(Text dense: meant to be read like a book chapter, for online courses) Break down and logic of the Toulmin model in relation to deductive reasoning/syllogisms.
1) Explanation of the problem
2) Stating your position
3) Argument supporting your position
4) Rebuttal of expected criticisms
5) Resolution of the issue
1) Explanation of the problem
2) Stating your position
3) Argument supporting your position
4) Rebuttal of expected criticisms
5) Resolution of the issue
This presentation provides an overview of the valuation (fair market value) of the warrants issued to the Treasury by banks participating in the "TARP" Capital Adequacy Program.
What cognitive neuroscience can do for English professorsAmanda Preston
Conference presentation addressing points of interest and intersection between brain science and language learning, as well as the pedagogical and adrogogical benefits of staying informed about learning and memory studies. Classroom activities offered that turn experiments into learning strategies.
Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Artroutmanboris
Argument structure: The Aristotelian argument
The Aristotelian argument is the framework upon which most academic, thesis-driven
writing is based. You can use this template any time you need to take a position on a
topic.* Before getting started, make sure that your thesis is argumentative and non-
obvious. When determining how to support your thesis, try to group all of your
supporting evidence into distinct piles which have thematic similarities. Finally, develop
each claim in its own section of text, making sure that each point is proportionate to the
others. The back of this handout contains a template you can use to get started.
1. Start broad and contextualizes the argument (e.g. Why
is your topic relevant to the course content?).
2. End with a specific argumentative claim--your thesis
(e.g. “In Augustine’s Confessions, we find many personal
dilemmas still relevant to modern life.”). You may also
opt to preview the progression of your argument (e.g. “In
Augustine’s Confessions, we find many personal
dilemmas still relevant to modern culture, evidenced by
his greed, his theological experimentation, and his sense
of despair when faced with personal loss.”)
3. Start each body paragraph with a distinct topic
sentence; this tells the reader how the paragraph
functions in the context of the argument (e.g. “One way
in which Augustine’s confessions are still relevant to
modern society is his greed, shown in his willingness to
steal the pears despite being well-fed and otherwise
content”).
4. Each paragraph should have distinct content based on
some organizational principle (e.g. ethics, history,
financial, legal, biblical, thematic (as in this example),
etc.)
5. If your thesis is controversial, you may also opt to
include a concession. This acknowledges a typical
argument your opposition would present to you (e.g.
“However, some theologians have claimed that the
realities of the modern world have made Augustine less
relevant to modern theological dilemmas. One example
is Dr. NoName, who states…”).
6. Immediately following, and in about as much space,
refute the opposition using evidence which undermines
their criticism.
7. Conclude and broaden the scope of your argument,
and this time, contextualize it in terms of relevance to
your audience and society.
*The example above is for illustration only.
Placement of the thesis my vary; the number of
points (and paragraphs composing them) can change.
The Center for Writing
3 Bockman Hall
651.641.3465
www.luthersem.edu/writing
Context & Relevance:
Concession:
Refutation:
Topic Sentence 3:
Supporting claims:
Topic Sentence 2:
Supporting claims:
Topic Sentence 1:
Supporting claims:
Relevance & Context:
Thesis:
marci
Note
Note: This template lacks a Background Section. This section answers the questions: (1) Why is this a problem?; (2) What are the origins/causes of the problem?Aristoteli ...
Directions This may be done table format. APA format is requ.docxcuddietheresa
Directions: This may be done table format. APA format is required whichever format you choose. A title page, running head, page numbers and three references are required.
A. Identify the normal values for each of the following labs. Consider normal values across gender, race, and age, and pregnancy status, when applicable.
B. Identify clinical indications for obtaining the following labs.
1. List when indicated for routine screens if applicable (for example,the USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydia in sexually active women age 24 years and younger and in older women who are at increased risk for infection, or TSH screening is indicated for newborns. Indications for screening can also include risk factors. For example, ordering cholesterol levels on a patient with HTN or DM.
2. Besides screening,list 1-3 clinical indications for ordering the lab. For example, clinical indications of WBC include
Fever with associated symptoms, weight loss, bone pain with fever, etc.
C. Identify conditions associated with abnormal LOW levels of each of the following labs (if applicable)
D. Identify conditions associated with abnormal HIGH levels of each of the following labs (if applicable)
One good resources for screening recommendations is:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/BrowseRec/Index/browse-recommendations
1. Components on a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel such as (but not limited to) sodium, chloride, potassium, glucose, CO2, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Calcium
2. Renal Function Tests: Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), Creatinine, BUN/Cr Ratio, Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR)
3. Thyroid Function Tests
TSH, Free T4
4. Toxicology
Salicylate toxicity, Acetaminophen, Urine Drug Screen, Blood Alcohol, Carbon Monoxide (CO)
5. For your last category of test. Report screening indications for the chosen test, and some clinical indications for ordering them, normal values/results, and S/Sx associated with high/low or abnormal values when applicable
a. Mammography
On Writing an Ethical Argument Evaluation Paper (PHIL 302)
Topic is Racism between social Classes
Before you begin writing, it is crucial to pick a subject, topic, or a specific argument that interests you. Your paper will be a critical evaluation of the soundness of an argument. If you already have an argument, then you can go on to the next step. If not, you may choose to discuss one from an author you have read, or you may formulate your own. In some courses, you may consider a case study for your paper. In that case you will formulate an argument that purports to defend a resolution to the case. You should note that it is not crucial that you pick an argument with which you agree. It is about equally difficult (or easy) to write a paper opposing an argument as it is to write one supporting it, so you should probably choose an argument that is interesting first.
Your paper will have seven parts:
I. Introduction
II. Position
III. Argument
IV. Justification
A. V ...
How to Write a Philosophy PaperShelly KaganDepartment of.docxpooleavelina
How to Write a Philosophy Paper
Shelly Kagan
Department of Philosophy
1. Every paper you write for me will be based on the same basic assignment: state a thesis
and defend it. That is, you must stake out a position that you take to be correct, and then you must
offer arguments for that view, consider objections, and reply to those objections. Put another way:
you must give reasons to believe the central thesis of the paper.
Some of you may have never written a paper like this before. So let me contrast it with two
other kinds of papers you probably have written. First, I am not looking for "book reports": I
don't want summaries of one or more of the readings, and I don't want you to "compare and
contrast" what different authors say, or what different moral theories might say, about the given
topic. Rather, I want you to "stick your neck out"--tell me what you believe to be the truth about
the relevant issue. And then I want you to defend that position. Of course, it might well be
relevant, or helpful (or perhaps even part of the specific assignment) to discuss some particular
author or view. But even here the emphasis should be on evaluating that author or view. Book
reports, no matter how superb, simply don't meet the assignment.
Second, I am not looking for "thoughts on topic X", or "meditations on X", or "remarks on
X". It just won't do to simply string together various reflections you may have on the given topic,
even if in the course of doing this you embrace various claims, and offer some reasons for your
views, before moving on to the next reflection. The paper should instead have a single, central
thesis. The point of the paper is to state and defend that thesis. The various contents of the paper
should be selected and organized so as best to defend that central claim. (Stream of consciousness,
for example, is a poor way to organize material, and is likely to include much that is irrelevant to
anything like a main thesis.) No matter how brilliant, mere reflections simply don't meet the
assignment.
2. So the paper should state a central thesis, and defend it. More specifically, it should do the
following things:
A) It should start with a clear statement of the thesis. This need not be the very first
sentence, but it should almost always come in the first paragraph or two. Many papers never give
a clear, official, precise statement of the thesis at all. They leave the reader guessing what the
author's precise position is. Don't do this. It may seem obvious to you what your position is; it
won't be obvious to me.
Other papers do give a clear statement of the thesis--but not until the last paragraph of the
paper. ("Oh! Is that what the author was driving at!") This may be a dramatic way to structure a
short story; but it is a very poor way to structure a philosophy paper. I shouldn't have to spend my
time reading the paper trying to figure out what your view is; I should be abl ...
Delivering Micro-Credentials in Technical and Vocational Education and TrainingAG2 Design
Explore how micro-credentials are transforming Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) with this comprehensive slide deck. Discover what micro-credentials are, their importance in TVET, the advantages they offer, and the insights from industry experts. Additionally, learn about the top software applications available for creating and managing micro-credentials. This presentation also includes valuable resources and a discussion on the future of these specialised certifications.
