Academic Writing II

Introduction to
Argumentation
Introduction to argumentation
Lesson Overview
You will explore argumentation in this lesson, looking
at definitions, characteristics, elements and the
structure of an argument. In addition to these, you
will also be introduced to other key concepts in
argumentation.

Use the navigation buttons at the bottom of the

screen to move through the presentation as you wish,
or use the Home icon at the top right to return to
the main page of this lesson. To return to the
course, use the back button on your web browser.

There are twenty five (25) pages in this lesson.

The blue underlined texts are links which, when
clicked, will take you directly to those sources.

Page 2
Introduction to argumentation
Lesson Objectives

At the end of this session, you should be able to:

1. Define the term “argument”

2. Identify the features of arguments
3. Explain the elements of the argument as proposed by
Aristotle and Stephen Toulmin
4. Distinguish between different parts of an argument
5. Expound on key concepts in argumentation
6. Deconstruct arguments

Page 3
Introduction to argumentation
Pre-lesson Activity

1. In one fluent sentence define the term “argument”.

2. What would you say are two characteristics of an argument?

3. List 3 key terms that are associated with argumentation.

4. Do you argue with yourself? Note your response for a future

discussion.

Page 4
 Introduction to argumentation
Definitions of argument
An argument in its most basic sense is a discussion in which you reason with
your audience, i.e. try to convince or persuade them to accept your belief or
point-of-view. Take a look at the definitions in your workbook.

Argumentation vs. quarrelling

Many people confuse argumentation with quarrelling but the two

are not one and the same. While quarrelling involves a
disagreement with a topic or point-of-view like argumentation
does, it usually also involves an expression of anger, and reason is
usually thrown out the door. Argumentation, on the other hand,
involves the application of reason in support of a concept, idea or
belief.
There are many strategies available to you when trying to persuade; for
example, you may rely on evidence and logic (logical reasoning), or on your
experiences as an expert in the area (reasoning using credibility) or you may
choose to target your audience’s emotions to get them on your side
(psychological/emotional reasoning). See the tutorial on types of appeals for
more details.

Page 5
 Introduction to argumentation
Forms of argument
An argument takes different forms, and we engage in argumentation for
completely different reasons. The diagram below provides you with some of the
most common forms that an argument takes.

Forms of an argument

Click on each to read more about it

Page 6
 Introduction to argumentation
Forms of argument

The Debate

This type of argument usually involves at least two

teams, with three to four members, arguing a moot.
Each team usually blindly selects the stance to be
argued and is given time to prepare. Each member of
the team
argues on a particular point and each team has to also refute the points from the
other team.

This argument is a contest, which means at the end one team is declared a
winner. It therefore involves a judge or judges, who, at the end of the debate
declares a winner based on a set of criteria, such as whether the teams
demonstrated that they understood the topic, accuracy and clarity of
information presented, how well the team refuted the counterarguments of the
opposing team, among other things.

Page 6
 Introduction to argumentation
Forms of argument

The Courtroom Argument

How many of you have been in an actual courtroom and

seen lawyers at work? If you have, you have experienced
the courtroom argument. For many of us, the extent of
our experience with the courtroom argument is via TV
series such as Law and Order and Criminal Minds.

As the term suggests, this is the type of argument that occurs in a

courtroom setting. It usually involves two sets of lawyers pleading before a
judge and/or a jury. One set of lawyers represents the Prosecution, and the
other, the Defense. The ultimate outcome of the courtroom argument is to
determine whether the accused person is innocent or guilty. This verdict is
passed by the judge in some instances and by the jury in others.

Page 6
 Introduction to argumentation
Forms of argument

The Negotiation

A negotiation is a unique type of argument, the aim of

which is not to declare a winner or loser, but to come to
a decision that best suits all parties involved.

It usually involves two or more people working together to reach a consensus.

This type of argument is therefore used to formulate plans of action and
solve problems, so it is crucial that there is a willingness to compromise.

In many government organizations there is a group of persons popularly

referred to as a union, who negotiate on behalf of all the employees.

Page 6
 Introduction to argumentation
Forms of argument

The Internal Argument

Do you recall at the beginning of the lesson you were

asked whether or not you argue with yourself? What
was your response? I bet many of you said, HELL
NO!
Well, news flash! We all argue with ourselves at
various points of our lives. Have you made decisions in the past? How many of you
have made New Year’s resolutions for 2020? If you have, you have argued with
yourself.

Arguing with yourself does not mean assuming different personas and changing
roles in a discussion. It means that you have had some kind of conflict that you
have had to work through internally. It involves identifying various reasons to do
or not do something, weighing the pros and cons in a situation and coming to a final
decision.

Page 6
Introduction to argumentation
Forms of argument

The “External” Argument

What we term here as external arguments include

the one-on-one argument where one person tries
to convince another person, and arguments where
one person tries to convince two or more persons
(a mass audience). For example, you might be
pitching an idea to your boss or an entire room full
of co-workers. Whichever it is, you still have to
present your best argument to get your audience
on your side.

Page 6
 Introduction to argumentation
Key characteristics of an argument
An argument possesses the following characteristics:

1. The argument addresses issues that are complex and require critical
thinking.

2. There must be varied opinions on an issue that is arguable. As seen from the
definition, there must be some kind of conflict or disagreement that triggers
an argument. If all parties share the same views on the issue then there is
nothing to argue about. Additionally, there are some things that do not
require an argument, for example, your personal preferences, so be sure that
what you are arguing about is actually arguable.

3. A good argument establishes a clear position or stance on the issue. You

cannot simply list facts.

4. For you to have a true argument, there must be evidence given in support of
whatever position you take. Though it is important to make your opinions
clear, simply stating your opinion without any kind of support does not make
an argument.

Page 7
 Introduction to argumentation
Key characteristics of an argument
5. The aim of an argument is to make your audience change the way they
think about the topic or for them to take a particular action. Your
purpose is therefore to convince or persuade.

6. Like any other type of discourse, the argument has a target audience.
Your audience will/should determine your overall approach to the
argument – for example, the diction used, the type of evidence selected
as well as the underlying assumptions on which the argument is built.

7. The argument incorporates values of both the arguer and the audience.
For example, an argument you present might be based on the fact that you
value equality, honesty or faithfulness.

8. Assumptions are an underlying part of all arguments.

9. A successful argument relies on the use of a variety of rhetorical appeals

and strategies.

Page 8
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument - Aristotle
The Greek Philosopher, Aristotle, proposes that any successful argument
should have the following three elements or “players”:
1.The writer/speaker, who he refers to as the ethos
2.The argument, which he refers to as the logos
3.The reader/audience, which he refers to as the pathos

The diagrammatic representation of what is proposed by Aristotle follows.

Page 9
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument - Aristotle
On the diagram on the previous page there are arrows going to two different
directions. The bottom arrows show a process that starts with the
writer/speaker and ends with the audience. The arrows at the top, on the other
hand, shows the reverse.

Aristotle argues that the writer or speaker creates the argument (claim and
evidence) to affect a particular audience. The audience, after receiving the
argument, evaluates the argument as well as the presenter of the argument.

Which of the three elements, if any, do you think is the most important player
in the argument? Why? Note your response and justification for discussion
with your tutor.

Logos

Ethos

Pathos

None

Page 10
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument - Aristotle
Aristotle considers all three elements to be significant in producing a successful
argument; however, he also notes that:

“We believe fair-minded people to a greater

extent and more quickly than we do others.”

So, even though it is important to have convincing claims and evidence, the
statement above seems to suggest that if an argument is presented that seems
logical and appeals to the audience emotionally, but the writer’s credibility or
“ethical” qualities are questionable, the argument might not succeed.

Are these in line with your views?

The view about which of the elements is the most important will vary depending
on whose view it is and the philosophy that guides that person.

Page 11
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument - Aristotle

The three elements identified by Aristotle are also considered to be

types of proof, support or appeal. i.e., an argument can be successful
because of the

• strength of the logos (claim and support),

• the appeals made to the emotions of the audience (pathos),
• and the credibility/character of the writer/speaker (ethos).

You will get the opportunity to explore these appeals later.

Page 12
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument – Stephen Toulmin
Stephen Toulmin, a British Philosopher, breaks down the logos/reasoning
(the argument itself) into sub-elements to reflect the way arguments are
constructed in everyday life.
.
He proposes a 6-part model with the following elements:
1. Claim
2. Grounds
3. Warrant
4. Backing
5. Rebuttal
6. Qualifier

Toulmin asserts that every argument must have at least the first 3 elements,
but not necessarily all six. The other three become necessary in certain
situations.

Page 13
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument – Stephen Toulmin

Toulmin suggests in an everyday argument we provide facts in support of our

claim. So, we move from evidence to conclusion. In moving from evidence to
conclusion we have what are called warrants. Warrants are underlying
assumptions that connect the evidence and the claim.

Take for example, you are promoting a new toothpaste for your company. The
aim of the promotion is of course to persuade the target audience to purchase
that particular toothpaste. You tell the audience, it whitens and strengthens
teeth, and that it gives maximum fluoride protection and is #1 dentist
recommended. See Toulmin’s model in action on the next page.
Page 14
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument – Stephen Toulmin
Claim: Buy this toothpaste and you will be guaranteed results in 3
months.
2. Provides maximum
Grounds: 1.Strengthens teeth
fluoride protection

3. Whitens teeth 4. #1 Dentist recommended

Warrants: The audience wants strong, white teeth.

