Wesley
Hellman
Humanities
Division
University
of Mary
Bismarck,
ND
In an earlier discussion we
looked at some central concepts of writing arguments. Among these concepts was
that “the effectiveness of an argument is determined in part by context and in
part by universal rules of logic.” One of these universal logical constructs
was developed over two thousand years ago by the Greek rhetoricians and is
called a deductive syllogism.
Syllogisms work like three part arguments and consist of a major
premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The major premise offers a
generalization about a large group or class. To use an example from Annette
Rottenberg’s book Elements of Argument (1994), a major premise might be
“Advertising of things harmful to our health ought to be legally banned.” The
minor premise is a statement about a member of that group or class such as
“Cigarettes are harmful to our health.” The conclusion links the two premises
and proposes a course of action or a change in thinking. In this case,
“Therefore, advertising of cigarettes should be legally banned.” If the major
premise and the minor premise are both true, then the conclusion ought to be
true. Either the major premise or the minor premise is subject to being false,
however; they may be employing a kind of fallacy. We see this in an example
from Robert K. Miller’s The
Informed Argument (1998):
Major premise: All
women like to cook.
Minor premise: Elizabeth
is a woman.
Conclusion: Therefore,
Elizabeth likes to cook.
Miller points out that the form of the syllogism is valid (the major
premise offers a generalization, etc.), but that the truth of one of the
premises is in question. Consequently, the truth of the conclusion may be in
question. Incidentally, Miller employs a bit of syllogistic reasoning in this
observation. We do it all the time. We present arguments on the assumption that our premises are true. The problem of truth within the premises is
the reason why British philosopher Stephen Toulmin sought to re-frame the way
we look at arguments. He noted that deductive syllogisms are effective so long
as the truth or falsity of the major or minor premises is evident. In other
words, if the two premises are true, the conclusion should be true; if either
is false, then the conclusion is false. But what about when the truth is not
determinable? What about when the premises themselves are not identifiable as
either true or false, but are dependent on other premises that may be either
true or false? Toulmin contends that argument is more complex than the classic
syllogism is able to account for. In effect, these issues of the audience’s
acceptance of the truth of the premises provide the “context” or situation of
an argument referred to above. While there some similarities in the syllogistic
approach and the Toulmin approach, there are substantial differences as well.
For one thing, syllogisms seem to emphasize certainty, while Toulmin suggested
that arguments are more often about probability and, as such, need to consider
a variety of conditions. Toulmin provided a new set of terms by which to
analyze arguments. He maintained that every argument consists of the following
elements:
Claim: The equivalent of a
conclusion or whatever it is a writer or speaker wants to try to prove.
Data: The information or evidence a writer or speaker offers in support of the claim.
Warrant: A general statement that establishes a trustworthy relationship between the data and the claim. (Miller 35)
The claim and the data are necessarily explicit; that is, they will be spelled out within any argument (They may be seen as the answers to the questions “What are you trying to prove?” and “What have you got to go on?”). The warrant can be explicit as well, but it is often implicit, especially when the arguer believes that the audience will agree to it. These terms can sometimes be problematic in themselves, but essentially it comes down to the ability of the arguer to draw a probable claim from reliable data and to answer the question of how she got there by providing a credible warrant.
The following diagram shows how Toulmin envisioned the various elements of argument in relation to one another. Based on the discussion above, you will no doubt see a couple of trouble spots on the diagram. One is the use of the term “evidence” in place of “data.” The diagram is a replica of one contained in Tori Haring-Smith’s book Writing Together (1994), and represents her slight adaptation of the Toulmin terms. This substitution should not present any real difficulty. The second is the inclusion of the elements “guiding assumptions,” “reasons,” “opposing arguments,” and “qualifications.” For a more careful consideration of these terms and how they fit into the Toulmin model, read the brief commentary that follows.
(photocopy of diagram accompanies handout)
A brief commentary on elements of the Toulmin diagram for
representing arguments.
Most of the time, we build arguments by making a claim based on some kind of evidence. And, typically, especially in our less formal everyday arguments, this seems to be enough. Stephen Toulmin, a modern British philosopher teaching at Northwestern University, asks the following questions relating to these two important components: “What are you trying to prove?” (claim), and “What have you got to go on?” (evidence). For more thoroughly developed arguments, however, the answer to his next question, “How do you get there?” is equally important. Toulmin calls the various contributing factors which help us answer that question a warrant and those factors are seen two other parts of the argument model: guiding assumptions, and reasons.
The reasons cited must connect the facts, or evidence, of the case to the main idea, or claim. So, for example, simply arguing that food aid programs should be discontinued because they fail to foster independence is insufficient. We need to know that Americans do not want to breed dependence. Thus, “because Americans do not want to breed dependence (reason), and seeing that food aid programs fail to foster independence (evidence), we should discontinue them (claim)” makes for a more complete look at the thought process of the argument (Haring-Smith 161-162).
The assumptions that guide our reasons indicate why those reasons should be taken as truth. Usually the assumptions are outside the scope of the argument in that they are either self-evident or are not subject to debate. Sometimes they are made more explicit in the argument if there is the potential for disagreement about them. In other words, the more agreed upon the assumptions are, the less likely they are to be stated. Arguments build upon themselves in this way – you may need to prove that your assumptions are valid by providing reasons and evidence for them as though they were a claim. Once they have been established, they may be used as assumptions for further claims. An example of a set of assumptions which support the reasons cited above would be that Americans value independence, therefore the reasons provided are true.
In addition to the reasons and assumptions which answer “how we get there,” it is important to take into account any substantial opposing arguments and our qualifications and/or concessions to the opposing arguments. Because these may modify our claim, acknowledging the existence of the opposing view and addressing how our argument deals with them (qualifications) is critical for an overall picture of what we want to prove, what we have to go on, and how we get there. For the above argument, the opposing view might suggest that people are starving now and that educational programs and governmental change are effective. Thus, a qualification to the claim would say that under the conditions (no educational program) the claim stands, or that the claim is modified by the addition of the educational program (Haring-Smith 161).
Acknowledging opposing arguments directly has the potential advantage of allowing the argument to be more fair-minded, and also allows the maker of the argument to refute objections directly. Qualifying the argument’s claims and, if necessary, conceding portions of the opposing argument also helps the maker of the argument to get nearer to the ultimate goal of presenting arguments – arriving at the best position available.
Bibliography
Haring-Smith, Tori. Writing Together:
Collaborative Learning in the Writing Classroom. New York: Harper Collins,
1994.
Rottenberg, Annette T. Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 1994.
Toulmin, Stephen, et al. An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan, 1979.