Read Chapter 4 and 5 and complete the review questions.
Read Chapter 4 and 5 and complete the review questions.
The book has to be the one listed below, 8th edition ed. 2014.
Wood, Nancy. Perspectives on Argument. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 8th ed., 2014.
Answer the 6 review questions on chapter 4, page 134-135. and 4 review questions on chapter 5 page 172.
CHAPTER
• 1 parts The Essent1a ent· of an Arg
1
uI? Model The Tou nun
. u will be able to: Afiter studying thzs chapter, yo f the Toulmin model of h ix parts o L01 Identify and describe t e s
. argument. 1 written, visual, and onhne . odel to ana yze L02 Use the Toulmm m
argument
.
ecause people have been analyzing argument and writ~ng Btheories of argument for twenty-five hundred year~, the_re is: considerable tradition of theory to draw on to help with this t~s . This theoretical background is especially useful because theory desc:ibes argument, and once you possess good descriptions, argument will ~e more familiar and consequently easier for you to read, analyze, and wnte yourself.
. In gaining a theoretical new understanding of argument, you will be adding to what you already know as you gradually build a stronger and larger body of knowledge and comprehension. Eventually, you will achieve “all-at-onceness,” a quality Ann E. Berthoff utilizes in her book The Sense of Learning to describe the use of many ideas, bits of information, and strategies about reading, writing, and viewing that finally come together so that you are able to practice them unconsciously, simultaneously, and automatically. 1
For now, however, you are still expanding your knowledge. your goals in this chapter are to gain a better understanding of the anticipated outcomes of argument and to identify the component parts as they are identified by Stephen Toulmin in his model for argument.
I Ann E. Berthoff, The Sense of Learning (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
1990), 86
_
91
_
►
t
►
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 113
The Outcomes of Argument:
Probability versus Certainty
By now you are probably coming to see how closely tied argument is to audience.
Whatever the topic, all arguable issues require the possibility of at least two differ-
ent views; it is in the nature of argument to invite differing perspectives on issues.
In practical terms this means always keeping in mind the effects your argument
might have on the audience you are aiming to address, as well as the effects, in
turn, an audience’s response may have on the argument you make. Argument
outcomes span a range of possibilities, from achieving a closer agreement with a
friendly audience to getting the attention of and even perhaps some consensus
from a neutral or hostile audience. Notice that these outcomes of argument are
usually not described as establishing “certainty” or “trµth” in the same sense that
mathematics and science seek to establish certainty and truth. We do not argue
about the fact that 2 + 3 = s· or that the area of a circle is Trr2 • Mathematical proofs
seek to establish such truths. Argument seeks to establish what is probably true as
well as what might be expedient or desirable on balance for the future. In other
words, successful argument depends not only on what we want to say, but on
how our listeners or readers respond. Arguers tell you what they think for now
along with wh~t they think should be done, given their present information. On
that basis, you decide what you think for now, given your present information.
Part of determining what is probable involves understanding the larger context
within which a persuader is making ari argument: the assumptions and expectations
a given audience brings; the views and values that are widely accepted within a given
setting. As you can no doubt imagine, the factors that define a given context will
change depending on the circumstances. This is why the realm of argument con-
cerns the probably true rather than the definitively true. To understand this realm
better, to see more clearly how the outcome of an argument relates to context an
d
audience, it is useful to understand the parts that contribute to the whole argument.
The Parts of an Argument according
to the Toulmin Model
L01 Identify
and describe the
six parts of the
Toulmin model
of argument.
Stephen Toulmin, a modern English philosopher, developed a six-part model of
argument in his book The Uses of Argument, and this model has been useful to many
people for explaining the essen!ial parts of an argument.2 At the time To 1m· Wrote h · b k . . . u 1n is oo , his colleagues were logicians who were interested m· dis · truth th h . . . covenng ra er t an probabilities. Toulmin tells us that his book had a chill 1 among th . y we come
by the b em. His graduate adviser at Cambridge, he explains, “was deeply pained
ook, and barely spoke to me for twenty years.” Another colleague described
i
Slephen Tou1m
·
add d . m, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge; UK: Cambridge University Press, I 958) . I have adapted and
e applications of th d I k . . e mo e to ma e It more useful for reading and wriung.
ii
I I
114 Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an Argument: The Toulmin Model
it as “Toulmin’s anti-logic book.”3 Given this, Toulmin exp;ct~d h_is book to be
failure His editors, however, assured him that people -~er~ t:yi:Jg. it , danct Tou1ni~
found ~ut who many of these people were when he VISite . ~- n~e States sollle
time later. Professors in speech departments and co~:n~ca : 0 ~ ~Partments an
over the United States were using his book to teac s u en s O ecome better
speakers and arguers. If you have ever taken a speec~ class, yo~ mah have already
encountered the Toulmin model of argument. As_ time went . Y, t ~ model Was
picked up by English departments to help students rmpr~v_e th~r r~adtg anct Writ-
ing of argument. The Toulmin model has also be~n ~se in sc 00 s O law to help
students learn to present legal argument. You will find t~at _you can employ the
model to help you write essays, reports, letters. of apphcatwn, propos~ls, legal
memos, or any other document intended to convince ot~ers. _The Toulmm model
is also useful in designing or interpreting visual and m~ltimed~a arg~~ent, such as
photos, advertisements, Web sites, TV shows, and movies, and m wntmg _or analyz.
ing persuasive speeches. The Toulmin model is a very natural and pract~cal model
because it follows normal human thought processes. You have had expenence With
all its parts in the everyday arguments you carry on with your friends an~ family.
The Toulmin model has six parts. The first three parts are present m every
argument, including both traditional and consensual argument. They are: ( 1) the
claim; (2) the data, encompassing subclaims and specific supporting details, which
we are calling support; and (3) the warrant. The other three parts are used as needed
to strengthen an argument and adapt it to the needs and beliefs of a particular
audience. These parts are: (4) the backing, (5) the rebuttal, and (6) the qualifier.
