Argument Types

The Argumentative Type

What is the difference between Persuasive Writing and Argumentative Writing? In persuasive writing, the writer chooses just which data, facts, and evidence she or he intends to use to persuade readers to agree. In argumentative writing, writers strive to give a much fuller picture of the debate around a particular argument or claim, providing discussion about both (or all) sides of a debate, addressing data and evidence which would seem to disprove her or his claim. In this sense, argumentative writing attempts to provide a less biased presentation of its claim(s). When we read, it helps to know which of these two broad types of writing we are reading.

The Compromise Approach (Rogerian)

This is a model of argument developed by the psychologist Carl Rogers, who believed that people could only resolve an issue or solve a problem once they found the "common ground." A group of rhetoricians, Young, Becker, and Pike, then developed a model of argument named the Rogerian argument, which advocates a way of argument that is less confrontational, less one-sided, and more compromising and deliberately consensus-building. The following are the usual elements of the Rogerian approach: An introduction that briefly and objectively defines the issue or problem, especially by finding and describing common ground between the two sides, and maybe showing sympathy for the other side. A neutral, non-judgmental statement of the opponent's position, presented within valid contexts, that demonstrates the writer clearly understands it and is treating the opposing side with respect and fairness A neutral statement and explanation of your position and the contexts in which it is valid and shows how they are different from the opposition’s viewpoint An analysis of what the two positions have in common and what goals and values they share A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the interests of both parties, or a statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position

The Logical Approach (Toulminian)

This model of argument was developed by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin. The Logical Approach is especially helpful when you try to make a case on controversial issues that do not have an absolute truth as the Toulmin Model seeks to establish probabilities rather than truth. The following is a typical organization for the Toulmin Model: Claims--There're several different types of claims: claims of fact, claims of definition, claims of cause, claims of value, and claims of policy. You can use any one or more of these claims to introduce your issue and to establish your case. Data — Information you use to support your claims. Warrant —How does the data act as proof? The warrant is the assumption on which the claim and the evidence depend. Warrants can be implied (unstated) or explicit (directly stated). Backing — Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant. Backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. Backing defends the warrant, or the assumption. Rebuttal — This is where you consider the opposing viewpoint and refute it. Qualifer — Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. They express how strong you judge your claim to be. Such words or phrases include probably, possible, certainly, some, always, never, usually, as far as the evidence goes, etc

The Classical Approach (Aristotelian)

The classical approach to argument is a model of argumentation invented by the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. It is best used when the purpose of your argument is to persuade your audience to agree with your point of view, take your side on an issue, or make a decision in your favor. The classical approach/Aristotelian model relies heavily on the use of ethos, pathos, and logos appeals. The following is the typical organization pattern for this approach: Introduction — Attract the interest of your audience, especially by highlighting common ground or experience. State your case — Clarify your issue. Give any necessary background for understanding the issues. Define any important terms of conditions here. Propostion — State your central proposition or thesis. Present the subtopics or supportive points to forecast your argument for your reader. Confirmation — What arguments is my audience most likely to respond to? Least likely? How can I demonstrate that my arguments are good ones? Where can I find facts to support my claims? All of these must be answered here. Concession — Concede any points over which you would agree with the opposition. Here, you can use both ethos and pathos, by showing yourself as reasonable and demonstrating that you understand the opposition’s feelings around the issue. Refutation — Analyze the opposition's argument and summarize it; refute or address the points; point out faulty reasoning and inappropriate appeals. Substantiation and Proof — Develop your own case. Use ethos, pathos, and logos appeals to make your case. Use good evidence such as examples. ·       Ethos means to persuade by showing that you are someone worth listening to ·       Pathos  means to persuade based on their emotions ·       Logos  means to persuade with reasoning and logic Conclusion — Summarize the most important elements of your case and restate your proposition, casting the information in a larger context.