APPENDIX H
Showing proof Tool Resources
The Toulmin style of Argument
In their focus on logic and argument, The Uses of Argument, Stephen
Toulmin suggests three major, necessary parts of a disagreement, alongwith three additional, optional components. The 3 major components will be the claim,the support, and also the warrants.
Claim: This is actually the main point, the thesis, the managing concept. The claim
may be directly stated (usually at the first of a text, but sometimes atthe end, particularly for impact) or the claim might implied. You can findthe claim by asking issue, "what's the writer trying to prove?"
Support:These will be the reasons offered in support of the claim; they are
also referred to as proof, proof, data, arguments, or grounds. The supportof a claim will come in the form of facts and statistics, expert viewpoints,examples, explanations, and logical reasoning. You'll find the supportby asking, "just what does the author say to persuade your reader of theclaim?"
Warrants:These will be the assumptions or presuppositions underlying the
argument. Warrants are generally accepted opinions and values, commonways our tradition or culture views things; since they are socommonplace, warrants are almost always unstated and suggested. Theauthor and market may either share these thinking, and/or author’swarrants are incompatible with audience’s generally speaking held opinions andcultural norms and values. Warrants are essential because they're the"common ground" of author and market; provided warrants invite theaudience to take part by unconsciously supplying the main argument.Warrants may essential because they provide the underlyingreasons linking the claim and the support. You can infer the warrants byasking, "What’s causing the author to state things s/he does?" or"Where’s mcdougal via?"
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.01
INTEL
®TEACH TO YOUR FUTURE ©2006 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
Here’s a visual representation and an illustration:
Claim Support
Universities should reinstate Affirmative action provides
affirmative action admissions equal usage of educationpolicies. for all ethnic groups.
Warrant
Equality of access is a basic US value.
In this instance, the declare that universities should reinstate affirmative
action polices is supported by the reason that affirmative actionprovides equal access for many ethnic teams. It’s generally speaking acknowledgedby many Us citizens that equality of access is a simple United states value.
There are three additional components to Toulmin’s style of argument. Not
every one of these brilliant is employed in almost every argument, but just as need arises.
Qualifiers:Because argument is about likelihood and possibility, not
about certainty, you shouldn't use superlatives as with any, every, absolutelyor never, none, no one. Instead you may need to qualify (tone down)your claim with expressions like many, many times, some or rarely, couple of,possibly.
Rebuttal:whenever making an argument, you need to take into consideration
other conflicting viewpoints and cope with them fairly. You will need toanswer concerns and objections raised inside minds associated with the audience; ifyou neglect to do this, your very own argument will undoubtedly be weakened and subject toattack and counter-argument. Sometimes rebuttal is likely to be directed toopposing claims; other times rebuttal will likely to be directed at alternativeinterpretations of proof or brand new proof.
Backing: Often the warrant itself needs evidence to guide it, to
make it more believable, to help expand "back up" the argument.
These extra aspects of argument might included with our visual
representation as follows:
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.02
©2006 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.INTEL
®TEACH TOWARD FUTURE
(Qualifier) Claim Support
(Rebuttal) Warrant (Rebuttal)
(Backing)
Qualifier: If a university does not have a diverse pupil body
Claim: ...it should utilize affirmative action admissions policies.
Support:Affirmative action policies offer equal usage of education
for all ethnic groups.
Warrant:Equality of access is a fundamental United states value.
Backing:Equality before the legislation is a simple right of most Us americans.
Rebuttal:Affirmative action policies don't bring about "reverse
discrimination" because they're only part of an activity that efforts toensure fairness in university admissions.
Five Kinds of ClaimsArgumentative essays derive from a claim, which typically falls
into one of many five after categories.
1. Claims of fact.Is it real? Is it a fact? Made it happen really take place? Is it real?
Does it exist?
Examples: Global warming is occurring. Women are just as effective as
men in combat. Affirmative action undermines specific achievement.Immigrants are taking away jobs from People in america whom need work.
2. Claims of meaning.what exactly is it? What truly is it like? Exactly how should it be
classified? How can it is defined? How can we interpret it? Does itsmeaning change particularly contexts?
Examples: Alcoholism is an illness, not a vice. We need to determine the term
family before we could mention family members values. Date rape is a violentcrime. The death penalty constitutes "cruel and uncommon punishment."
