Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Ar

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?Aristotelian pg1Aristotelian
pg2
University Writing Center (407) 823-2197
http://www.uwc.ucf.edu
http://www.uwc.ucf.edu/hadouts/Three_Appeals_Argument.pdf
The Three Appeals of Argument
Aristotle postulated three argumentative appeals: logical,
ethical, and emotional. Strong
arguments have a balance of all of three, though logical (logos)
is essential for a strong, valid
argument. Appeals, however, can also be misused, creating
arguments that are not credible.
Logical Appeal (logos)
Logical appeal is the strategic use of logic, claims, and
evidence to convince an audience of a
certain point.
When used correctly, logical appeal contains the following
elements...
• Strong, clear claims
• Reasonable qualifiers for claims
• Warrants that are valid
• Clear reasons for claims
• Strong evidence (facts, statistics, personal experience, expert

authority, interviews,
observations, anecdotes)
• Acknowledgement of the opposition
When used poorly, logical appeals may include...
• Over-generalized claims
• Reasons that are not fully explained or supported
• Logical fallacies
• Evidence misused or ignored
• No recognition of opposing views
Ethical Appeal (ethos)
Ethical appeal is used to establish the writer as fair, open-
minded, honest, and knowledgeable
about the subject matter. The writer creates a sense of him or
herself as trustworthy and credible.
When used correctly, the writer is seen as...
• Well-informed about the topic
• Confident in his or her position
• Sincere and honest
• Understanding of the reader's concerns and possible objections
• Humane and considerate
When used incorrectly, the writer can be viewed as...

• Unfair or dishonest
• Distorting or misrepresenting information (biased)
• Insulting or dismissive of other viewpoints
• Advocating intolerant ideas
Emotional Appeal (pathos)
Not surprisingly, emotional appeals target the emotions of the
reader to create some kind of
connection with the writer. Since humans are in many ways
emotional creatures, pathos can be a
very powerful strategy in argument. For this same reason,
however, emotional appeal is often
misused...sometimes to intentionally mislead readers or to hide
an argument that is weak in
logical appeal. A lot of visual appeal is emotional in nature
(think of advertisements, with their
powerful imagery, colors, fonts, and symbols).
When done well, emotional appeals...
• Reinforce logical arguments
• Use diction and imagery to create a bond with the reader in a
human way
• Appeal to idealism, beauty, humor, nostalgia, or pity (or other

emotions) in a balanced
way
• Are presented in a fair manner
When used improperly, emotional appeals...
• Become a substitute for logic and reason (TV and magazine
advertising often relies
heavily on emotional rather than logical appeal)
• Uses stereotypes to pit one group of people against another
(propaganda and some
political advertising does this)
• Offers a simple, unthinking reaction to a complex problem
• Takes advantage of emotions to manipulate (through fear,
hate, pity, prejudice,
embarrassment, lust, or other feelings) rather than convince
credibly
Effectiveness vs. Credibility
Credible (credibility) means an argument is logically sound and
well-supported with strong
evidence and reasoning.
Effective (effectiveness) means an argument works in
convincing or persuading its audience.
Many arguments that are effective are also credible...but there
are also many that aren't.

Toulmin Model of Argument:
The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin
noticed that good, realistic arguments typically
will consist of six parts. He used these terms to describe the
items.
Data: The facts or evidence used to prove the argument
Claim: The statement being argued (a thesis)
Warrants: The general, hypothetical (and often implicit) logical
statements that serve as bridges between the
claim and the data.
Qualifiers: Statements that limit the strength of the argument or
statements that propose the conditions under
which the argument is true.
Rebuttals: Counter-arguments or statements indicating
circumstances when the general argument does not
hold true.
Backing: Statements that serve to support the warrants (i.e.,
arguments that don't necessarily prove the main
point being argued, but which do prove the warrants are true.)
Toulmin's diagram of arguments typically looks something like
this example:
An argument written in this manner unfolds to reveal both the
strengths and limits of the argument. This is as
it should be. No argument should pretend to be stronger than it
is or apply further than it is meant to. The
point here isn't to "win" or "beat" all the counter-arguments; the
point is to come as close to the truth or as
close to a realistic and feasible solution as we possibly can.

Note that opening structure of "Data" leads to
"Claim with qualifiers" is similar to the structure of a thesis in
the form of an enthymeme, in which [one
clause presenting a reason or evidence] leads to [another clause
presenting an argument.]
Toulmin's model reminds us that argume nts are generally
expressed with qualifiers and rebuttals rather than
asserted as absolutes. This lets the reader know how to take the
reasoning, how far it is meant to be applied,
and how general it is meant to be. Here is an example from John
Gage's The Shape of Reason in which the
various parts of an argument are labeled:
Congress should ban animal research (Claim #1) because
animals are tortured in experiments that
have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of
cosmetics (Data). The well being of
animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics
industry (Warrant). Only congress has the
authority to make such a law (Warrant) because the corporations
can simply move from state to state
to avoid legal penalties (Backing). Of course, this ban should
not apply to medical research (Qualifier). A
law to ban all research would go too far (Rebuttal).
So, the law would probably (qualifier) have to be carefully
written to define the kinds of research
intended (claim #2).
The Toulmin model is useful for analyzing an argument you are

reading. That was Toulmin's original
purpose--the analysis of how arguments work. On the other
hand, some students find it useful to use the
Toulmin model as a basis for structure and organization. We
might organize our essay in the following
manner:
I. Introduction of the problem or topic.
A. Material to get the reader's attention (a "hook")
B. Introduce the problem or topic
C. Introduce our claim or thesis, perhaps with accompanying
qualifiers that limit the scope of
the argument. (NB: This will help you cut the topic down to a
manageable length.)
II. Offer data (reasons or evidence) to support the argument.
A. Datum #1
B. Datum #2
C. (and so on)
III. Explore warrants that show how the data logically is
connected to the data
A. Warrant #1
B. Warrant #2
C. (and so on)
IV. Offer factual backing to show that logic used in the
warrants is good in term of realism as well
as theory.
A. Backing for Warrant #1
B. Backing for Warrant #2
C. (and so on)
V. Discuss counter-arguments and provide rebuttal