The audience values what their dentists say.
The audience knows what fluoride is and understands what it does.
These reasons are enough to make the audience buy the toothpaste.

Page 15
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument – Stephen Toulmin
If the target audience accepts the claim, support and warrants
without any problem then there is no need for the backing, rebuttal or
qualifier.

But someone in your audience might not accept your warrant. What if
someone asks, Is that all? What about persons with sensitive teeth?
Is it harsh?

Backing would be needed here to further convince your audience.

Backing is additional support/evidence that responds to questions from
your audience or that is used to further support your warrant. If
after providing backing your audience is convinced, then the other two
elements would not be necessary
However, what if someone says, “I am not convinced this toothpaste is
all what they claim it is. Sounds a bit too good to be true. A friend of mine has
been using this toothpaste for 3 months and her teeth are no whiter than they
were before she began, plus she is experiencing increased sensitivity. ”

What the person has done is not only question your argument presented so far but
Page 16
Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument – Stephen Toulmin
provided an opposing view, suggesting that the toothpaste is no good.
This requires you to present a rebuttal (refutation) that logically and
fairly responds to your opponent’s claims.

In your rebuttal you might say, “Our ads make it clear that results
are only guaranteed if our toothpaste is used as directed. Your
friend’s dental history, dental routine and diet can affect the effects
of the toothpaste. Do you have any information about these?”

The level of validity of the counterclaim and how well you can refute
it will determine whether you need to use a modal qualifier such as
most, usually or sometimes to qualify the claim.

The rebuttal above might be a good one; however, in depending on the

situation you might want to consider modifying your claim. A qualified
claim would look something like this:

Qualified claim: Buy this toothpaste as 3 in every 5 (most) persons

who use this product see results in 3
months.
Page 17
 Introduction to argumentation
Key elements of an argument – Stephen Toulmin

(See Seyler, 2015, Chapter 3 for details on the elements of the

argument by both philosophers).
Page 18
 Introduction to argumentation
Basic structure of an argument
If your friend is trying to convince you to spend your last $5000 to attend a
party, how much evidence would you need before you are likely to be convinced?
Would you be satisfied with one reason or would you require more?

In many cases, and for most types of arguments, the more evidence you have
the more likely you are to be convincing. Nevertheless, for you to have a basic
argument, you need at least a claim/conclusion and two premises/pieces of
evidence. See the structure below.

Page 19
 Introduction to argumentation
Basic structure of an argument
However, an element is missing from this basic structure, especially in light of
what Toulmin proposes. If assumptions are a necessary part of arguments then
any representation of the basic structure of arguments should make allowances
for them. The modified diagram below represents this structure.

Page 20
 Introduction to argumentation
Structure of full arguments

Toulmin’s model does not simply identify the elements of reasoning, but by
breaking down the logos, it also provides us with a clear structure for full
arguments.

This structure is quite similar to what you will be using for your final
argumentative essay, as, in addition to your claims and evidence, you will also
have to identify and rebut a counterclaim.

Page 21
Introduction to argumentation
Lesson Recap

This lesson took you through the basics of

argumentation. You explored definitions of the
argument, some of the forms the arguments take
as well as key characteristics of the argument.

In addition to these, you were also introduced to

key elements of the argument, as proposed by
Aritstotle, and Stephen Toulmin’s breakdown of
how we construct reasoning in our every day lives.

Other key concepts in argumentation were also

introduced, providing you with the knowledge
needed to delve deeper into argumentation. Be
reminded to consult the Glossary for these.

Page 22
Introduction to argumentation
Independent Activities

1. Complete Activities 14 and 16 from your Workbook.

2. Make note of an argument you have recently made or heard.

What form did your argument take? Identify the different
elements by Aristotle and Toulmin.

3. Start the process of applying the elements of the argument in

the preparation for your final essay.

Read pp. 36-44 from your Workbook and Seyler (2015) pp. 70-
87.

Page 23
 Introduction to argumentation
Bibliography

Miller, J and Wood, N. (2015). Perspectives on argument. (8th ed). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Seyler, D.U. (2015). Read, reason, write: An argument text and reader.
(11th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Toulmin’s argument model. (2016). Retrieved December 2, 2017 from

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm.

Page 24
Introduction to argumentation
Credits
Interactive Tutorial created by

Daidrah Telfer
Michelle Stewart-McKoy
Updated 2020

Voice-over
Esmine Lundy

Graphics from
FreePik - freepik.com
Graphics Factory – https://www.graphicsfactory.com
Graphic Mama - www.graphicmama.com

HTML 5 conversion with

iSpring Suite 7
Use the Back button on your browser to return to the course page
Page 25