3. Claims of cause.How did this happen? Exactly what caused it? What led up to
this? What are its effects? Exactly what will this produce?
Examples: The development of the computer into university writing
classes has improved student composing capability. The appeal of theInternet has resulted in an increase in plagiarism amongst students. The economic
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.03
INTEL
®TEACH TOWARDS THE FUTURE ©2006 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
boom of the 1990s was due in big part on skillful leadership of the
executive branch.
4. Claims of value.Is it good or bad? Beneficial or harmful? Moral or
immoral? Who says therefore? just what do these people value? What value systemwill be used to judge?
Examples: Doctor-assisted committing suicide is immoral. Violent computer games
are harmful to children’s social development. The Simpsonsis maybe not a
bad show for teenagers to view. Dance is good, clean fun.
5. Claims of policy.What should we do? Just how are we to act? Just what policy
should we simply take? What course of action should we try resolve thisproblem?
Examples: We ought to invest less regarding jail systems and much more on
early intervention programs. Welfare programs shouldn't be dismantled.The state of Oklahoma need to begin to issue vouchers for parents touse to fund their children’s training. Everyone in the United Statesshould have access to federally-funded medical insurance.
Adapted from Nancy Wood’s Perspectives on Argument, 2nd ed. (pp.161-172)
any offered topic can provide itself become stated among the five
types of claims. For instance, the main topic of weapon control could beapproached from some of the five various kinds of claims:
Claim of Fact: There are serious restrictions on our Constitutional right
to bear arms. (This essay can give facts, examples, and data relatingto laws and policies that restrict the sale and use of firearms.)
Claim of Definition:Laws governing the sale of firearms such as for example assault
weapons and handguns never represent an infringement on our right tobear hands. (This essay will concentrate on the Bill of Rights and its clause aboutthe straight to bear arms. It'll argue for a specific meaning thatexcludes the writing of legislation that relate solely to ownership of firearms.)
Claim of Cause: Tougher rules governing the sale of handguns would
mean a decrease into the quantity of homicides annually. (This essay willseek to determine a match up between trouble in obtaining a handgun and a
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.04
©2006 Intel Corporation. All liberties reserved.INTEL
®TEACH TOWARDS FUTURE
drop in the homicide price. It will make use of statistics, facts, and analogies from
other places where similar things happen done.)
Claim of Value: The right to bear arms is still an important civil right in
the United States. (This essay will appeal to people’s feeling of the valueof gun ownership. It's going to most likely attract authorities, such as for example theConstitution, to history, and also to long-held traditions.)
Claim of Policy:The sale of assault weapons in the us should
be prohibited. (This essay uses a number of motivational appeals andvalue proofs, analogies, facts and data, cause-and-effect arguments,and attracts authorities to show that this is a great program ofaction.)
Source: Swadley, Charles. “Argumentation.” Retrieved from
http://students.ou.edu/S/Charles.R.Swadley-1/argumentation.htm
Used with permission.
who's Toulmin?
Stephen Toulmin was created in London, England, on March 25, 1922. He
received a Bachelor of Arts degree in math and physics fromKing's university in 1942. He received a Master of Arts degree in 1947 and aDoctorate of Philosophy degree in 1948 from Cambridge University, buthe has invested many his life teaching at universities within the United States.
Toulmin posted Uses of Argument in 1958. Philosophers in England
were critical associated with the book because they had been interested in the research offormal logic; so, at the time, the guide had been received poorly in England.However, it was well received in america within thedepartments of Speech and English, or at Schools of Law, as a result of itsapplication to practical thinking. Their work is influential incontemporary rhetorical theory and argumentation concept.
For extra information on Stephen Toulmin and his theories on
argumentation, visit:
Stephen Toulmin
www.willamette.edu/cla/rhetoric/courses/argumentation/Toulmin.htm
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.05
INTEL
®TEACH TOWARD FUTURE ©2006 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
Evaluating Arguments
Creating and protecting effective arguments is not something learned in
one tutorial. Discuss through the project exactly what comprises a strong—aswell as a weak—argument. Think about problems that could take place inevidence while constructing a quarrel:
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.06
©2006 Intel Corporation. All legal rights reserved.INTEL
®TEACH TOWARD FUTURE
Problem Example
The conclusions do not follow
logically from proof given. The candy bar ended up being here available lastnight. This morning, it's gone. Johnny musthave taken it.