For more detailed information on delivering micro-credentials in TVET, visit this https://tvettrainer.com/delivering-micro-credentials-in-tvet/
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
2. Organizing an Argument Logically
• One of, if not the most important aspects of argument in an academic environment
is logical reasoning, at least according to Aristotle. Since he is the father of
rhetorical theory, it stands to reason that after more than 2000 years of holding this
position, there may be something to his claim—
Logos matters most.
• Stephen Toulmin, a modern theorist, developed a simple structure for how to
identify and organize the logic in an argument, both explicit and implicit elements,
when either composing or analyzing. This model is what we will use organize our
ideas on our research topic+thesis to ensure our reasoning is both valid and sound.
3. The Basics: Three Primary Elements
• Just like with logical syllogisms, there are three primary elements in the Toulmin
model. Those three parts of deductive reasoning also correspond directly to the
three dominant parts of Toulmin’s model.
• Warrant (general assumption) Major Premise (general category)
+ +
• Grounds (specific evidence) Minor Premise (illustrative case w/in category)
= =
• Claim (deduction/argument) Conclusion (inference drawn from premises)
4. Warrant: How to read the evidence
• A warrant is usually an assumption, a value belief that is commonly held by both the author and the
target audience to be true.
• Many times, the warrant is something presumed to be self-evident, so much so that it may seem too
obvious to even give attention to when analyzing someone else’s argument or when formulating one’s
own. (We all know what they say about what happens when you assume…)
• Warrants can often represent the biggest problem when trying to discover the most factual and
evidence-based conclusion on controversial topics. We become blind to them.
• However, the warrant is often, in fact, the major point of disagreement between those engaged in
debate or discourse, and thus what prevents opponents from arriving at a shared understanding of
both sides of the case—what has truth value and what is merely a personal matter of taste or
enculturation. If both debaters start with differing understandings of the underlying assumptions on a
topic, neither will be able to see how the other arrived at his or her conclusion.
5. Warrant: How to read the evidence
• The warrant is like the general category of a major premise in a syllogism. It is
the definition of the general category that determines how the specific case or
evidence that follows should be understood. This tells the reader how to understand
the minor premise it is paired with—it enframes the way we see the evidence.
• Take the most recognizable syllogism in western culture as an example:
(since) All men are mortal + (and/because) Socrates is a man = (ergo/thus/then) Socrates must be mortal.
• The warrant is the first premise or proposition: ALL men are mortal (by definition)
6. Venn Diagrams: Category Membership
The warrant is usually a larger (hence more general) category classification than a
ground (a single instance that falls within the warrant’s sphere).
All mortal things is the largest category. Within that taxonomic sphere, more
things than just human beings exist (animals, reptiles, bacteria, vegetation, insects,
arachnids, etc.). Anything that lives and dies is by definition mortal. However, the
whole (all) of mankind is one category within that larger classification. With all
contained therein, the categories are like nesting dolls.
Inside the sphere of mortal human beings, there are numerous examples of
individuals who could be used to illustrate that membership in one group
necessitates membership to the larger group.
In the syllogism, however, the example given is an individual who seems larger-
than-life. Thus, if he can be labeled man(kind), he also has to be mortal, so it
stands to reason that he is as human and mortal as the rest of us.
Mortal Things
Mankind
7. Putting it Together: Warrant + Grounds = Claim
• Here’s how the logic of this three part system works (written out):
• (warrant) Keeping in mind that the warrant is the categorical assumption (cultural/social
norms define human beings as organisms that die: mortal),
• (ground) when we pair that concept with a specific, representative example that fits
within its category (an actual, historical person: Socrates),
• (claim) we can then logically deduce that based on the example’s membership within
the larger category (if true), whatever applies to the category as a whole also applies to
the sample specimen/object (our example is mortal—he can’t live forever; he is just a man).
8. The Basic Equation: W+G=C
• If you add the first premise to the second, you should come to a logical conclusion. If both
premises are high in truth value, the conclusion should likewise carry high truth value.