Figure 4 .1 shows Toulmin’s diagram of these six parts of the model.
To illustrate how these parts work together, let us examine an actual argu-
ment. For example, the narrator of a television documentary makes the claim that
critical thinking is more important now than it was seventy-five years ago. This
is followed by support that includes pictures of modem scientists launch ing space
shuttles and air traffic controllers directing airplanes to land. These individuals
seem intent and busy. It appears to be clear that if they do not think critically, there
will be trouble. Then the camera switches to children riding on an old-fashioned
school bus of seventy-five years ago. One boy is saying that he wants to grow up
and be a farmer like his dad. This youngster is relaxed and bouncing along on the
bus. He does not look like he is thinking critically or that he will ever need to do
so. The unspoken part of this argument-the assumption that the author of this
progr~ hopes the audience will share-is the warrant. The author hopes the audi·
ence will agree, even though it is not explicitly stated, that farmers of seventy-five
years ago ~id no~ ~ave to think critically, that modern scientists and engineers do
have to thmk cntically, and that critical thinking was not as important then as
now. The author wants the audience to look at the two bits of support the scientist
and the farme~’s son, ~nd make the leap necessary to accept the clai~. The author
hop~s the audience will think, “That’s right, those scientists and that young boy
do?. t see~ to. sha:e the sa1:1e demands for critical thinking. Times have changed~
Cnt1cal th1nk1ng 1s more important now than it was seventy-five
years ago.
3uLogic and th e Criticism of Arguments,• in
J
ames L. Golden, Goodwin F. Berquist, an d William E. Coleman, The
Rhetoric of Western Thought, 4th ed. (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 1989), 375.
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model
115
Figure 4.1 A Diagram of
(S)
support
, ___ __,—–~ Therefore,
(Q)
Qualif ier
the Toulmin Model of
Argument Showing the
Six Parts: Claim, Support,
Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal,
and Qualifier
~
+
~~
Since
0N)
Warrant
Because
(B)
Backing
(Q)
— ————- Because Qualifier – – – – –
(RJ
Rebuttal t .;;..: . ‘ .
Since
01’1)
Warrant
, Because
(8)
Backing
r
(S)
Support •
\. .,.
Note that an argument
can be configured either
as “support therefore
claim” or as “claim because
support.”
Those three parts-the claim, the support, and the warrant-are the three parts you will find present in any argument.
If we wanted to evaluate this assumption, we could ask some follow-up questions. First: Is there a logical connection between the author’s claim and the support s/he provides? Does juxtaposing images ·of “scientists” and “farmer’s children” logically reinforce a claim about the changing importance of “critical thinking”? If so, how? Second: What are some of the broader assumptions or views that might encourage an a~dience to accept this logic? What general attitudes toward or assumptions about “farm work” and “scientific work” might cause an audience to make the leap and accept the claim? We will have more to say about each of these types of questions in the pages that follow. For now, it is enough to note that you will find these three parts-the claim, the support, and the warrant-in any argument. Suppose, at this point, however, that some members of the audience do not accept the claim. An additional three parts of the model are available to make the argument stronger. Here is how these parts could be incorporated into th~ argu-ment. It might be presented like this: The camera then shifts to an elderly man, who says “W · • , an a rmnute. What makes you assume farmers didn’t think? My daddy ~as a farmer, and he was the best critical thinker I ever knew. He had to th~nk h out weather, crops, growing seasons, fertilizer, finances, harvesting, and selling t ~crops.The thinking he had to do was as sophisticated as that of any modem scientist” Thi di h e the unstated · s au ence member is indicating that he does not s ar . . . Warrant h f d ds on their thinking t at armers of seventy-five years ago had fewer eman
116
. Model
ument: The roulm,n
Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an Arg this rejoinder, _the a~hor, to make
. . In response to rrant. This bac ng takes the
processes than mod~r~ sCien;::~des backing for th~::rator of the program: “At least
h argument convmong, p era cuts to the bad small farms. They gre”• t e rt The earn ars ago h •v form of additional suppo . f seventy-five ye f whatever else t ey needed f the farmers o h rest or 1· . two out of three o d ded or sold t e was not as comp 1ca ted anct . f ·ues an tra . d f them . food for their ami · . . king require O father was an exception.” . d dec1s10n ma . t’sts Your k . The thinking an . d by modern sc1en i : that should ma e tne argu.
demanding as tha~~;~~:king allows for _exc_epu~:: on the belief, assumed to be
Even thoug~ . to the older man, it still r~ ·ty of old-time farmen; did n
ot
ment more con:1~~tnJf the audience, that the m~~r:hem as modern scientists do.
accepta~l::~:hcritical thinking demands plac;! smaller unit of argument Within
haveNth. that this backing takes the form o t and it is used to back up the ot1ce · argumen ,
nt It is linked to the mam this smaller argument has a the argume • F thermore,
weakest part of the main argumen~. :n. I) the claim is that most farmers did
claim-support-warrant structure ~fit~ 0 . 2 ( the support is that two out of three not have to think like modern scienu_sts, _( ) d that this man’s father was an
did not have to think like modern sCienti
st
s,d~ that the older man will believe . h t again unstate ‘ IS . except10n; and (3) t e warr~n, h’ f ther was an except10n.
the statistics and accept the idea that ldis ~- Is there a logical connection between
To evaluate this warrant, we cou . as. · “l Heated thinking”? Are the
working on a “small farm” and engagmg m ess co~p rs a o livin on small statistics about “two out of three farmers seventy-fiv~ yea g . g
If h to Such questions is yes It IS far more likely the older farms” accurate? t e answer , .
man will be convinced by the argument here. If he shares these ~ss_umpt10ns about
“small farm work” and “critical thinking,” or believes these statistics are accurate,
there is a much greater chance he will accept the idea his father was an exception.