The argument is based on analogythat doesn't work. Baseball bats is as life-threatening as firearms, butwe don't ban bats.
Fact and opinion are intermingled,opinions are presented as facts, or itis unclear that will be which. People who regularly wear seatbelts are more accountable and have now less accidents.
Celebrity can be used as authority. Film celebrity endorses brand new diet
Vague sources are utilized set up ofspecific references. "Leading health practitioners say… ," "science hasshown that… ," "compared for some otherstates… ," "the scientific communityrecommends that ..."
Care just isn't taken up to guard againstdeliberate or subconscious distortion,in self-reported viewpoints or information. "In a study of our university students, 87%are rated as 'above typical.'" No notice isgiven that it was a self-reported surveywith no outside confirmation.
No mention is created, in proof saidto result from an experiment, of control teams like theexperimental team. Scientific studies proved that the new drugwas effective for dealing with depression.
Graphs are employed that distort theappearance of outcomes. Chopping down an element of the scale, usingunusual scale units, or utilizing no scale at all
Categories are over-generalized—implying that all people of a grouphave almost identical characteristics. All "teenagers," "consumers," "immigrants"
Average email address details are reported, but notthe number of variation around theaverage. The common earnings of university graduatesfrom private universities exceeds the common earnings of college graduates frompublic universities.
A percentage or small fraction is offered, butnot the total sample size. "9 away from 10 dentists recommend..."
Absolute and proportional quantitiesare blended. "we'd 3,400 more robberies in our citylast year; whereas, other urban centers had anincrease of not as much as 1 per cent."
(Continued)
Adapted from
Science for several Us citizens OnlineChapter 12: HABITS OF MINDwww.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/chap12.htm
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.07
INTEL
®TEACH TOWARDS THE FUTURE ©2006 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
Problem Example
Results are reported with misleading
preciseness. Representing 13 out of 19 pupils as68.42 percent. Utilising the percentage distorts the fact the specific sampling is a really little number.
Explanations or conclusions are represented whilst the only people worthconsideration, without any mention ofother possibilities. The experimental data proves thataluminum is the greatest conductor (when only3 conductors had been tested).
Argumentation References
Bell, P. (n.d.). Utilizing argument representations to produce thinking noticeable for
individuals and groups. Retrieved from
www.oise.utoronto.ca/cscl/papers/bell.pdf
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms. Science Education.84 (3), 287–312.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodríguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or
"doing science": Argument in senior school genetics. Science Education, 84,
757–792.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2).
Lizotte, D.J., McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Instructor practices that support
students' construction of systematic explanations in middle schoolclassrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.),Proceedings of sixth international seminar of the learning sciences(pp. 310–317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2004, April). Supporting pupils'
construction of medical explanations utilizing scaffolded curriculum materials and assessments.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American academic analysis Association, hillcrest, CA.
Means M.L., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who causes well? Two studies of informal reasoning
among young ones of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition
and Instruction, 14, 139–178.
Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to training evolutionary
biology in high schools. Journal of analysis in Science Teaching, 39(3).
Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R.C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to
reason. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based most readily useful practices(pp. 319–334). Ny: The Guilford
Press.
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.08
©2006 Intel Corporation. All legal rights reserved.INTEL
®TEACH TO THE FUTURE
Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2002, April). The roles of
representations in on the web collaborations. Paper provided on Annual
Meeting of United states Educational analysis Association (AERA), NewOrleans. Retrieved from http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/papers/2002/Suthers-et-al-AERA2002.pdf
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in therapy: Background
comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3).
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.09
INTEL
®TEACH TOWARDS THE FUTURE ©2006 Intel Corporation. All legal rights reserved.
Notes:
Appendix H: Showing Evidence Tool Resources
Appendix H.10
INTEL
®TEACH TOWARD FUTURE
©2006 Intel Corporation. All liberties reserved. Intel is a
registered trademark of Intel Corporation or its subsidiariesin america as well as other nations. *Other names andbrands can be reported once the property of others.

How to cite this essay: