This document discusses argumentation and persuasive techniques. It defines different types of arguments as destructive or constructive. It also outlines key components of arguments including claims, types of proof, and responsibilities in arguments. Finally, it explains Stephen Toulmin's model of argument which identifies six key aspects: grounds, warrant, claim, backing, reservations, and qualifiers.
This slideshow introduces one method for turning the three central structures of Toulmin argumentation--claims, evidence, and warrants--into paragraphs, through a structure called a "Quote Sandwich"--an intro, quote, and analysis.
This slideshow introduces one method for turning the three central structures of Toulmin argumentation--claims, evidence, and warrants--into paragraphs, through a structure called a "Quote Sandwich"--an intro, quote, and analysis.
7The Argument Component of your Mental MapKeywordsarguromeliadoan
7
The Argument Component of your Mental Map
Keywords
arguments; certainty; generalization; mental map; variation amongst knowledge claims
Having presented the key to the mental map (a set of tools for thinking), we now briefly introduce the mental map components, before focusing in detail on the first component: the match between claims and warranting in arguments. How do the components relate to the tools? The authors whose work you study will have employed the tools for thinking in order to develop a convincing argument. The four components of the mental map will help you evaluate a range of factors that contribute to the content and robustness of that argument (
Table 7.1
).
In short, your mental map will enable you to home in on what authors were trying to do, why and with what success. In this chapter, we discuss the component that focuses on the match between authors’ claims and the quality of the evidence supporting them.
Two dimensions of variation among knowledge claims
In
Part One
, we saw that an argument is constructed from one or more
claims to knowledge
– assertions that something is, or normatively should be, true.
Table 7.1 Components of the mental map
Mental map component
Aspect of authors’ argument that it helps you examine Two
dimensions of variation amongst
Two
dimensions of variation amongst knowledge claims
about the social world, affecting their vulnerability to criticism
Authors’ tentativeness or certainty about their claims and their willingness to generalize, relative to the amount of appropriate evidence available
Three
kinds of knowledge
that are generated by reflecting on, investigating and taking action in the social world
The basis of their claims, as relevant to theory, new research evidence or experience
Four
types of literature
that inform understanding and practice
Whether the account aims to inform theory, research knowledge, practice or policy, and some common weaknesses that can render each type less than convincing
Five sorts of
intellectual project
that generate literature about the social world
Authors’ reasons for undertaking their work: aiming to understand, evaluate, change others’ action directly or through training, or improve their own action
These claims form the conclusion, which is one half of the argument. The claims are supported by some form of warranting: the half of the argument that justifies why the conclusion should be accepted. Claims vary along two important dimensions, according to the amount of appropriate evidence contained in the warranting. If there is a mismatch, we see the warranting as inadequate.
In
Chapter 3
, we saw how warranting can be provided, and be appropriate, but still be inadequate – not sufficiently convincing for the critical reader. An inadequately warranted claim often fails to convince because:
It is based on an insufficient amount of robust evidence to support the degree of
certainty
with which this claim is made.
The e ...
Case Study 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study Introduction to.docxtidwellveronique
Case Study / 10.1 Introduction to the Case Study
Introduction to the Case Study
This last chapter is different from the others. Instead of introducing a new area of critical thinking, it is a capstone activity in which you will apply the skills you've learned to one contemporary, controversial issue.
The topic for this case study is global climate change. Because it is beyond the scope of this course to thoroughly evaluate a complex scientific topic, you will not be expected to form a position or offer your opinion on this topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is presented for you to practice evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and questioning sources—with the hope that you will continue to apply these skills whenever you encounter material aimed to persuade.
This chapter won't present any new exposition. Instead, we provide some relevant review notes that have been excerpted from the earlier chapters. You can consult these notes if you need a refresher as you work through the final videos, articles, and questions in the course.
REVIEW NOTES
Arguments
To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus all arguments consist of at least two parts:
1. premise – one or more reasons to support the claim
2. conclusion – the claim being supported
Common Fallacies
Fallacy:a type of flawed reasoning
1. Begging the question: fallacy where the argument relies on a premise that resembles the conclusion, depends on the conclusion, or is as controversial as the conclusion.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy where the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that "everybody" (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy where the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."
4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy where the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.
5. Appeal to emotion: fallacy where the arguer tries to persuade the audience by arousing feelings such as pity, fear, patriotism, flattery, etc. in lieu of presenting rational arguments.
6. Unqualified authority: fallacy where the arguer tries to get people to agree by appealing to the reputation of someone who is not an expert in the field or otherwise qualified to prove that something is true.
7. Ad hominem: fallacy where the arguer attacks his or her opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances instead of the argument presented. The phrase is Latin for "to the man."
8. False dichotomy: fallacy where the arguer inaccurately portrays a circumstance as having a limited number of possible outcomes, thus setting up an either-or situation with the intent of prese ...
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
2. What Is An Argument? Destructive Argument- A person disagrees for the sole purpose to win the argument. The “winner” feels superior. It is not positive and usually does not help matters. Constructive Argument- A person truly wants to find a valid solution to the disagreement. The goal is to arrive at a better conclusion.
3. CLAIMS Claims- What the arguer is telling the audience to do or think Claims of Fact - something is, was, or will be Value- something is good or bad Policy- something should or should not be done
4. RESPONSIBILITIES IN AN ARGUMENT Burden of Proof - providing "good and sufficient" reasons to accept the claim. Burden of Presumption - providing reasons to maintain the status quo, reject the claim. Burden of Rebuttal - the obligation of both sides to respond to each other. Remember, silence equal consent, in other words, you agree with the previous argument.
5. PROOF Artistic Proof Ethos An appeal to the authority, integrity, or honesty of the speaker Pathos an appeal to the audience’s emotions Logos logical appeal or the simulation of it Inartistic Proof- Using persuasive strategies such as blackmail, torture, bribery… etc
6. Stephen Toulmin Authored “The Uses of Argument” Evaluated Arguments and critiqued modern philosophers Created the Toulmin Model Identifies 6 aspects of argument that are common
7. The Toulmin Model Grounds: what you have observed either first hand or second hand. Warrant: A general rule which links the claim to the grounds. Claim: The conclusion of the argument. What the arguer is attempting to convince the audience to do or think. Backing: Specific support for the grounds or warrant. Where did it come from. Reservation: Reasons why the warrant not apply. Exceptions to the rule. Qualifier: A word or phrase which suggests the degree of validity of the claim.
8. Grounds Another word for data, this is the basis of real persuasion and is the reasoning for the claim. Provide reasoning
9. Warrant These link the grounds (data) to the claim. They show that the provided data is relevant to the point the arguer is trying to prove. Claim Grounds
10. Backing This is the support for the warrants and provides additional information and proof that answers various questions.
11.
12. Qualifiers Words or phrases that tell the validity of the claim. They enforce the strength of the argument to observers.
13. Rebuttal A chance for the opposing view to give a case and respond to the Claim. Rebuttal’s can attack the Ethos, Pathos, or Logos of the Burden of Proof