If he resists this backing for the new warrant by asking, “Hey, where did you get
those statistics? They’re not like any I ever heard,” then another argument would
need to be developed to cite the source of the figures and to convince the man of
their reliability. As you can see, the requests for backing, for more information to
serve as further proof, can go on and on. Let us leave the man def ending his father
and the narrator, though, and look at what else might appear in this argument.
Suppose the camera now shifts to a modern science professor who wants to
challen?e the logical connection between “small farms” and “uncritical thinking”
by ~aking a rebut~al. She does so by making her own claim: “The critical thinking
reqwre~ seventy-fiv: years ago was demanding and sophisticated. Critical thinkers of the time had to figure out how to t h
and they had to develop th t h 1 ge t ~ country out of a severe recession, e ec no ogy to wm World W Il ,, Th . . e then supported with factual ev·d h . . ar . ese opm10ns ar
I ence t at mcludes p1ct f . di “d hinkin’ As with backing a rebuttal follow th ures o m VI uals t g. • ‘ s e structure of a . h 1s a clear claim (i.e., critical thinki f . rgument. Once agam, t ere
and sophisticated) followed by sup;ir~ (t:ven~~-five ~ea~s ago was demanding
problems dealing with war and re . . ., cnt1cal thmking addressed complex . cess10n) and d . d assumpt10n or warrant (i.e addressi·n ‘ un erwntten by an unstate . . . ., g an economi . technology reqmres cnt1cal thinking) A h d c recession or creating warfare t . . an y way t thi k act, Is as a counterargument: a response to th . 0 n about a rebuttal, in . 1 . e mam ar Its own c aim-support-warrant structure. gument that relies upon
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 117
After all of these_ cha!leng_es, exceptions, and requests for more information,
thor at this pomt fmds 1t necessary to qualify the original claim in order to
tbe ;uit acceptable to more of the audience members. Qualifying involves adding
111a ls and phrases to the claim like sometimes, seems to be, may be, or possibly to
W~e it more a~cep~
1
abl_e_ to th~ a~dience. In this case, the narrator now restates
111 ualified claim: Cnt1cal thmkmg, because of modern science, seems to some
we qle to be more important now than it was seventy-five years ago.” Compare
pe_o~ith the original claim that critical thinking is more important now than it was
th~enty-five years ago. Figure 4.2 diagrams this argument according to the Toul-
sein model. You have probably never systematically used this or any other model
: read or write argument. The model can serve as a kind of guide for reading and
~nalyzing arguments, both written and visual, and also for writing or composing
wern. Authors do not usually use the model as an exact formula, however. Rather,
it describes what can be, but is not necessarily always, present in an argument.
consequently, when you read or view argument, you will at times easily recognize
parts of the model and at other times you will not. Some arguments, in fact, may
not contain one or more of the parts at all, such as a rebuttal, for example. You are
not getting it wrong if you read and do not find all of the parts. When you write
(Support)
Modern traffic
controllers think
critically; farm <.;___.---_ ....,. Therefore,
!
boys of seventy-five 1
years ago were not
required to do so. – ….– ~ –
(Warrant)
Since farmers of seventy-five
years ago did not have the
same demands to think
critically that modern
scientists and engineers
have.
(Backing)
Because at least two out of
three had small farms and
did not have to do much
critical thinking. J
(Qualifiers)
Because of
modern
science
To some
people
(Rebuttal)
Un/ess’this is not
+
(Claim)
Critical thinking
seems more
important now than
it was seventy-five
years ago.
so.- Farmers seventy-five
years ago had to thlnk -· ——1
to get out of the
recess.ion and win
World War II.
Figure 4.2 An Example of the Six Elements in the Toulmin Model
‘
118
. Model . The Toulrri1n Arguroent.
Ch
apter 4 The Essential Parts of an
eed to make all parts explicit . d
o not n f h • e1ti.
. allY) you bout each o t e six pans th ltet
ent v1su · ‘ d tails a
at . ·
(or create an arguI11 rovide some e
\\r1U
. cuons p The following se d theJ11 better• help you understan
CLAIM
. “What is the author trying to pr
t by asking,
?” , __ ove”>”
. l ·roof an argumen . “What do I want to prove. l i’ie cla· ·.
Discover the c at by asking, .
. .. .
1
m. 1s
l
claiJ11 of your own d t”fying the claim as soon as p u :,s1ble h l
Or. p an a . e ar ument. I en 1
e Ps
the main point of th g nt is all about. . . . + ~
ou focus on what the argume . sition conclusion, and mazn pozn •. .:-,ometirn_
Y synonyms !or claim are thesis, pr<:::, or ~agazine will ref er to the 'prnpositio;'. an author of an argument ma news?. p wi·n ask "What is your point?" Both ,
. · on television ‘ . h 1 . are
or an individual arguing fers to the clann as t e cone us1on, don
cl
. When someone re
.
ot
referring to the aUI_1- d f n argument. The claim can appear at th
confuse it with the idea at the in ~ c:s in the argument. The claim is sometim:
end, but it can also appear at ot er P ~led the statement of claim. This sentence c~
stated in all sdenthencthe o_r ssteantetmene~;\~: purpose sentence, the statement of focus, or the
also be ca e t e eszs , statement of proposition.
. . d
• th. text to describe the main elements m argument, along
The terms use m is
. . .
with some of their synonyms, appear in Box 4. _1. Become familiar with the~ so that
you will understand other writers on the subJect who may v~ry the tenmno\ogy.
To locate the claim, what should you look for? The clann may be explicitly
stated at the beginning of an argument, at the end, or somewhere in the middle.