A. Counter-argument #1
B. Rebuttal to counter-argument #1
C. Counter-argument #2
D. Rebuttal to counter-argument #2
E. (and so on)
VI. Conclusion
A. Implications of the argument, summation of points, or final
evocative thought to ensure the
reader remembers the argument.
Classic Model for an Argument
No one structure fits all written arguments. However, most
college courses require arguments that
consist of the following elements. Below is a basic outline for
an argumentative or persuasive essay.
This is only one possible outline or organization. Always refer
to your handbook for specifics.
I. Introductory Paragraph
o Your introductory paragraph sets the stage or the context for
the position you are arguing for.
o This introduction should end with a thesis statement that
provides your claim (what you are
arguing for) and the reasons for your position on an issue.

A. Your thesis:
o states what your position on an issue is
o usually appears at the end of the introduction in a short essay
o should be clearly stated and often contains emphatic language
(should, ought, must)
B. Sample Argumentative Thesis
o The production, sale, and possession of assault weapons for
private citizens should be
banned in the U.S.
II. Body of your Argument
A. Background Information
o This section of your paper gives the reader the basic
information he or she needs to
understand your position. This could be part of the
introduction, but may work as its
own section.
B. Reasons or Evidence to Support your Claim
o All evidence you present in this section should support your
position. This is the heart of
your essay. Generally, you begin with a general statement that
you back up with specific
details or examples. Depending on how long your argument is,
you will need to devote
one to two well-developed paragraphs to each reason/claim or

type of evidence.
o Types of evidence include:
• first-hand examples and experiential knowledge on your topic
(specific examples
help your readers connect to your topic in a way they cannot
with abstract ideas)
• Opinions from recognized authorities
• The tipsheet on the three logical appeals covers the types of
evidence you can use in
argumentation.
1. Claim: Keeping assault weapons out of private citizens’
hands can lower the
increasing occurrences of barbaric public slayings
• Evidence:
o Jul 93 Law firm murders
o Columbine School Shootings
o University of Virginia incident
o How did these individuals gain access to weapons?
2. Claim: The ban on assault weapons is backed heavily by
public opinion, major
organizations, and even law enforcement.

• Evidence:
o 12% favor ban (Much 92 Timetable News)
o Organizational endorsements
o Nat'l Sherriff's Assoc./lntn'l Assoc. of Police Chiefs
3. Claim: The monetary and human costs incurred by crimes
committed with assault
weapons are too great to ignore.
• Evidence:
o 10,561 murders in 1990 by handguns
o Study of 131 injured patients’ medical expenses paid by
public funds
III. Addressing the Opposite Side
o Any well-written argument must anticipate and address
positions in opposition to the one
being argued.
o Pointing out what your opposition is likely to say in response
to your argument shows that
you have thought critically about your topic. Addressing the
opposite side actually makes
your argument stronger!
o Generally, this takes the form of a paragraph that can be
placed either after the introduction
or before the conclusion.
A. 1st Opposing View: Strict gun control laws won't affect

crime rate
• Refutation: Low murder rate in Britain, Australia (etc., where
strict controls are in
force.
B. 2nd Opposing View: Outlaws would still own guns
• Refutation: Any effort to move trend in opposite direction
would benefit future
generations
IV. Conclusion
o The conclusion should bring the essay to a logical end. It
should explain what the
importance of your issue is in a larger context. Your conclusion
should also reiterate why
your topic is worth caring about.
o Some arguments propose solutions or make prediction on the
future of the topic.
o Show your reader what would happen if your argument is or is
not believed or acted upon as
you believe it should be.
Adapted from:
Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. Ed. Lynn Quitman
Troyka, 6
th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.

The Writer’s Workplace. Ed. Sandra Scarry and John Scarry. 6
th
ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008.
Toulmin Argument
The Toulmin method, developed by philosopher Stephen
Toulmin, is essentially a structure for analyzing arguments. But
the elements for analysis are so clear and structured that many
professors now have students write argumentative essays with
the elements of the Toulmin method in mind.
This type of argument works well when there are no clear truths
or absolute solutions to a problem. Toulmin arguments take into
account the complex nature of most situations.
There are six elements for analyzing, and, in this case,
presenting arguments that are important to the Toulmin method.
These elements of a Toulmin analysis can help you as both a
reader and a writer. When you’re analyzing arguments as a
reader, you can look for these elements to help you understand
the argument and evaluate its validity. When you’re writing an
argument, you can include these same elements in to ensure
your audience will see the validity in your claims.
Claims
The claim is a statement of opinion that the author is asking her
or his audience to accept as true.
Example:
There should be more laws to regulate texting while driving in
order to cut down on dangerous car accidents.
Grounds
The grounds are the facts, data, or reasoning upon which the
claim is based. Essentially, the grounds are the facts making the
case for the claim.
Example:
The National Safety Council estimates that 1.6 million car

accidents per year are caused by cell phone use and texting.
Warrant
The warrant is what links the grounds to the claim. This is what
makes the audience understand how the grounds are connected
to supporting the claim. Sometimes, the warrant is implicit (not
directly stated), but the warrant can be stated directly as well.
As a writer, you are making assumptions about what your
audience already believes, so you have to think about how clear
your warrant is and if you need to state it directly for your
audience. You must also think about whether or not a warrant is
actually an unproven claim.
Example:
Being distracted by texting on a cell phone while driving a car
is dangerous and causes accidents.
Backing
The backing gives additional support for the claim by
addressing different questions related to your claim.
Example:
With greater fines and more education about the consequences,
people might think twice about texting and driving.
Qualifier
The qualifier is essentially the limits to the claim or an
understanding that the claim is not true in all situations.
Qualifiers add strength to claims because they help the audience
understand the author does not expect her or his opinion to be
true all of the time or for her or his ideas to work all of the
time. If writers use qualifiers that are too broad, such as
“always” or “never,” their claims can be really difficult to
support. Qualifiers like “some” or “many” help limit the claim,
which can add strength to the claim.
Example:
order to cut down on some of the dangerous car accidents that
happen each year.
Rebuttal
The rebuttal is when the author addresses the opposing views.

