The document discusses three common approaches to argumentation - the Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian approaches. It then focuses on explaining the key principles and structure of the Rogerian approach. The five key elements of a Rogerian argument are: 1) a brief, objective statement of the issue; 2) exploring common ground; 3) a complete description of the opposing position; 4) a complete description of your own position; 5) presenting a solution that considers both positions and finds compromise. The goal of the Rogerian approach is to have a less confrontational discussion through understanding different perspectives and finding common ground.

1. TYPES OF ARGUMENT
There is more than ONE way to write an argument. In fact, there is an
infinite
number of ways to construct an argument on the same issue depending on
your own
writing situation.
We will discuss a few commonly used models, their purposes, and basic
structures.
Then we will practice one.

2. THE CLASSICAL APPROACH
1) This a model of argumentation invented by the famous Greek
philosopher Aristotle.
2) It is best used when the purpose of your argument is to persuade your
audience to agree with your point of view, take your side on an issue, or
make a decision in your favor.
3) This is more of a win-lose scenario and is the most well-known model.

3. COMMON OUTLINE:
The following is the typical organization pattern for this approach:
 Introduction- Start with something interesting
 State your case--Clarify your issue. Give any necessary background for
understanding the issues. Define any important terms of conditions
here.
 Proposition--State your central proposition or thesis. Present the
subtopics or supportive points to forecast your argument for your
reader.
 Refutation--Analyze the opposition's argument and summarize it; refute
or address the points; point out faulty reasoning and inappropriate
appeals.
 Substantiation and Proof--Develop your own case. Use ethos, pathos,
and logos appeals to make your case. Use good evidence such as
examples.
 Conclusion

4. THE TOULMIN APPROACH
1. This model of argument was developed by the British philosopher
Stephen Toulmin.
2. The Toulmin Model is especially helpful when you try to make a case on
controversial issues that do not have an absolute truth as the Toulmin
Model seeks to establish probabilities rather than truth.
3. Considered a more practical argument

5. COMMON OUTLINE
The following is a typical organization for the Toulmin Model:
 Claims--There're several different types of claims: claims of fact, claims
of definition, claims of cause, claims of value, and claims of policy. You
can use any one or more of these claims to introduce your issue and to
establish your case.
 Data--Information you use to support your claims.
 Warrant--The assumption made by a writer in order for the claim to be
true.
 Backing--What you use to support the warrant.
 Rebuttal--This is where you consider the opposing viewpoint and refute
it.
 Qualifier--Use language that seeks to qualify the claims you make in
order to bring your argument to a close.

6. THE ROGERIAN APPROACH
1. This is a model of argument named after the psychologist Carl Rogers,
who believed that people could only resolve an issue or solve a problem
once they found the "common ground."
2. A group of rhetoricians, Young, Becker, and Pike, then developed a
model of argument named the Rogerian argument, which advocates a
way of argument that is less confrontational, less one-sided, and more
compromising and deliberately consensus-building.
3. Considered a win-win type of negotiating argument

7. COMMON OUTLINE
 The following are the usual elements of the Rogerian approach: An
introduction that briefly and objectively defines the issue or problem
 A neutral, non-judgmental statement of the opponent's position,
presented within valid contexts, that demonstrates the writer clearly
understands it
 A neutral statement and explanation of your position and the contexts
in which it is valid
 An analysis of what the two positions have in common and what goals
and values they share
 A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the itnerests
of both parties, or a statement of how the opponent's position would
benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position

8. YOUR APPROACH
1) Even within the previous models, there can be variation. You’ll notice
that each of these arguments has similarities: having a claim, providing
reasons and evidence, considering other opinions, considering the
needs of the audience
2) The above approaches provide proven organizational tools you could
use for your argument.
3) What approach you use, however, doesn't necessarily have to conform
exactly to one of these approaches. In fact, it is quite common for
people to combine some of the elements of these approaches based on
the needs of their argument, their audience and the situation.

9. ENGL 112
Principles and Structure
of Rogerian Argument

10. PART I
Rogerian “Principles of
Communication”

11. ROGERIAN “PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNICATION”
Carl Rogers’ “Principles of Communication” assert that anyone engaged in
communication essentially follows certain principles or ideas. These
“universal” ideas
and principles affect the way he/she
• will engage in any form of communication (whether writing or verbal).
• will react to, and interact with, others involved in the discussion.