Alternatively, it may not be stated anywhere. It is sometimes implied, in which case
you will be expected to infer it. To infer an implicit claim, use what you already
know about the subject along with what you have just read to formulate your
own statement of it. To help illustrate what this looks like, consider the following example. Let’s
say an author wants to convince an audience to accept the claim that “single-
career couples make better parents than dual-career couples.” Rather than state
this pro?osition out_right, h~wever, the author seeks to accomplish this goal by
prese_nt~ng her audience with two contrasting parenting portraits. The first: a
descn~tlon of a working father and stay-at-home mother filled with references
~~::i:r kids’ countless play dates, rewarding at-home a~ivities, high grades at happy. Aldl of whdich the author supplements with visual images that depict a an reste mother interactin · h h
In
contrast the second d . . g wit er contented-seeming children.
, escnpt10n present ·
·1 ·n
severe crisis filled wi”th f s a portrait of a two-career fam1 Y
1
, re erences to sq bbl” ki
· ·r
a husband and wife barel . ua mg ds, a house in messy disrepal ‘
side observations about hoywoon speahking terms. To this portrait, the author adds
.
verse eduled b • . · · e~
the farmly enjoys as a whole B d every ody 1s, how little “quality tiJll
what the implied claim is. . ase on these contrasting family portraits, it is dea!
Authors often make conscious d · •
d
whether to make it explicit or implicit~~~~;s ab_o~t where to plac~ a claiIIl ~
11
about the audience. A claim at the be . . de~isrnns are related to their oonoOS
g1nnmg is straightforward and draws we
►
so>< 4.1
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 119
Argument Terminology: Terms Used in This Book
and Some of Their Synonyms
•, What Terms Are Used in Argument’?
TERMS
claim
Rebuttal
Statement of claim
Subclaims
Support
Warrants
SYNONYMS
thesis
proposition
conclusion
challenge
counterargument
thesis statement
purpose sentence
reasons
main ideas
micro-arguments
arguments
evidence
opinions
reasons
examples
facts
data
grounds
assumptions
general principles
widely held values
commonly accepted beliefs
appeals to human motives
main point
macro-argument
controlling idea
disagreement
statement of focus
statement of proposition
– —
lines of argument
supporting arguments
specific issues
proof
premise
statistics
explanations
information
personal narratives
images
cultural values
presuppositions
unstated premises
generally accepted truths
underlying logic
reader in right away. Or an author may decide to lead up to the claim, in which
case it may appear either in the middle or at the end.
“W De~aying the claim pulls the audience in and increases interest and attention.
f hat is this author after?” the audience wonders, and reads to find out. The end 0
an essay is the most emphatic and memorable place for a claim. Many authors
:efer to put the claim there to give it as much force as possible. There is some risk
c Valved in putting the claim at the end. Students who use this strategy must be
:refu1 to insert cues along the way so that readers understand where the argu-••1ent. . is headed and do not feel they are being led through a random chain of
120
· Model
Ar ument: The Toulmin
Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an g . .
der pay special atten tion be
. t ted claim requires that the r~\erence that the author expcallse
topics The uns a ake the 1n . ·
11
ects . . h der’s responsibility to m . d inferred claim especia y convinei. .
1t 1s t e rea . the reader may fm an ng
Because of this effort, . .
bl d rgamzes the entue arg and memora e. . rcitly state , 0 . . Ulllen1 The claim, whether implied or exis ~elated to it. The b~st way to Wentify it, if i~
d everything else in the argument lete the following statement as soon
an I ate is to comp . h t ,, W as
is not obvious or easy to oc : h ants me to bebeve t a . . . hen You
di • “This aut or w · h
You have finished rea ng. h claim. As a wnter, you can c eek You t you have t e r
have finished that statemen ‘
1
• this statement:
own claim during revision by comp etmg
1 want my audience to agree that . • · .
h cept of the claim, and you will be able 10
If you can do this, you understand t e cont ou read and to use a claim to articu-
. · t · the argumen s Y
recognize the mam poID ID ri·te You can also use this same type
· · · argument you w ·
late the mam poIDt ID any .
1
. . a visual or multimedia argument you
of open statement to determIDe the c arm m
view or produce.
SUPPORT
· h t ·n an argument by asking “What ad.ditional information Discover t e suppor 1 . , . ,, .
does the author supply to convince me of this drum? Or, 1f you are the author,
ask “What information do I need to supply to convince my audience?” You can
su~arize the most essential elements of an argument as a claim with support.
Aristotle wrote in the Rhetoric that the only necessary parts of an argument are the
statement of proposition (the claim) and the proof (the support). There has been
general agreement about those two essential parts of an argument for more than
twenty-three hundred years.
The synonyms that Toulmin uses for support are data and grounds, the British
equivalents. In the United States, you will often read arguments in which the
author claims to be “grounding” a claim with particular support and data is some-
times used as a synonym for facts and figures. Other synonyms for support are proof,
evidence, and reasons. Authors also refer to major evidence as premises. When you
encounter that term in your reading, remember that premises lead to and support
a conclusion (a claim). Do not confuse premises with the claim.
Subclaims
At the first level of support are the subclaims whi”ch th . gurnents . · , are e supporting ar
or reasons for the claim. Here is an example that illust t h
1
. hi arnong
. . ra es t e re at10ns ps
an Issue area, at the most general level in the exampl .fi
1
d • ue tbat
. e, a spea c re ate 1ss
represents an Idea about the general issue area a cla • th . d . spoose
h ·t· 1 d · d f ‘ rm at 1s ma em re to t e specI 1c re ate issue, an our subclaims that are d th dai!Jl·
. . . . · . use to support e
The subdanns are at the most spec1f1c level m this example b h present
. ecause t ey re ideas about the claim.
