The one Site for All my Students
The Winsome Scholar is proudly powered by
WordPress
We read and annotated JFK’s inaugural address yesterday, and I collected your Nixon analyses. Those will be back in your hands tomorrow with feedback. As always, I encourage you to make revisions, see me with questions, and turn them back in if you aren’t pleased with your progress.
Today we read three arguments that you brought in. A few patterns emerged:
I would be remiss if I didn’t see the connection between #1 and #2, however, so here’s a brief look at arguments:
The simplest measure of an argument in your daily life is a question: “Can I attempt to refute this statement?” This is a good starting point. Take the following sentence:
Breaking Bad is an immoral television show.
Can you attempt to refute it? Sure: “No it isn’t.” Regardless of your personal belief, it is possible to attempt a refutation. ((Note that there are no appeals or support for this argument. It is more rightly called a “claim,” but we’ll dig into the details at the bottom, if you’re interested.))
Our trouble begins when an article merely reports the argument of another:
The Family Council claims that Breaking Bad is an immoral television show.
Is this an argument? Nope. It is a verifiable fact that our (fake, example) group has made this statement. This is where most of your non-argumentative articles fall, and something you should actively avoid.
To help clarify what an argument is, however, we can turn the above statement into one:
The Family Council incorrectly claims that Breaking Bad is an immoral television show.
Boom. Argument. Why? Because I could refute it with an argument demonstrating why people could benefit from the lessons Walter White teaches about chemistry and entrepreneurship.
Take a close look at the claims being foisted upon you daily. Make note of one and email it to me. We’ll look at the rest of your arguments tomorrow.
The Toulmin model ((see here for more info on the Toulmin model. Please also note that every resource online outlining this method is ugly. Check for yourself.)) is a way of mapping informal arguments in a way that makes their parts (and lacuna) obvious. We can use the above example to clarify these elements.
Evidence/grounds/data consists of true statements about the world that are agreed upon by both sides in a perfect situation—”Breaking Bad is a television show” is agreed upon by both sides above. Other statements of fact in a more complete argument could be “Breaking Bad is rated TV-MA by the MPAA” or “It displays acts of violence.”
AÂ warrant is a connection (often implied) between the data and the thesis, or claim. “A rating of TV-MA indicates immorality,” or “Acts of violence are unnecessary in entertainment and immoral in themselves.”
If an audience shares an ethos, these warrants are often left unstated. This is similar to the enthymeme Aristotle made much of. If an audience is not in agreement (say, one side believes that violence is not inherently immoral), then the argument should begin with other common ground or provide backing for the warrants. (“Violent television can incite violence in viewers.”)
Finally, a claim is a declarative statement about the subject at hand that requires support from data and the warrant(s). (“Breaking Bad is an immoral television show.”)
There are other parts, as well, but the above are the most important. The author of an argument could also pose the claim with a qualification, through which case the claim is limited: “Breaking Bad is an improper show for children and teens.” This focuses the topic to a specific aspect of the issue at hand, and may include a bit of common ground (and an ethos boost): “Breaking Bad is an improper show for children and teens, but adults should be able to choose for themselves.” If both sides agree on the latter part, the audience may inwardly smile that the writer isn’t completely wrong.