12. PRINCIPLE 1
Threat hinders communication–
 When a person feels threatened by what another person is saying (or writing),
he/she is apt to stop listening (or reading) in order to protect the ego and
reduce anxiety.
 Think about being involved in any discussion where there are conflicting
opinions? Consider how you would respond if the other person raised their
voice, made accusations, or wording things in a way that you felt was unfair.
Many of us would not respond in a calm, rational way…and we certainly
wouldn’t be eager to hear the other person’s side.

13. PRINCIPLE 2
Making strong statements of opinion stimulates an audience to respond
with strong
opinions.
 Once someone you are having a discussion with has expressed a strong or
unyielding opinion, they are more likely to be interested in defending them than
in discussing them.
 The result  If you are in disagreement, you are more likely to respond with a
strong opinion of your own. Therefore, both sides find themselves “arguing with
a wall.” Both side is right, and neither side is willing to listen.

14. PRINCIPLE 3
Biased language increases threat; neutral language reduces it.
 Be careful of how you word things and of how your choice of wording sounds to
others. When you word things in a biased way- in a way that assumes an
opinion or even a truth about a situation (Ex. “This is just wrong” or “People
who believe this are idiots.”), without leaving yourself open to consider other
valid views, you increase the degree of threat inflicted on the audience…see
principle 1.

15. PRINCIPLE 4
A speaker or writer reduces threat and increases the chance of
communication
effectively with someone by demonstrating that he/she understands that
person’s
point of view.
 You are more likely to win people to your side, or at least have them hear you
out, if you are willing to acknowledge when they have made a valid point. You
can disagree with someone and still understand where they are coming from
and still see how parts of their argument make sense.

16. PRINCIPLE 5
One improves communication by establishing an atmosphere of trust.
 If you have followed the previous principles, you are likely to be better equipped
to create an atmosphere where both parties are open to hearing each other out
because neither side feels threatened or defensive.
 The result  You are more likely to find a solution and get something
accomplished that will benefit both sides.

17. PART II
Five Elements of Rogerian
Argument

18. FIVE ELEMENTS OF ROGERIAN ARGUMENT
These are the five basic structural elements of a Rogerian argument.
Whether you are writing an essay, a letter, an email or perhaps giving a
speech, this is the way you would set up your argument to fulfill the
“principles of Rogerian Argument” and help you reach your audience.

19. ELEMENT 1
This is how you would want to begin…
Offer a brief and objectively phrased statement that defines the issue or the
essence of the argument without placing blame or engaging in
evaluation.
 Ex. Instead of saying, “You were wrong when you said…,” try saying, “We
argued about…”

20. ELEMENT 2
Explore common ground –What issues can both sides agree upon from the
beginning? What relevant goals, values and concerns do you both share
that you can
work to meet?
 Ex. Two opposing sides of an argument over handgun registration might be
able to agree that both respect individual rights and the right to self-defense
and the protection of one’s property.
 These would be significant shared values and beliefs that could lead to a
solution that benefits both sides.

21. ELEMENT 3
A complete and neutrally worded description of the other side’s position.
 State the audience’s side to his/her satisfaction. Remember to be fair and
objective and to avoid attacking language.
 Basically, you would want to reword their side so that, when you finished, the
listener or reader would feel that you have explained it like he/she would, not
leaving out any points they may make, and wording it fairly and respectfully.

22. ELEMENT 4
A complete and neutrally worded description your position. You should
carefully avoid
any suggestion that you are more moral or sensitive than your audience.
Again, avoid attacking language.
 This part is difficult because it may be easy to “sugar-coat” the other side and
then really shift gears when it’s “your turn.” Be careful to keep the same tone of
fairness and respect even when discussing your own perspective.

23. ELEMENT 5
This may seem new, but it’s not a mistake. Your thesis or solution to the
issue should
come at the end, once both sides have been explained and given fair
consideration.
Thesis – Give an analysis of what your positions have in common. Next,
produce a
proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the interests of
both parties.
 You should show some concession/compromise toward the goals, points
and concerns of the other side.
 You should be able to explain how any compromises the reader may have to
adopt will benefit them and meet their needs/concerns.