The Parts of
an Argument according to th
e Toulmin Model 121
, issue Area: The Environmen
t
specific relat~d issue: How seriou
s are the worl , .
Clazm: The environment is th
. 1
d s environmental problems?
e smg e-most ·
faces today.
senous problem the world
Subclaims: l. The rain forests
a b .
2. Increasing po ul:;io ei1;1g d
estr~yed, causing global warmi
ng.
of the world. p n Is depl
etmg resources in some parts
3. Many important
4. The ozone layer w~~rhsou
rces are being polluted by indus
try.
is b · d ‘w IC prote
cts us from harmful sun rays
e1ng estroyed by chemicals.
,
Specific Support
The second level of support
is th ;r;
·
.d . .
e specz1zc support. Specific supp
ort provides the
eVI ence,_ opiruons, reasoning
, examples, and factual infor
mation about a claim
or sub~a~
that make it possible for us to
accept it. Look back at the cla
ims and
subclaims m the example abo
ve If you are to take thi 1 ·
· 1 ·11
. . ·
s c aim senous y, you w1
want some addit10nal specific
support to make it convincing
.
To locate such sup~ort, wha
t should you look for in the a
rgument? One bit
of good news: support IS alwa
ys explicitly stated, so you wi
ll not have to infer it
as Y~~ sometim~s have to infer
the claim. Thus, an understan
ding of the types of
specific support IS all you real
ly need to help you recognize
it. Let us look at some
of the most common types.
Facts
In a court of law, factual suppo
rt (the murder weapon, for ex
ample) is laid out on
the table. In written argumen
t, it must be described. Factua
l support can include
detailed reports of observed ev
ents or places; specific examples
of real happenings;
references to events, either histo
rical or recent; and statistical rep
orts. Factual support
is vivid, real, and verifiable. T
wo people looking at it togeth
er would agree on its
existence and on what it looks
like. They might not agree on
what it means to each
of them-that is, they might in
terpret it differently. Neverthe
less, essentially, they
Would agree on the facts them
selves.
Opinions
~hen people start interpreting
facts and events, opinion ente
rs the picture. Opin-
ions may be the personal opi
nions of the author or the op
inions of experts the
~Uthor selects to quote. The a
uthor can use direct quotatio
ns, set off in quota-
tion marks, or summaries or p
araphrases of what someone e
lse thinks or reports.
Furthermore, opinions may b
e informed, based on conside
rable knowledge a~d
excellent judgment, or they m
ay be ill-founded, based on h
earsay and gossip.
The most convincing opinions
are those of experts, whether
they are tho~e of the
author or of another person. E
xperts possess superior backgr
ound, educatwn, a?d
ex.’Perience on an issue. Contr
ast in your own mind the opi
nions of experts with
122 ument: The Toulmin Model Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an Arg
t b
. ed in the stree s y reporters h are surpns . . the uninformed opinions of people w oded baseless opinion is ~o~g and rarely and asked to give their opinions. Ul-founl o’ pinions and the oprmons of experts . f ed persona 1 convincing. In contrast, m orm . . than the facts themse ves. can be more interesting and convmcmg
Examples hort They are used to clarify, to d up long or s . . Examples can be real or ma e ‘ . t· g and in argument particularly ble and mteres m , ‘ ‘
make material more memora
1 h as instances of actual events or to provide proof. _Exam~le~ ~hat ar:/e~a~::,cfunction in the same wa~ that fact references to particular mdividuals . P_ b se they are grounded m reality. Th convmcmg ecau does in an argument. ey are . nted by the writer and, like opinions, Made-up, or hypothetical examples, are mve 1 experience is one type of h t be the case. Persona can only demonstrate w a m~y- t Writers often go into considerable example that is frequently use m argu~en . d them to think and behave as detail about the experiences that have mfluence d . d . d · · h h pinions an reasonmg enve
they do. Combining personal expenence ‘:”‘1t t e o from it is a common way to develop a claim.
Images
Images are also used to support claims and subclaims and make them more vivid and believable to the audience. You have already encountered several examples of images used in this way. Look back at the three images of American flags associated with World War II, the Vietnam War, and the war in Iraq on page 109, and the sperm donor on page 99. Images used as support make abstract ideas more concrete and easier to grasp. They also make them more memorable. Different authors manage support in different ways, depending on the require-ments of the subject, their purpose, and their audience. When the issue is an abstract idea and the audience is informed, the author may present mainly opinions and few, if any, facts or examples. Such arguments include a claim and blocks of logical reasoning organized around subclaims to develop and prove the claim. If you were to outline the argument, you might not need more than two levels, as in the claim and subclaim example on pages 120-121. When the subject requires more specific support or the audience needs more information to be convinced, specific materials at lower levels are required to ground the subclaims in factS, figures, quotations from others, visual images, or author opinions. The next example expands on the example on page 121 by adding specific support.
4
• Issue Area: The Environment
Specific relat~d issue: Ho’: serious a_re the world’s environmental problems? Claim: The envuonment 1s the single-most serious problem the world faces today.
“The support in the example is drawn from Jeffrey Kluger and Andrea Dorfman, “The Challenges We Face: Time, August 26, 2002, A71+.
r
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model
Subclaim: The rain forests are being destroyed, causing global warming.
Support: Global warming could cause the oceans to rise, the
number of storms to increase, and more droughts. (opinion)
Subclaim: Increasing population is depleting resources in some parts
of the world.
Support: One-third of the world does not have enough food and
is in danger of starvation. (fact)
Subclaim: Many important water sources are being polluted by industry.
Support: By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may live
in areas where there is a serious water shortage. (opinion)
Subclaim: The ozone layer, which protects us from harmful sun rays,
is being destroyed by chemicals.