The author can use a rebuttal to pre-empt counter arguments,
making the original argument stronger.
Example:
Although police officers are busy already, making anti-texting
laws a priority saves time, money, and lives. Local departments
could add extra staff to address this important priority.
Suggested/Possible Toulmin Essay
Outline:
I. Introduction
a. Hook audience
b. Deliver firm/explicit claim
II. Definition/Historical Context
III. Grounds 1
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
IV. Grounds 2
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
V. Grounds 3
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VI. Rebuttal
a. Concession
b. Refutation
VII. Conclusion
OR
I. Introduction
a. Hook audience
III. Grounds 1

a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
IV. Rebuttal to Grounds 1
a. Concession
b. Refutation
V. Grounds 2
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VI. Rebuttal to Grounds 2
a. Concession
b. Refutation
VII. Grounds 3
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VIII. Rebuttal to Grounds 3
a. Concession
b. Refutation
IX. Conclusion
What is a Rogerian Argument
Posted by Splice, Essay Tips Chief Writer
Before you know how to write a Rogerian argument, you should
first know what a Rogerian
argument is. A Rogerian argument is also called the "common
ground" argument because this
method requires you to identify the ideas, beliefs and arguments

you and your audience share in
common. The assumption, therefore, is that you and your
intended audience share common
ideas, beliefs and arguments. Hence, the task is to identify these
commonalities and use them to
further argue.
Rogerian arguments are oftentimes used in essays such as
position papers. One advantage of
using Rogerian argumentation is that the writer or speaker gains
the attention of the audience and
prevents them from immediately arguing in opposition. The
effect is that you'll be more likely to
persuade your listeners or readers.
Here are some Rogerian argument ideas.
Rogerian Argument Outline
1. Introduce the problem and show why you and your intended
audience are affected by the
problem.
2. Lay down the common beliefs, ideas and arguments between
you and your listeners (if

you are speaking) or readers (if you are writing a position
paper).
3. Reveal the position that you are holding without saying that
your position is better than
the opposing belief.
4. Show instances where and when your position is valid and
how your position differs from
5. State your thesis.
Rogerian Argument Example/Sample (corresponding to the
outline above using the topic
cigarette smoking)
http://tipsforresearchpapersandessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/wh
at-is-rogerian-argument.html
1. Smoking cigarettes can cause lung problems. Both first-hand
and second-hand smokers
are affected by cigarette smoke.
2. Scientific findings and researches show that the chemicals in
cigarettes, apart from the
smoke, can lead to health problems such as lung cancer.

3. Smoking cigarettes should be banned in public places.
4. In public places, more people, both young and old, can be
exposed to the smoke from
cigarettes. My position differs from those who might say that
smoking altogether should
not be banned. My position is that smoking in public places
should be banned. It does not
include smoking in private places like homes.
5. Smoking in public places should be banned because it poses
health risks to individuals
who are non-smokers and who do not want to inhale the fumes
from cigarettes. The risks
are double to those who already have lung ailments.
Argument Outline Template
Working
Title: ________________________________________________
_________________
Audience and how you plan to appeal to
them:________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Attention Getter:
_____________________________________________________
_________________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Explain the interest in this topic. What experiences have caused
the writer to become interested (careful using 1st person!)?
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Background Information, including history and context for
problem:_______________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
ThesisClaim:__________________________________________
________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________

Explain how you will appeal to Logic, Ethos, Pathos (or all
three): ________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Refutation or Opposing Arguments (Explain them, explain how
and why there may be value in them, and disagree with the parts
you believe to be invalid. Establish common ground):
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Evidence to support your claim, including appeal to logos, and
pathos. (Evidence must come from your sources, both primary
and secondary: examples, statistics, facts, studies, testimony,
data, etc.)
Reason 1 supporting your
claim:_______________________________________________
____
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Reason 2 supporting your claim:
__________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Do you have a solution to the problem? (This may or may not
be applicable.) How will it work? What are its advantages?
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Creative, thought-provoking

closure:______________________________________________
__
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Purposes of Argument
Difference between argument and persuasion:
Argument (discover the truth) --- Conviction
Persuasion (know the truth) --- Action
Writers use evidence and reasons to discover some truth; they
persuade when they think they already know the truth.
Arguments: use evidence and reasons to discover some form of
a truth, that a claim is true or reasonable, or that a course of
action is desirable.
Persuasion: the term reserved for work that’s aggressively
designed to change opinions through the use of both reason and
other appropriate techniques. For writing that sets out to
persuade at all costs, abandoning reason, fairness, and truth
altogether, the term, propaganda, seems to fit. Some would
suggest advertising would work as well.
Other Purposes/Goals of Argument are worth considering

--Arguments to Inform: Main purpose is to inform audiences
about something they
don’t know.
Examples: Sales/advertising/political campaigns
--Arguments to Convince: Examining a preponderance of
evidence to convince the
audience.
Examples: Causal arguments—global warming
--Arguments to Explore: Takes the form of an exploration,
either by you or with others
The “opponent” is often the status quo or a current trend that
is puzzling to the audience
and needs to be explored.
Examples: Analytical arguments
--Arguments to Make Decisions: Arguments that help the
audience make sound
decisions.
Examples: Weighs out the pros and cons of an argument
--Arguments to Meditate or Pray: These arguments depend on
the purposes of the
writer, as well as on the content surrounding the plea and the
people it seeks most
directly to reach.
Examples: Speeches; Eulogies
Occasions for Arguments
Arguments about the Past (Forensic Arguments)
Topic= Blame (guilt and innocence)

