Rogerian Argument and Toulmin Rhetorical Model Chapter 1 Elements of Argument Rogerian Argument  Carl Rogers was a 20th century humanistic psychologist who transferred many of his views on therapy into communication theory.  As a therapist, he believed that the experience of two people meeting and speaking honestly to each other would have a healing effect.  He found so much success with his theory that he felt that it could be applied to small groups, businesses, and even nations to create more harmonious relationships. Notice the difference between the approaches displayed in the two pictures. Rogers of course favors the communication, pictured right! Rogerian (continued)  Unlike in the time of Aristotle, there is presently no common world view.  Each person holds his/her own realities, and the only hope is to try to first understand and then respect another person’s reality, according to Rogers. He stated: “The only reality I can possibly know is the world as I perceive it and experience it at this moment. The only reality you can possibly know is the world as you perceive and experience it at this moment. And the only certainty is that those perceived realities are different.”  Rogerian (continued)  Thus in constructing a Rogerian argument, the goal is to build “common ground.” This separates his form of argument from other argumentation styles.  The purpose of refutation in other argumentation styles is to prove the opponents wrong. In this form of argument, it is to provide a reconciling of opposing views.  Maxine Hairston breaks down the method of constructing such an argument into five steps. Review these on page 14 of Elements of Argument. Where can two opposing parties meet and find a shared resolution? This is the Rogerian challenge. Let’s consider another Argumentative Approach: Toulmin. Stephen Toulmin:  He was born in England in 1922.  He was a philosopher and rhetorical theorist.  He taught at USC from 1993-2009.  In 1958, he offered his model of argumentation as a means to “comparing truths.” Stephen Toulmin Toulmin Argument:  Stephen Toulmin originally arranged his theory to analyze courtroom arguments.  There       are six components involved in it: The Claim The Support (or Evidence, Data) The Warrant The Qualifier The Backing The Reservation (or the Rebuttal) Considering the first three components, let’s define each of these. How might we describe each of these terms? Claim, Evidence, Warrant:  Claim: A thesis statement—the major contention, claim, or point. It denotes exactly what is being argued and why.  Evidence: The information gathered that supports the Claim.  Warrant: The writer’s perspective of the dominantly held assumptions about the overall subject matter. It may be stated or unstated. The reader would have to accept the warrant in order to accept the author’s claim, based on the evidence provided. Example:  Claim: People should buy our tooth-whitening product.  Support: Studies show that teeth are 50% whiter after using this product for two weeks.  Warrant: People want whiter teeth.  The warrant is the more general statement of belief than the claim. The warrant can support many claims, not only the one in the particular argument. For example, the warrant above might also support claims such as “Americans should avoid drinking coffee since it stains teeth” or “People should brush their teeth four times a day.” This three-part structure is somewhat similar to the syllogism, an idea articulated by Aristotle: A syllogism is a form of reasoning in which two premises are stated (a major premise and a minor premise), and a logical conclusion is drawn from them. The reasoning runs from the more general to the particular. Example: Major Premise: All mammals are warm-blooded. Minor Premise: All dogs are mammals. Conclusion: All dogs are warm-blooded.  We move here from general to more specific. The final three terms in the Toulmin Model:  What is the Backing?  What is the Rebuttal?  What are Qualifiers? Backing, Rebuttal, Qualifier  Backing: The evidence or reasoning used to support the warrant.  Rebuttal: The alternative perspective on a subject. However, it is presented as a less valid perspective and the limitations of this view are highlighted. This is akin to the counterargument and refutation. Qualifier: Qualifiers protect the claim from becoming an absolute statement. No statement can be correct all the time and in every circumstance. An example of qualifiers (in italics): Though some video games may be educational, most video games prove to be a negative influence on children.  The End Aristotelian Rhetoric Elements of Argument, 11th edition Chapter 1 Aristotelian Rhetoric  Aristotle:   * A Greek philosopher who lived 384-322 BC.  * His treatise continues to influence our concepts of rhetoric and persuasion.  In his day, one of the chief goals of rhetorical training was to learn to argue successfully in a court of law on judicial matters or in other public forums on political matters (see page 6). Aristotle:   Thus, he felt that the primary goal of an argument is to win: either a court case or a political proposal or another similar objective.  This contrasts with the Rogerian approach to argumentation which instead seeks to find common ground between disparate views. Aristotelian model:  According to Aristotle, a good argument contains three elements: logos, pathos, ethos. Can you define logos? Logos:   Logos refers to logical appeals.  He felt that in a perfect world, logic would be enough to persuade.  However, he acknowledges that realistically, this is not enough and we also need pathos and ethos to fully win over our opponents. What is pathos? Pathos:  Pathos is an emotional appeal. Some writers refer to this concept as a “hook,” that grabs the reader.  Finally, what is ethos?   Ethos refers to the speaker’s or writer’s credibility.  Aristotle believed that credibility is built upon intelligence, character, and good will.  What are some modern day equivalents of these traits? Credibility:   Regarding credibility, our authors put it this way:  “A reputation for intelligence, character, and good will is not often earned overnight. And it can be lost more quickly than it is gained. Once writers or speakers have betrayed an audience’s belief in their character or judgment, they may find it difficult to persuade an audience to accept subsequent claims, no matter how sound the data and reasoning are” (Rottenberg and Winchell 7). “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother,” pgs. 15-18   Get into small groups of three or four.  Identify the logos, pathos, and ethos in this article.  What is Williams arguing in this essay?
Purchase answer to see full attachment