Support: It was widely reported in the spring of 2013 that the
hole in the ozone layer was significantly larger than it
had been the previous year. (fact)
Quality support helps build common ground between the arguer and the
audience. Rantings, unfounded personal opinions that no one else accepts, or
feeble reasons like “because I said so” or “because everyone does it” are not eff ec-
tive support. Audiences usually do not believe such statements, they do not share
experiences or ideas suggested by them, and they lose common ground with the
arguer when they read or hear them.
Common ground is far likelier when an author spends time thinking about
what an intended audience does and does not know, and thus what opinions and
information an audience would best respond to. In the case of the foregoing envi-
ronmental discussion, the decision about what support to offer depends on what
the intended audience knows about the issue of global warming. For an audience
steeped in scientific knowledge, support that relies on anecdote might not be very
useful. For an audience conditioned to be skeptical of scientific authority, a careful
presentation and explanation of scientific data is probably warranted.
When reading argument, to help you focus on and recognize the support,
complete this sentence as soon as you finish:
The author wants me to believe that . .. [the claim] because . . . [list the support].
When you read to revise your own writing, you can complete this statement:
I have convinced my audience to believe [the claim] because [list your support].
WARRANTS
:~rrants are the assumptions, general principles, conventions of specific disciplines
ely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, and appeals to human motives tha; are an irn f 5 portant part o any argument. After taking a close look at the claim-support . thin . . WI a given argument, we rrught ask ourselves a very basic question: How
5
Toultnin’s . . e warrants are somewhat similar to Bitzer’s constraints in the rhetorical situation . Bitzer, however, Xtends the . d d the type of t . concept of constramts to also include the resources available to the writer o r pro ucer an ext bemg d . t than warrants. create • whether wntten, spoken, or visual. Thus constraints is a broader concep
123
124
. Model . The roulm1n rnent. f an Argu
uthor needs h
Chapter 4 The Essential Parts O
h assumptions an a er or his ? what are t e d d by this argument? The Warr
to there· be persua e . ( , h ant
do we get from he~e order for thern to As the unstated assumpt10~ s, t a: links a
audience to share ~ gets answered. d ….,,1nes whether an audience Will accet1t
thi question · what eteu .. _..,_..~ d t part f th t’
is where s the warrant is h can be spelle ou as o e VVrit-
dairn to its supp~rt, made. Even though t ey . stances it would be redundant and
nt being t In many Ill ‘
the argurne suallY they are no . ent might go as follows:
ten argument, u For exarnple, an argum
. boring if they were. . f the United States is doing a poor Job. . . The president o t ·t has been in ten years.
Claim. omy is the wars i support: The econ t· an assumption that logically compels
.f. e type of warran •
1 b .
Toulmin ident1 ies on . d for For the examp e a ove, we might
ntees the conclusion being argue . or guara f 11 s· . he logical warrant as o ow . define t
. ars then the president is doing
If the economy is the worst it has been m ten ye , apomj~.
.
.
. . fact the worst it has been m ten years,
Assuming I believe that the ~cono~y is_ m • ob when the economy is the
and assuming I believe the president is do~~g t~i:;:~sident is doing a poor job. The
worst it has been in ten years, I must agre~ a . t te the argument’s claim-support
surest way to identify a logical warrant is to res a . s resentin the
“if/then” proposition (shown above). To avmd alway P g.
structure as an ·
d 1 · e can also find
logical warrant as a verbatim restatement of the support an c arm, ‘: . ht read·
alternative ways to phr°:se the same logic. In this _case, ~uch ~ rephras~g rmg ·
When the economy is weak, it is a sign the president is domg a bad ]Ob. .
To Toulmin’s model, however, we might also add a second type of warra~t. a
contextual warrant. Contextual warrants ref er to the broader assumptions, beliefs,
or values that influence how an audience will respond to a given argument. For
the above example, contextual warrants include: the generally accepted belief that
the president is responsible for the economy; the widespread assumption that the
economy, as one of the president’s chief responsibilities, is also a valid barometer
of presidential performance. Note that neither of these assumptions logically com·
pels an audience to accept this argument. If an audience shar·es these assumptions,
however, it is more likely they will find this argument more plausible or compelling.
To sum up: For our purposes, warrants can be divided into two types: logical
warrants and contextual warrants. Logical warrants direct oui;. attention to the
assumptions that are internal to a given argument. Contextual warrants, on the
other hand, direct our attention to those more general assumptions ·that frame our
understanding of and reaction to a given argument. Each constitutes an important
aspect of the warrant overall, and each plays an important role in determining boW
an audience will respond.
Here is another example, and this one relies on a value warrant. Claim: Businesses have a compelling interest in opposing envi· ronmental protection laws. Support: Obeying environmental protection laws that call for clean air, for example, costs industry money that could otherwise be realized as profit.
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 125
Logical Warrant: Utilizing the “If, then” formula, we might state the logical warrant in these terms: “If obeying environmental protection laws costs industry money that would otherwise be realized as profit, then businesses have a compelling interest in opposing them.” If we wanted to cast the warrant in language that did not simply reiter-ate the terms of the claim-support structure, we might say: “Profits are a higher priority for businesses than environmental concerns when making decisions about their operations.”
contextual Warrants: The contextual warrant encompasses those broader assumptions that relate to the issue an argument raises, and that influence the views an audience might have about this issue. In this case, examples of a contex-tual warrant include the widely held belief that profits should stand as the primary measure of a business’s success; the common assumption that financial consid-erations and environmental concerns are typically in tension with each other.
