Toulmin Argument
What do we call the assumption that connects the Data to the Claim?
The Warrant
What is the main goal of a Rogerian argument?
Which appeal draws in the speakers credibility, expertise, or character?
Ethos
What are the four levels of stasis?
Fact
Definition
Value
Policy
Words like "Most," "Usually," and "in many cases" belong to which Toulon element, and why would a writer use them?
The qualifier. It acknowledges the limitations of the claim. An absolute claim can be sunk by a single counterexample.
Why does a Rogerian argument present the opposing view before the writers own opinion?
To show genuine understanding and build trust. Readers who feel heard are less defensive.
What does the E in T.R.A.C.E. stand for, and what does it mean?
Exigence. This is the problem, need, or moment that prompts the text to exist in the first place. Why this text, and why now?
"Is a hot dog a sandwich?"
Which stasis is this argument stuck in?
Definition: Everyone agrees on what a hotdog is. The dispute is about what category it belongs in.
"The library should stay open until midnight because many students work until 9 p.m."
Identify the Claim, the Data, and the implied Warrant.
Claim: The library should stay open until midnight
Data: Many students work until 9 p.m.
Warrant: A campus library should be available when its students are actually able to use it.
Give one specific situation where a Rogerian approach would work better than a Toulmin approach, and explain why.
Look for any issue with:
A divided or hostile audience
Emotionally charged issue where two sides must work together
Patagonia ran "Don't Buy This Jacket" in the New York Times on Black Friday.
Which rhetorical concept does that timing use, and why does it work?
Kairos.
On the biggest shopping day of the year, an ad telling people not to buy stands out sharply and makes the anti-consumption message impossible to miss
Person A: "Smoking on campus exposes other students to secondhand smoke."
Person B: "A campus smoking ban is unfair to adult students."
Which stasis is each person arguing in, and why aren't they getting anywhere?
A is arguing Fact (What happened)
B is arguing Value (whether a ban is fair or not)
They're stuck because neither is responding to the others actual point
"Instructors should ban phones in class because phones distract students."
Add a Qualifier and a Rebuttal that makes this argument stronger
"During lectures and exams, instructors should ban phones...unless a student needs a device for an accommodation or an emergency"
Looking for a qualifier that narrows the scope and a rebuttal and anticipates a real objection.
"People who oppose new downtown parking fees just don't care about keeping Pensacola businesses alive."
Ask yourself: How would the opposing view describe their belief?
"Many residents oppose new parking fees because they worry the cost will keep shoppers away from downtown businesses they want to support."
Looking for a fair summary of the other sides reasons
In August, the county animal shelter posts on Facebook:
"We are over capacity. Adoption fees are waived this weekend only."
Identify the exigence, the audience, and one constraint
Exigence: The shelter is over capacity and needs animals adopted quickly.
Audience: Local Facebook followers who could adopt or share the post.
Constraint: Post length and scrolling attention, cost or housing limits of potential adopters, short weekend window, audience needs to have Facebook or internet and needs to follow their page.
Two city council members spend an hour arguing about whether to add bike lanes on Palafox Street. They realize that one of them thinks cyclists keep getting hit by cars downtown, and the other thinks almost nobody bikes there.
Which level of stasis do they need to go back to, and what question would move the debate forward?
Fact
They are arguing Policy without agreeing on the Facts. A policy argument cannot be settled until both sides agree on the facts
"How many people bike on Palafox, and how many crashes there have involved cyclists?"