Debates about what happened in the past.
Examples:
--Did the defendant sexually harass her employer?
--Did the company deliberately ignore evidence that its product
was deficient?
--Was the contract properly enforced?
Forensic arguments also rely on precedent, actions, or decisions
in the past that inform policies/decisions in the present.
Arguments about the Future (Deliberative Arguments)
Topic = Choice (options)
Legislatures, congresses, parliaments are called deliberative
bodies because they establish policies for the future.
Examples:
--Should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry?
--Should the United States build a defense against ballistic
missiles?
Arguments about the Present (Epideictic/Ceremonial
Arguments)
Topic = Values (tribal rhetoric and beliefs)
Epideictic, from the Greek, originally meant “to show” or
“display.” These arguments answer questions about the
worthiness (or lack thereof) of some person, product,
institution, or object.
Examples:
--Tend to be heard at public, ceremonial events, inaugural
addresses, sermons,
eulogies, graduation speeches, civic remarks.
--Speaks to contemporary values—the ethical premises and
assumptions that are

widely held or contested within a society.
Kinds of Arguments
Another way of categorizing arguments is to consider their
status or stasis (place) – that is, the kind of issues they address.
Thais is called Stasis Theory. In ancient Greek and Roman
civilizations, rhetoricians defined a series of questions by which
to examine legal cases. The questions would be posed in
sequence because each depended on the question before it.
Together, the questions helped determine the point of
contention in an argument, the place where disputants could
focus their energy and arguments.
--Did something happen?
--What is its nature?
--What is its quality?
--What actions should be taken?
Arguments of Fact -- Did something happen?
--usually involves a statement that can be proved or disproved.
Examines
evidence.
Arguments of Definition – What is the nature of the thing?
--Involves determining one known object or action belongs in a
second –
and more highly contested – category.
Examples:Is a human fetus a human being?

If one argues that it is, then a second issue of definition arises:
Is abortion murder?
Is video game playing a sport?
--To put forth definitions, and then those definitions would have
to
become the focus of debates themselves.
Arguments of Evaluation – What is the Quality of the thing?
--Such arguments are concerned with degrees.
Examples: The corvette is a better sports car than a viper (for
the
price).
What is the nuclear capability of North Korea?
Evaluation arguments present criteria and then measure
individual people, ideas,
or things against those standards. Both the standards and the
measurements can

be explored.
Proposal Arguments – What Actions should be taken?
--Presentation of research to document existing conditions.
--Leads to the development of proposals to address the issue.
--When the need is already obvious, the argument is spent
describing and
defending the solution.
Introduction to Aristotelian Argument
The Aristotelian or classical argument is a style of argument
developed by the famous Greek philosopher and rhetorician,
Aristotle. In this style of argument, the writer’s goal is to be
convincing and to persuade your audience to your side of the
issue through a series of strategies.
Start here!
Before you begin, review your assignment and ask yourself
questions about what you might want to write about.
Use prewriting activities, such as brainstorming or listing, to
help develop ideas for topics and angles.
Do your research! Find credible sources to help you build your
argument.
But there’s more! There are some important concepts you need
to learn about.
Modes of Persuasion
Ethos=credibility
Pathos=emotions
Logos=logic

Know Your Audience!
When writing a classical or Aristotelian argument, think about
how you are going to be convincing to your audience!
Things to remember along the way…
Clear thesis
Support thesis
Opposing views
Cite sources
Source: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-
thinking/organizing-your-argument/organizing-your-argument-
aristotelian-infographic/
· The introductory paragraph sets the stage or the context for
· This introduction should end with a thesis statement that
provides your claim (what you are arguing for) and the reasons
for your position on an issue.
A. Thesis:
· States what your position on an issue is
· Usually appears at the end of the introduction in a short essay
· Should be clearly stated and often contains emphatic language
· The production, sale, and possession of assault weapons for
private citizens should be banned in the U.S.
· This section of your paper gives the reader the basic
information he or she needs to understand your position. This
could be part of the introduction, but may work as its own
section.

· All evidence you present in this section should support your
position. This is the heart of your essay. Generally, you begin
with a general statement that you back up with specific details
or examples. Depending on how long your argument is, you
will need to devote one to two well-developed paragraphs to
each reason/claim or type of evidence.
· Types of evidence include:
· First-hand examples and experiential knowledge on your topic
(specific examples help your readers connect to your topic in a
way they cannot with abstract ideas)
· Opinions from recognized authorities
The instruction provided on the three logical appeals covers the
types of evidence you can use in argumentation.
hands can lower the increasing occurrences of barbaric public
slayings
Evidence:
· How did these individuals gain access to weapons?
public opinion, major organizations, and even law enforcement.
Evidence:
· 12% favor ban (Much 92 Timetable News)
· Organizational endorsements
· Nat'l Sherriff's Assoc./lntn'l Assoc. of Police Chiefs
committed with assault weapons are too great to ignore.
Evidence:
· 10,561 murders in 1990 by handguns
· Study of 131 injured patients’ medical expenses paid by public
funds
· Any well-written argument must anticipate and address
positions in opposition to the one being argued.
· Pointing out what your opposition is likely to say in response
to your argument shows that you have thought critically about
your topic. Addressing the opposite side actually makes your

argument stronger!
· Generally, this takes the form of a paragraph that can be
placed either after the introduction or before the conclusion.
crime rate
· Refutation: Low murder rate in Britain, Australia (etc., where
strict controls are in force.
· Refutation: Any effort to move trend in opposite direction
would benefit future generations
IV. Conclusion
· The conclusion should bring the essay to a logical end. It
should explain what the importance of your issue is in a larger
context. Your conclusion should also reiterate why your topic
is worth caring about.
· Some arguments propose solutions or make prediction on the
· Show your reader what would happen if your argument is or is
not believed or acted upon as you believe it should be.
The Three Appeals of Argument
Aristotle postulated three argumentative appeals: logical,
ethical, and emotional. Strong
arguments have a balance of all of three, though logical (logos)
is essential for a strong, valid
argument. Appeals, however, can also be misused, creating
arguments that are not credible.