Warrants originate with the arguer. But it is important to remember that the prerogative to respond to and assess warrants rests with the audience. An audience may correctly identify the logic underlying a given claim-support structure, but still disagree with the point being made. An audience may share with the arguer a com-monly held belief, and yet use this belief as the basis for drawing a very different conclusion. We can imagine, for example, an audience who shares with an arguer the view that the president is responsible for the economy, and yet who comes to a very different conclusion about whether the economy constitutes a fair measure of presidential performance. Warrants can be shared by the arguer and the audi-ence, or they can be in conflict. Furthermore, if the audience shares the warrants with the arguer, the audience will accept them and the argument is convincing. If the warrants are in conflict and the audience does not accept them (they believe private enterprise, not the president, is responsible for improving the economy), the argument is not convincing to them.
Warrants provide critical links in argument. For instance, they link the support ~o the claim by enabling an audience to accept particular support as proof of or Justification for a particular claim. Without the linking warrant, the support may not be convincing. Here is an example.
Claim:
Support:
Expected logical
warrant:
The appeals process for criminals should be shortened … because the appeals for criminals on death row can cost more than $2 million per criminal.
If a criminal appeal costs more than $2 million per criminal, then the appeals process should be shor~~n_:f~ (This individual shares the author’s warrant, the ID made, and the argument is convindng.)
126
lmin Model f n Argument: The Tou Chapter 4 The Essential Parts O a ore than $2 millio
Alternative logical
warrant:
Expected contextual
warrants:
eal costs m n Per If a criminal app dy other than shortening th criminal, then a rem.Ide be found. (This individual supe ess shou · k b · appeals proc . warrant, the hn etween claim. plies an opp~sing t made, and the argument is not and support is no
convin~in_~~ dollars is an unreasonably high Price Two milh . inal appeal; the appeals process t pay for a cnm ·f· . . f . o d without sacn 1e1ng its auness or can be shortene
f · ess ef ectiven · · too much to ensure a f · N amount of money is air Alternative contextual O . hortening the appeals process would rants . appeals process, s . war . f ·ts fairness or effectiveness. detract rom 1
1 rrant in the following argument. Supply your own logical and contextua wa
Claim:
Support:
Logical Warrant:
Contextual Warrant:
The government should abolish loan funds for college
students… . because many students default on their loans, and the government cannot tolerate these bad debts. . . can you identify the logical warrant underlymg this claim-support? Try writing this out using the “if/then” formula outlined earlier. Now try rephrasing this war-rant in different terms.
What are some of the broader assumptions or views that would help an audience accept this argument? What are some of the broader assumptions or views that would make such acceptance less likely?
These examples demonstrate that the warrant links the evidence and the claim by justifying particular evidence as support for a particular claim. Notice also, however, that the warrant attempts to establish a link between the author and the audience as well. Shared warrants result in successful arguments. ~hen~~ warrant is not shared or when there are conflicting warrants, the audience wil question or disagree with the claim.
Besides being related to what people commonly believe value want, or accept , , wee as background knowledge about a subject warrants are also culture-bound. 5 d values, beliefs, and training vary from culture to culture, the warrants associate with them also differ from culture to culture. Tension between Japan and tb: United States was caused by a Japanese official’s claim that American workers ard lazy and do not work hard enough. American workers were angry and count~r~ with a rebuttal about how hard they think they work. Japanese and _AII1e~c e workers have different work schedules, attitudes, and experience with leis:e and work time. Consequently, the part of both arguments that was unstated, fa warrant, described hard work in different ways for each culture. The lack 0
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 127
sbared warrant caused the tension. Furthermore, neither side was conv
inced by
tbe other’s argument.
Japanese claim:
Support:
Japanese warrant:
American rebuttal:
Support:
American warrant:
American workers are lazy …
because they work only 40 hours a week.
People who work only 40 hours a week are lazy.
American workers are hardworking …
because they work 40 hours a week.
People who put in 40 hours a week are industrious and
hardworking.
perhaps now you have begun to appreciate the importance of shared
warrants
in argument. Shared warrants are crucial to the success of an argumen
t because
they are the most significant way to establish common ground between r
eader and
writer in argument. Shared warrants and common ground, as you can im
agine, are
particularly important in international negotiations. Skillful negotiato
rs analyze
warrants to determine whether or not both parties are on common grou
nd. If they
are not, communication breaks down and argument fails.
To help you discover the logical warrants that underlie an author’s clai
m, and
to assess the validity of this logic, answer the following questions:
What is left out here?
Do I believe that this evidence supports this claim? Why or why not?
To help you compare this logical warrant to the contextual warran
ts that are
shaping your response to this claim, answer the following questions:
What does this author seem to value? Do I share those values?
What is causing the author to say t,hese things? Would I say these
things
differently? How or why?
As the author of argument, you should consider your audience and w
hether
or not they will accept your warrants. Let’s turn now to the other three
parts of the
Toulmin model that an arguer can use to adapt an argument to a particul
ar audience.
Create-Your-Own-Warrant Exercise
t Choose an issue with which you are familiar.
t Answer the question, What makes this issue arguable or debatable?
t Determine what your own perspective is on this issue.
t Write your perspective as an argument (i.e., using the claim-support structure
).
t Next, write down what you see as the logical warrant for this claim (hint:
start
by using the “if/then” formula; then try rephrasing this in different te
r~s).
a.
( ) f r this daJin.
• Then, write down what you see as the contextual warrant
5 0
128
· Model
t . The Tot1lm1n f Argumen • Chapter 4 The Essential Parts o an
BACKING themselves may require their OWn_ You should have a sense by now that war:::~dience, particularly if t?e audience
rt to make them more acceptable to thor An author may provide backing suppo ‘th the au . h . , does not happen to share t?em wi “back up” a warrant, wheneve~ t e au~ence is or additional evid~nc~ and ideas ~ are the author, you should provide backing also. in danger of rejectmg it. When yo 1 to generally accepted knowledge and Backing sometimes appears a~ ~pdpeal s r groups of people who belong to a ld b st indivi ua s o 11 d beliefs that are he Y mo b r fs are sometimes spe e out explicitly as specific discipline or culture. These ~ ie they are implied and the audience has backing for a warrant, an~ at other t~me; the argument and making inferences. to supply them by examinmg the logic o
Here is an example of backing for a warrant.