• Sound premises should lead to sound conclusions (if the logic is good)
• Correct deduction (Major/W + Minor/G) will result in valid (logically accurate) conclusions
• Just like in math, incorrectly combining the two variables in the equation will result in a false product
• This is why knowing what you are dealing with (defining terms and functions) matters in argumentation
• The warrant tells you how to understand/read the evidence to reach the claim.
• Just like with syllogisms: Major + Minor = Conclusion
• Toulmin runs parallel: Warrant + Grounds = Claim
9. Grounds: Representative Evidence
Grounds (the minor premise) should only ever rely on the kind of example or evidence that
will best illustrate (exemplify/an exemplar of) the point you are making. What that means is
that you cannot use just any old instance to make your case. Some examples are better than
others, and some examples can set your argument up for failure.
Poor examples include those instances that are anomalies—outliers, mutations, abnormal
instances, unpredictable cases, rarities. The exception does not prove the rule, so while many
novice debaters often try to use a single case to refute your position, one instance of
deviation from your claim is not enough to invalidate it, unless you have set up your claim as
an all-or-none fallacy. This is why limitations (qualifiers) matter.
10. Representative Grounds: “Normal”
Using abnormal (non-predicable) examples represents a
kind of hasty generalization, where an entire population is
falsely described by the behavior of a single, non-
representative member.
This would be like using Einstein to define an average
(normal) IQ or Bill Gates to define financial success. They
are unusual circumstances—well below a statistically
significant number. Not many have/will ever follow suit.
As a general rule, if fewer than 51% of a population
(category membership) is not likely to do the same thing as
the example used, the example is grossly fallacious; it
misrepresents its categorical population trends.
11. Rebuttal: Refuting the Opposition
• Usually in the invention and arrangement stages of writing, you have to give serious
consideration to both sides of the argument in order to have a complete picture of the
issue. That means weighing out both sides of the case, not just focusing narrowly on
your own position.
• Failing to keep the main arguments and evidence of your opposition will set you up for
failure by limiting your focus to only those supporting claims and evidence you want to hear.
This kind of approach is like group-think—dangerous. Poor decisions are made this way.
• A strong argument is well-informed, balanced, and considerate. A fair and thus scholarly
rhetor keeps in mind the idea that there are at least two equally legitimate positions on a
topic, both of which deserving to be heard. He or she is also interested in coming to a
sound conclusion (main claim) based on hard evidence (logos), an outcome that, like justice, is
supposed to be an unbiased evaluation—a weighing out of the facts.
12. Rebuttal: Refuting the Opposition
• Just like in a game of chess or a court case, to be successful in argumentation, you have to
keep in mind who you are playing against. The more you can predict the moves of your
opponent, the better you will be able to defend your position.
• The language of argumentation is largely combative in nature—the metaphor of war: e.g.
defending one’s position, formulating an attack, taking an offensive strategy, going up
against an opponent, taking sides. However, in academic argument, your goal should not
be to win at all costs, but to present an honest, evidence-driven, and logical case.
• Think of academic argument as a kind of artful game where truth value (not capital-T truth)
is tested—examined, evaluated, discovered, publicly performed. For a good game, you want
a fairly matched opponent, one who is as invested as you, as prepared, and equal in
sportsmanship.
13. Rebuttal: Refuting the Opposition
• Even with an equitable perspective in mind, it makes sense to try and consider what your opposition is likely to
do—his best moves. Knowing his strong and weak points should help you to organize your defenses and strategize
your offensive moves. In this way, your goal should be to prepare your position for active engagement. Successful
military tacticians, lawyers, gamers, athletes, and rhetoricians all know that the best defense is a good offense.
• So too, knowing what your opponent’s case is built around will help to guide what you address in your own
argument. If you are going toe-to-toe with someone who intends to debate the most recent evidence on global
warming, then, it only makes sense that it would be a waste of time to argue using 10-20-year old sources and
evidence; you will be debating totally different aspects of the topic. In such a situation, there can be no conclusion as
there is no argument, just two unrelated points on a subject—one historical, one contemporary. This is like trying to
play checkers against chess on the same board. You have to know what you are playing for there to be an outcome.
• To know what you need to address, then, what kind of evidence you should focus on, you have to read what has been
said, find problems in the opposition’s position, and then focus your attack there, where it’s relevant, worth
pursuing, and most importantly, actually arguable. To break through a tough defense, it helps to know where it’s weak.