Logical Appeal (logos)
Logical appeal is the strategic use of logic, claims, and
evidence to convince an audience of a
certain point.
When used correctly, logical appeal contains the following
elements...
• Strong, clear claims
• Reasonable qualifiers for claims
• Warrants that are valid
• Clear reasons for claims
• Strong evidence (facts, statistics, personal experience, expert
authority, interviews,
observations, anecdotes)
• Acknowledgement of the opposition
When used poorly, logical appeals may include...
• Over-generalized claims
• Reasons that are not fully explained or supported
• Logical fallacies
• Evidence misused or ignored
• No recognition of opposing views
Ethical Appeal (ethos)
Ethical appeal is used to establish the writer as fair, open-
minded, honest, and knowledgeable
about the subject matter. The writer creates a sense of him or

herself as trustworthy and credible.
When used correctly, the writer is seen as...
• Well-informed about the topic
• Confident in his or her position
• Sincere and honest
• Understanding of the reader's concerns and possible objections
• Humane and considerate
When used incorrectly, the writer can be viewed as...
• Unfair or dishonest
• Distorting or misrepresenting information (biased)
• Insulting or dismissive of other viewpoints
• Advocating intolerant ideas
Emotional Appeal (pathos)
Not surprisingly, emotional appeals target the emotions of the
reader to create some kind of
connection with the writer. Since humans are in many ways
emotional creatures, pathos can be a

very powerful strategy in argument. For this same reason,
however, emotional appeal is often
misused...sometimes to intentionally mislead readers or to hide
an argument that is weak in
logical appeal. A lot of visual appeal is emotional in nature
(think of advertisements, with their
powerful imagery, colors, fonts, and symbols).
When done well, emotional appeals...
• Reinforce logical arguments
• Use diction and imagery to create a bond with the reader in a
human way
• Appeal to idealism, beauty, humor, nostalgia, or pity (or other
emotions) in a balanced
way
• Are presented in a fair manner
When used improperly, emotional appeals...
• Become a substitute for logic and reason (TV and magazine
advertising often relies
heavily on emotional rather than logical appeal)
• Uses stereotypes to pit one group of people against another
(propaganda and some
political advertising does this)
• Offers a simple, unthinking reaction to a complex problem
• Takes advantage of emotions to manipulate (through fear,
hate, pity, prejudice,

embarrassment, lust, or other feelings) rather than convince
credibly
Effectiveness vs. Credibility
Credible (credibility) means an argument is logically sound and
well-supported with strong
evidence and reasoning.
Effective (effectiveness) means an argument works in
convincing or persuading its audience.
Many arguments that are effective are also credible...but there
are also many that aren't.
Toulmin Model of Argument:
The twentieth-century British philosopher Stephen Toulmin
noticed that good, realistic arguments typically
will consist of six parts. He used these terms to describe the
items.
Data: The facts or evidence used to prove the argument
Claim: The statement being argued (a thesis)
Warrants: The general, hypothetical (and often implicit) logical
statements that serve as bridges between the
claim and the data.
Qualifiers: Statements that limit the strength of the argument or
statements that propose the conditions under
which the argument is true.
Rebuttals: Counter-arguments or statements indicating
circumstances when the general argument does not
hold true.
Backing: Statements that serve to support the warrants (i.e.,

arguments that don't necessarily prove the main
point being argued, but which do prove the warrants are true.)
Toulmin's diagram of arguments typically looks something like
this example:
An argument written in this manner unfolds to reveal both the
strengths and limits of the argument. This is as
it should be. No argument should pretend to be stronger than it
is or apply further than it is meant to. The
point here isn't to "win" or "beat" all the counter-arguments; the
point is to come as close to the truth or as
close to a realistic and feasible solution as we possibly can.
Note that opening structure of "Data" leads to
"Claim with qualifiers" is similar to the structure of a thesis in
the form of an enthymeme, in which [one
clause presenting a reason or evidence] leads to [another clause
presenting an argument.]
Toulmin's model reminds us that arguments are generally
expressed with qualifiers and rebuttals rather than
asserted as absolutes. This lets the reader know how to take the
reasoning, how far it is meant to be applied,
and how general it is meant to be. Here is an example from John
Gage's The Shape of Reason in which the
various parts of an argument are labeled:
Congress should ban animal research (Claim #1) because
animals are tortured in experiments that
have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of

cosmetics (Data). The well being of
animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics
industry (Warrant). Only congress has the
authority to make such a law (Warrant) because the corporations
can simply move from state to state
to avoid legal penalties (Backing). Of course, this ban should
not apply to medical research (Qualifier). A
law to ban all research would go too far (Rebuttal).
So, the law would probably (qualifier) have to be carefully
written to define the kinds of research
intended (claim #2).
The Toulmin model is useful for analyzing an argument you are
reading. That was Toulmin's original
purpose--the analysis of how arguments work. On the other
hand, some students find it useful to use the
Toulmin model as a basis for structure and organization. We
might organize our essay in the following
manner:
I. Introduction of the problem or topic.
A. Material to get the reader's attention (a "hook")
B. Introduce the problem or topic
C. Introduce our claim or thesis, perhaps with accompanying
qualifiers that limit the scope of
the argument. (NB: This will help you cut the topic down to a
manageable length.)
II. Offer data (reasons or evidence) to support the argument.
A. Datum #1
B. Datum #2
C. (and so on)

