.
Topoi according to the lecture offer a shortcut to locating issues in a given case.
Topoi are issues always raised when addressing resolutions of a given type. They are
recurrent patterns of analysis.
Topoi can be identified in various ways and patterns. For example, it can be
identified in resolutions of fact, resolutions of definition, resolutions of value, and even
for resolutions of policy, etc.
According to the lecture, two main factors featured in selecting arguments for a case
– the listener’s prior adherence to the evidence or the likelihood that adherence can be
obtained and the relevance of the claim to the resolution. And each of these factors is
affected by other variables, such as the degree of probability, the time frame of the
argument, and the argument’s consistency with common sense and generally accepted
values.
Finally, two other areas in this chapter that were essentially discussed hinged on – (i)
determining the amplitude (number and range of arguments). (ii) Organizational patterns
of independent arguments such as, chronological order, spatial order, categorical
organization, cause-effect or problem-solution structures, comparisons or contrasts, and
patterns that rely on the method of residues.
The Heart of the Controversy
The following lecture focuses on how an advocate can respond to an opposing case
and firstly determine exactly what is in dispute.
The central focal point of a dispute is referred to as Stasis. The term means a point of
rest between opposing forces. It enables us to identify precisely what is in dispute and
invites advocates to respond to it.
Classical theory established four (4) categories of stasis.
 Stasis in conjecture concerns whether an act occurred.
 Stasis in definition concerns what the act should be called.
 Stasis in quality concerns whether the act is justified.
 Stasis in place concerns whether the discussion is occurring in the proper forum.
Also, in general, stasis is progressive. It implicitly concedes conjecture or meaning.
It is pre-emptive. Failing to agree upon the stasis can have serious consequences for the
argument; it can lead to a stalemate, etc. The concept of stasis has multiple uses. It helps
the argument analyst ("Me") to locate the center of the dispute. It permits me to make
strategic choices about alternative means of responding to a given situation, as a
preliminary to attack and defense.
Attack and Defense I
To attack an argument, I must make several choices. Firstly, I must decide which
arguments to attack, which part of the argument to attack, attack the evidence and also

6. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 6
the inference or even the contextual assumptions that undergird the whole argument.
Secondly, choosing what type of attack to develop and this involves:
 identifying internal deficiencies in the argument,
 identifying inconsistencies in the argument, and
 identifying fallacies, etc.
Attack and Defense II
The emphasis here is that general methods of refutation can be used in both attack
and defense. Reductio ad absurdum suggests according to Zarefsky that the other
arguer’s position leads to unacceptable implications (Ibid, 46).
Argument a fortiori suggests that what is true of the lesser is true of the greater, or
vice versa. Contradictions and inconsistencies eliminate at least one of the other arguer’s
positions, as well as questioning the other arguer’s general credibility.
The processes of attack and defense together help me to move the discussion
forward. Some aspects of the controversy will be settled or dropped through attack and
defense. The central issues on which the dispute turns will be identified, the positions of
the arguers will be clarified, and the differences between them will be recognized.
Language and Style in Argument
Language is a resource in everyday argumentation. Language is an intrinsic aspect of
the argument and as such serves as a strategic resource.
Definitions are a strategic resource which they characterize common usage, make
vague terms more precise and invent new usage. And of special interest to argumentation
is the persuasive definition which supports “slanting” thereby making an argumentation
to gain advantage.
Definitions are used in argumentation to alter the scope of the conflict. Equivocation
is the use of the same word to convey different meanings in the same argument.
Ambiguity is when we cannot be sure which of a set of possible meanings of a term the
intended meaning is. Amphiboly is when we cannot be sure which of a set of possible
meanings of a phrase is the intended meaning. Vagueness is a situation in which a term or
concept is indeterminate as to meaning. Heaps and slippery slopes are patterns in which
boundaries or dividing lines, being imprecise, are treated as if they were nonexistent.
The lecture also makes available strategies that can make language to be more
precise and these are – (i) stipulated definitions (ii) operational definitions. Finally, the
lecture identified also two areas of implications to the use of language and style in
argument, these are (i) linguistic precision can have argumentative implications, and (ii)
figures of speech rather than being merely ornamental also have argumentative
implications.

7. Luke Swem Beba MIRD TPH-499 RP1.DOCX Page 7
Evaluating Evidence
In evaluating evidence, the following tools can be used, statistics, tangible objects,
testimony of fact or opinion, and social consensus (consists of beliefs that function as if
they were facts) “common knowledge” is a type of social consensus. Other types include;
shared value judgments, shared historical understandings, previously established
conclusions, and stipulations in a specific discussion.
Evidence answers the question “How do you know?” To make a logic claim or
conclusion, evidence has to be agreed upon by all participants. It serves as a secure
starting point for the dispute.
Works Cited - Bibliography
David Zarefsky, (2005) Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd ed.
The Great Courses, 4840 Westfields Boulevard Suite 500, Chantilly, Virginia.