14. Limitations & Qualifiers
• A common problem that can severely weaken a position is over estimating and over generalizing
your point. This is usually done by relying on erroneous or excessive descriptors—all, none, no,
never, always, every, etc. Any case where an all-or-none statement appears, it negates itself
inherently as a fallacy; the debate is over, and you lost. This is not a good strategy.
• Such qualifiers misrepresent a position by making absolutist claims, where in reality, there is no
such thing as an absolute category without any variation, mutation, outlier, or potential deviation.
This principle is kind of like “the only rule is there are no rules;” trying to rebel against it or reject
it on the grounds of incidental irony or absurdity will simply get you caught up in the paradox.
• Instead of trying to make overly presumptive claims about what you are arguing, the more honest,
specific, and up-front you are about your position, the more sound and credible it will seem.
Rather than trying to make statements about absolute truths, argument in academy is about
provable and thus probable—we rarely have all the evidence before we try a case, so we have to
admit to what we are really working with.
15. Limitations & Qualifiers
In general, it is best to be as specific as possible when making declarative claims (main or supporting). What that means is that you have to limit
your arguments and statements to only those points, explanations, definitions, interpretations, and declarations that can be proven—empirically.
If you cannot measure it, bring it for show and tell, put it on a scale, poke it, touch it, hold it, or physically experience it, it is not admissible in
court.
As such, anything you cannot prove should not be said. Likewise, you have to make sure that you are as clear as possible in how you state your
position. You are rarely arguing anagogically abstract truths like what is truth, or beauty, or goodness; those are debates for philosophers, not
short essays in English or history or criminology. In reality, academic or professional arguments are more likely to be specific and in response to a
single problem, warranting a simple, straightforward solution, not a solution that is supposed to then represent every similar case universally.
Instead of trying to argue that the drinking age should be raised (vague, general), claim that your position is to change the age of alcohol
consumption to reflect the age of cognitive maturity by raising it to 25 from 21, based on the January 5th issue of Psychology Today’s article on
human brain development and problem solving. The second statement is debatable, clear, specific, and in response to an existing, findable, and
credible source. The first is a general concept—the topos, not the thesis. The more qualified your claim, the easier it is to focus, to argue—
to prove it.
16. Backing it Up: Prove It
• Warrants are often general assumptions, meaning that a large number of people will hold it
to be (in a way) self-evident. Warrants that Americans often think little about might include
all persons being created equal, the right to pursuing life, liberty, and happiness, and the right
to free speech or peaceful protest.
• However, in many places in the world, these would not be assumed truisms, much less self-
evident rights protected by rule of law. Instead, they would have to be backed up to hold up
against cultural relativism in a court of law. By offering additional evidence, like excerpts
from essays by John Locke and Thomas Paine on the rights and liberties of man(kind), not
only do you ground those warrants historically, but you offer sources that have more
credibility than someone new to the debate (you) and thereby enhance your ethos—the
strength of your argument’s believability. This is what is called backing.
17. Backing: The Foundation for the Warrant
• Never assume. In argument, assuming sets you up for an attack you cannot defend. Instead,
any kind of presumption you have should be backed up explicitly so there is no room for
ambiguity or misunderstanding.
• Backing is important for clarity, which matters in a good debate. You want to bring a clear,
focused, logical, and well-informed case against an equally organized, informed, and
evidence-grounded case.
• This often means that to back up your position, you have to define your terms, offer more
evidence that sometimes seems necessary just to cover your bases, and explain past the point
where you think you need to because you are not just trying to show what you know but to
actually convince, teach, and move your opponents to take your side. You cannot do that if
you take things for granted or build your case on a weak foundation. Back everything up.
18. In Short: Toulmin’s Model
• Warrant (general value)
• Grounds (specific evidence)
• Claim (arguable point)
• Backing (support for warrant)
• Qualifier (limitation of premise)
• Refutation (rebuttal of opposition)
• If you can clearly identify and
explicitly state each of these six
elements of logical argumentation,
you will be on the path to a strong,
rational, and thus provable argument.
• Once you have this part of the
invention process down, you can
move on to arranging and drafting.