III. Explore warrants that show how the data logically is
connected to the data
A. Warrant #1
B. Warrant #2
C. (and so on)
IV. Offer factual backing to show that logic used in the
warrants is good in term of realism as well
as theory.
A. Backing for Warrant #1
B. Backing for Warrant #2
C. (and so on)
V. Discuss counter-arguments and provide rebuttal
A. Counter-argument #1
B. Rebuttal to counter-argument #1
C. Counter-argument #2
D. Rebuttal to counter-argument #2
E. (and so on)
VI. Conclusion
A. Implications of the argument, summation of points, or final
evocative thought to ensure the
reader remembers the argument.
Suggested/Possible Toulmin Essay
Outline:
I. Introduction
a. Hook audience

III. Grounds 1
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
IV. Grounds 2
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
V. Grounds 3
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VI. Rebuttal
a. Concession
b. Refutation
VII. Conclusion
OR
I. Introduction
a. Hook audience
III. Grounds 1
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
IV. Rebuttal to Grounds 1
a. Concession
b. Refutation
V. Grounds 2
a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VI. Rebuttal to Grounds 2
a. Concession
b. Refutation
VII. Grounds 3

a. Evidence/Reason
b. Warrant
c. Backing
VIII. Rebuttal to Grounds 3
a. Concession
b. Refutation
IX. Conclusion
No one structure fits all written arguments. However, most
college courses require arguments that
consist of the following elements. Below is a basic outline for
an argumentative or persuasive essay.
This is only one possible outline or organization. Always refer
to your handbook for specifics.
o Your introductory paragraph sets the stage or the context for
o This introduction should end with a thesis statement that
provides your claim (what you are
arguing for) and the reasons for your position on an issue.
A. Your thesis:
o states what your position on an issue is
o usually appears at the end of the introduction in a short essay
o should be clearly stated and often contains emphatic language

o The production, sale, and possession of assault weapons for
private citizens should be
banned in the U.S.
o This section of your paper gives the reader the basic
information he or she needs to
understand your position. This could be part of the
introduction, but may work as its
own section.
o All evidence you present in this section should support your
position. This is the heart of
your essay. Generally, you begin with a general statement that
you back up with specific
details or examples. Depending on how long your argument is,
you will need to devote
one to two well-developed paragraphs to each reason/claim or
type of evidence.
o Types of evidence include:
• first-hand examples and experiential knowledge on your topic
(specific examples
help your readers connect to your topic in a way they cannot

with abstract ideas)
• Opinions from recognized authorities
• The tipsheet on the three logical appeals covers the types of
evidence you can use in
argumentation.
hands can lower the
increasing occurrences of barbaric public slayings
• Evidence:
o Jul 93 Law firm murders
o Columbine School Shootings
o University of Virginia incident
o How did these individuals gain access to weapons?
public opinion, major
organizations, and even law enforcement.
• Evidence:
o 12% favor ban (Much 92 Timetable News)
o Organizational endorsements
o Nat'l Sherriff's Assoc./lntn'l Assoc. of Police Chiefs

committed with assault
weapons are too great to ignore.
• Evidence:
o 10,561 murders in 1990 by handguns
o Study of 131 injured patients’ medical expenses paid by
public funds
o Any well-written argument must anticipate and address
positions in opposition to the one
being argued.
o Pointing out what your opposition is likely to say in response
to your argument shows that
you have thought critically about your topic. Addressing the
opposite side actually makes
your argument stronger!
o Generally, this takes the form of a paragraph that can be
placed either after the introduction
or before the conclusion.
crime rate
• Refutation: Low murder rate in Britain, Australia (etc., where
strict controls are in
force.

• Refutation: Any effort to move trend in opposite direction
would benefit future
generations
IV. Conclusion
o The conclusion should bring the essay to a logical end. It
should explain what the
importance of your issue is in a larger context. Your conclusion
should also reiterate why
your topic is worth caring about.
o Some arguments propose solutions or make prediction on the
o Show your reader what would happen if your argument is or is
not believed or acted upon as
you believe it should be.
Adapted from:
Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. Ed. Lynn Quitman
Troyka, 6
th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
The Writer’s Workplace. Ed. Sandra Scarry and John Scarry. 6
th
ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008.

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?Aristotelian pg1Aristotelian

pg2
Toulmin Argument
The Toulmin method, developed by philosopher Stephen
Toulmin, is essentially a structure for analyzing arguments. But
the elements for analysis are so clear and structured that many
professors now have students write argumentative essays with
the elements of the Toulmin method in mind.
This type of argument works well when there are no clear truths
or absolute solutions to a problem. Toulmin arguments take into
account the complex nature of most situations.
There are six elements for analyzing, and, in this case,
presenting arguments that are important to the Toulmin method.
These elements of a Toulmin analysis can help you as both a
reader and a writer. When you’re analyzing arguments as a
reader, you can look for these elements to help you understand
the argument and evaluate its validity. When you’re writing an
argument, you can include these same elements in to ensure
your audience will see the validity in your claims.
Claims
The claim is a statement of opinion that the author is asking her
or his audience to accept as true.
Example:
order to cut down on dangerous car accidents.
Grounds
The grounds are the facts, data, or reasoning upon which the
claim is based. Essentially, the grounds are the facts making the
case for the claim.
Example:
The National Safety Council estimates that 1.6 million car
accidents per year are caused by cell phone use and texting.
Warrant
The warrant is what links the grounds to the claim. This is what
makes the audience understand how the grounds are connected

to supporting the claim. Sometimes, the warrant is implicit (not
directly stated), but the warrant can be stated directly as well.
As a writer, you are making assumptions about what your
audience already believes, so you have to think about how clear
your warrant is and if you need to state it directly for your
audience. You must also think about whether or not a warrant is
actually an unproven claim.
Example:
Being distracted by texting on a cell phone while driving a car
is dangerous and causes accidents.
Backing
The backing gives additional support for the claim by
addressing different questions related to your claim.
Example:
With greater fines and more education about the consequences,
people might think twice about texting and driving.
Qualifier
The qualifier is essentially the limits to the claim or an
understanding that the claim is not true in all situations.
Qualifiers add strength to claims because they help the audience
understand the author does not expect her or his opinion to be
true all of the time or for her or his ideas to work all of the
time. If writers use qualifiers that are too broad, such as
“always” or “never,” their claims can be really difficult to
support. Qualifiers like “some” or “many” help limit the claim,
which can add strength to the claim.
Example:
order to cut down on some of the dangerous car accidents that
happen each year.
Rebuttal
The rebuttal is when the author addresses the opposing views.
The author can use a rebuttal to pre-empt counter arguments,
making the original argument stronger.
Example:
Although police officers are busy already, making anti -texting

laws a priority saves time, money, and lives. Local departments
could add extra staff to address this important priority.
Introduction to Aristotelian Argument
The Aristotelian or classical argument is a style of argument
developed by the famous Greek philosopher and rhetorician,
Aristotle. In this style of argument, the writer’s goal is to be
convincing and to persuade your audience to your side of the
issue through a series of strategies.
Start here!
Before you begin, review your assignment and ask yourself
questions about what you might want to write about.
Use prewriting activities, such as brainstorming or listing, to
help develop ideas for topics and angles.
Do your research! Find credible sources to help you build your
argument.
But there’s more! There are some important concepts you need
to learn about.
Modes of Persuasion
Ethos=credibility
Pathos=emotions
Logos=logic
Know Your Audience!
When writing a classical or Aristotelian argument, think about
how you are going to be convincing to your audience!
Things to remember along the way…
Clear thesis
Support thesis
Opposing views
Cite sources
Source: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-
thinking/organizing-your-argument/organizing-your-argument-
aristotelian-infographic/

· The introductory paragraph sets the stage or the context for
· This introduction should end with a thesis statement that
provides your claim (what you are arguing for) and the reasons
for your position on an issue.
A. Thesis:
· States what your position on an issue is
· Usually appears at the end of the introduction in a short essay
· Should be clearly stated and often contains emphatic language
· The production, sale, and possession of assault weapons for
private citizens should be banned in the U.S.
· This section of your paper gives the reader the basic
information he or she needs to understand your position. This
could be part of the introduction, but may work as its own
section.
· All evidence you present in this section should support your
position. This is the heart of your essay. Generally, you begin
with a general statement that you back up with specific details
or examples. Depending on how long your argument is, you
will need to devote one to two well-developed paragraphs to
each reason/claim or type of evidence.
· Types of evidence include:
· First-hand examples and experiential knowledge on your topic
(specific examples help your readers connect to your topic in a
way they cannot with abstract ideas)
· Opinions from recognized authorities
The instruction provided on the three logical appeals covers the
types of evidence you can use in argumentation.

hands can lower the increasing occurrences of barbaric public
slayings
Evidence:
· How did these individuals gain access to weapons?
public opinion, major organizations, and even law enforcement.
Evidence:
· 12% favor ban (Much 92 Timetable News)
· Organizational endorsements
· Nat'l Sherriff's Assoc./lntn'l Assoc. of Police Chiefs
committed with assault weapons are too great to ignore.
Evidence:
· 10,561 murders in 1990 by handguns
· Study of 131 injured patients’ medical expenses paid by public
funds
· Any well-written argument must anticipate and address
positions in opposition to the one being argued.
· Pointing out what your opposition is likely to say in response
to your argument shows that you have thought critically about
your topic. Addressing the opposite side actually makes your
argument stronger!
· Generally, this takes the form of a paragraph that can be
placed either after the introduction or before the conclusion.
crime rate
· Refutation: Low murder rate in Britain, Australia (etc., where
strict controls are in force.
· Refutation: Any effort to move trend in opposite direction
would benefit future generations
IV. Conclusion
· The conclusion should bring the essay to a logical end. It
should explain what the importance of your issue is in a larger

context. Your conclusion should also reiterate why your topic
is worth caring about.
· Some arguments propose solutions or make prediction on the
· Show your reader what would happen if your argument is or is
not believed or acted upon as you believe it should be.
What is a Rogerian Argument
Posted by Splice, Essay Tips Chief Writer
Before you know how to write a Rogerian argument, you should
first know what a Rogerian
argument is. A Rogerian argument is also called the "common
ground" argument because this
method requires you to identify the ideas, beliefs and arguments
you and your audience share in
common. The assumption, therefore, is that you and your
intended audience share common
ideas, beliefs and arguments. Hence, the task is to identify these
commonalities and use them to
further argue.
Rogerian arguments are oftentimes used in essays such as
position papers. One advantage of
using Rogerian argumentation is that the writer or speaker gains

the attention of the audience and
prevents them from immediately arguing in opposition. The
effect is that you'll be more likely to
persuade your listeners or readers.
Here are some Rogerian argument ideas.
Rogerian Argument Outline
1. Introduce the problem and show why you and your intended
audience are affected by the
problem.
2. Lay down the common beliefs, ideas and arguments between
you and your listeners (if
you are speaking) or readers (if you are writing a position
paper).
3. Reveal the position that you are holding without saying that
your position is better than
4. Show instances where and when your position is valid and
how your position differs from
5. State your thesis.

Rogerian Argument Example/Sample (corresponding to the
outline above using the topic
cigarette smoking)
http://tipsforresearchpapersandessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/wh
at-is-rogerian-argument.html
1. Smoking cigarettes can cause lung problems. Both first-hand
and second-hand smokers
are affected by cigarette smoke.
2. Scientific findings and researches show that the chemicals in
cigarettes, apart from the
smoke, can lead to health problems such as lung cancer.
3. Smoking cigarettes should be banned in public places.
4. In public places, more people, both young and old, can be
exposed to the smoke from
cigarettes. My position differs from those who might say that
smoking altogether should
not be banned. My position is that smoking in public places
should be banned. It does not
include smoking in private places like homes.
5. Smoking in public places should be banned because it poses

health risks to individuals
who are non-smokers and who do not want to inhale the fumes
from cigarettes. The risks
are double to those who already have lung ailments.
Argument Outline Template
Working
Title: ________________________________________________
_________________
Audience and how you plan to appeal to
them:________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Attention Getter:
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Explain the interest in this topic. What experiences have caused
the writer to become interested (careful using 1st person!)?
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Background Information, including history and context for

problem:_______________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
ThesisClaim:__________________________________________
________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Explain how you will appeal to Logic, Ethos, Pathos (or all
three): ________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Refutation or Opposing Arguments (Explain them, explain how
and why there may be value in them, and disagree with the parts
you believe to be invalid. Establish common ground):
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________

_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Evidence to support your claim, including appeal to logos, and
pathos. (Evidence must come from your sources, both primary
and secondary: examples, statistics, facts, studies, testimony,
data, etc.)
Reason 1 supporting your
claim:_______________________________________________
____
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
__________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________

Do you have a solution to the problem? (This may or may not
be applicable.) How will it work? What are its advantages?
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Creative, thought-provoking
closure:______________________________________________
__
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Purposes of Argument
Difference between argument and persuasion:

Argument (discover the truth) --- Conviction
Persuasion (know the truth) --- Action
Writers use evidence and reasons to discover some truth; they
persuade when they think they already know the truth.
Arguments: use evidence and reasons to discover some form of
a truth, that a claim is true or reasonable, or that a course of
action is desirable.
Persuasion: the term reserved for work that’s aggressively
designed to change opinions through the use of both reason and
other appropriate techniques. For writing that sets out to
persuade at all costs, abandoning reason, fairness, and truth
altogether, the term, propaganda, seems to fit. Some would
suggest advertising would work as well.
Other Purposes/Goals of Argument are worth considering
--Arguments to Inform: Main purpose is to inform audiences
about something they
don’t know.
Examples: Sales/advertising/political campaigns
--Arguments to Convince: Examining a preponderance of
evidence to convince the
audience.
Examples: Causal arguments—global warming
--Arguments to Explore: Takes the form of an exploration,
either by you or with others
The “opponent” is often the status quo or a current trend that
is puzzling to the audience

and needs to be explored.
Examples: Analytical arguments
--Arguments to Make Decisions: Arguments that help the
audience make sound
decisions.
Examples: Weighs out the pros and cons of an argument
--Arguments to Meditate or Pray: These arguments depend on
the purposes of the
writer, as well as on the content surrounding the plea and the
people it seeks most
directly to reach.
Examples: Speeches; Eulogies
Occasions for Arguments
Arguments about the Past (Forensic Arguments)
Topic= Blame (guilt and innocence)
Debates about what happened in the past.
Examples:
--Did the defendant sexually harass her employer?
--Did the company deliberately ignore evidence that its product
was deficient?
--Was the contract properly enforced?
Forensic arguments also rely on precedent, actions, or decisions
in the past that inform policies/decisions in the present.
Arguments about the Future (Deliberative Arguments)
Topic = Choice (options)
Legislatures, congresses, parliaments are called deliberative
bodies because they establish policies for the future.

Examples:
--Should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry?
--Should the United States build a defense against ballistic
missiles?
Arguments about the Present (Epideictic/Ceremonial
Arguments)
Topic = Values (tribal rhetoric and beliefs)
Epideictic, from the Greek, originally meant “to show” or
“display.” These arguments answer questions about the
worthiness (or lack thereof) of some person, product,
institution, or object.
Examples:
--Tend to be heard at public, ceremonial events, inaugural
addresses, sermons,
eulogies, graduation speeches, civic remarks.
--Speaks to contemporary values—the ethical premises and
assumptions that are
widely held or contested within a society.
Kinds of Arguments
Another way of categorizing arguments is to consider their
status or stasis (place) – that is, the kind of issues they address.
Thais is called Stasis Theory. In ancient Greek and Roman
civilizations, rhetoricians defined a series of questions by which
to examine legal cases. The questions would be posed in
sequence because each depended on the question before it.
Together, the questions helped determine the point of
contention in an argument, the place where disputants could
focus their energy and arguments.

--Did something happen?
--What is its nature?
--What is its quality?
--What actions should be taken?
Arguments of Fact -- Did something happen?
--usually involves a statement that can be proved or disproved.
Examines
evidence.
Arguments of Definition – What is the nature of the thing?
--Involves determining one known object or action belongs in a
second –
and more highly contested – category.
Examples:Is a human fetus a human being?
If one argues that it is, then a second issue of definition arises:
Is abortion murder?
Is video game playing a sport?
--To put forth definitions, and then those definitions would have
to
become the focus of debates themselves.
Arguments of Evaluation – What is the Quality of the thing?
--Such arguments are concerned with degrees.

Examples: The corvette is a better sports car than a viper (for
the
price).
What is the nuclear capability of North Korea?
Evaluation arguments present criteria and then measure
individual people, ideas,
or things against those standards. Both the standards and the
measurements can
be explored.
Proposal Arguments – What Actions should be taken?
--Presentation of research to document existing conditions.
--Leads to the development of proposals to address the issue.
--When the need is already obvious, the argument is spent
describing and
defending the solution.

Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Ar

Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Ar

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Ar

Similar to Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Ar (20)

More from troutmanboris

More from troutmanboris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Argument structure The Aristotelian argument The Ar