Claim:
Support:
Logical Warrant:
Contextual Warrants:
Backing:
. hould be allowed to come into the United Immigrants s
States . . . . h U S . because immigration has benefited t e . . economy m
the past. . If immigration has benefited the U.S. economy m_the
past, then immigrants should be allowed to come mto
the United States.
Current economic conditions are similar to past condi-
tions; immigration policy should be dictated by economic
need.
Now, as in the past, immigrants are willing to perform
necessary, low-paying jobs that American citizens do not
want. Immigrants perform these jobs better than citizens
and for less pay. Thus, their inclusion in the workforce is
better for the American economy overall.
Look for backing in an argument by identifying the warrant and then by asking whether or not you accept it. If you do not, try to anticipate additional information that would make it more acceptable. Then examine whether the author supplied that or similar additional support. When you are the writer, consider your audi-ence. Will they accept your warrant? Can you strengthen it by supplying additio~al information or by appealing to common values and beliefs that will help justilY your claim?
REBUTTAL
A rebuttal establishes what is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable about an arguill:~ and may present counterarguments or new arguments that represent entirelY · · f · f tbe ferent perspectives or pomts o view on the issue. To attack the validity o ts claim, an author ~ay demonstrate that the support is faulty or that the warr~et are faulty or unbelievable. Counterarguments stan all over again, with a new of claims, support, and warrants.
The Parts of an Argument according to the Toulmin Model 129
gere is an example of a rebuttal for the argument ab t • • • ou 1mm1grat10n:
Rebuttal 1: lm~igrants actually drain more resources in schooling,
me~cal care, and other social services than they contrib-
ute 1n taxes and productivity.
Rebuttal 2: Modern immigrants are not so willing to perform menial
low-skilled jobs as they were in past generations. ‘
gere is an example of a counterargument for the immigration argument:
Claim: Laws should be passed to limit immigration …
Support: because we have our own unskilled laborers who need
those jobs.
Logical Warrant: If there are unskilled, native-born laborers who need
jobs, laws should be passed to limit immigration.
Contextual Warrants: Native-born workers are willing to hold these jobs;
native-born workers would perform these jobs as well
as immigrants; legally curtailing immigration would
succeed in motivating or enabling employers to higher
native-born workers instead.
Rebuttals can appear as answers to arguments that have already been stated,
or the author may anticipate the reader’s rebuttal and include answers to possible
objections that might be raised. Thus, an author might write a rebuttal to the claim
that we should censor television by saying such a practice would violate the First
Amendment. Or, if no claim has been made, the arguer could anticipate what the
objections to television violence might be (violence breeds violence, children who
see violence become frightened, etc.) and refute them, usually early in the essay,
before spelling out the reasons for leaving television alone.
Look for a rebuttal or plan for it in your own writing by asking, “What are the
other possible views on this issue?” When reading ask, “Are other views repre-
sented here along with reasons?” Or, when writing ask, “How can I answer other
views?” Phrases that might introduce refutation include some may disagree, others
may think, or other commonly held opinions are, followed by the opposing ideas and
your reasons and evidence for rejecting them.
QUALIFIERS
Remember that argument is not expected to demonstrate certainties. Instead, it
establishes probabilities. Consequently, the language of certainty (always, never,
the best, the worst, and so on) promises too much when used in claims or in
other parts of the argument. It is not uncommon for an author to make a claim
and, while still writing, begin revising and qualifying it to meet the anticipated
objections of an audience. Thus words such as always and never change to
some· none sometimes; is or are change to may be or might; all changes to many_ ~rd
1
ng, uage ch ‘bl Quaiifie a . anges to a few; and absolutely changes to probably or possz Y· whether the lS b L ok to see 1 te etter for demonstrating probability in argument. 0 . obable or abso u h rnent 1npr aut or has stated the claim in other parts of the argu
130
r ument: The Toulmin Model
Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an A g
t figure out why or why not. For
L02 Use the
Toulmin model
to analyze
written, visual,
and online
argument.
· argument O · h 11 · · d then read the entire . f the first claim t at a immtgrants terms, an . . l”f ed vers10n o . . . .. 1 _., 1 the followmg is a qua 11 . These quahf1cat10ns WOLW : make examp e, h Umted States. d h b ., . should be allowed to enter t e e eople who off ere t e re l.JH :’! ]s and . . 1 1 ·m more acceptable to th p the ongma c a1
counterargument. h U ·ted States only if they can prove
Immigrants should be allowed t~ entefrf_t . e t rui·ncome to offset social services and . b ‘eldmg su ic1en h . b that they already have JO s y1 1 “lable to perform t ese JO s. that no American citizens are current y ava1
Value of the Toulmin Model
d t ges that make it an excellent model for The Toulmin model has some a van a . d . . • • d · · gument Its most essential a vantage is that readmg wntmg, an viewing ar . . h f f h · • · ‘ d d audience participation 1n t e orm o s ared 1t mv1tes common groun an d d” · ·. h “b”l”ty of interaction between author an au 1ence. warrants, mcreas1ng t e poss1 1 1 .
By subdividing warrants into two categories, furthe~more, w~ give ourselves
an especially useful strategy for analyzing the role different kinds_ of unstated
assumptions play within an argument. As we have seen, the logi~al “:’ar~ant
works well as a tool for identifying and verifying the internal logic w1thm a
claim-support statement. We have also seen, though, that the overall persuasive-
ness of an argument rests upon more than its internal logic alone. Contextual
warrants supplement our analysis of logical warrants by helping us uncover the
associated assumptions that help determine whether an audience will find an
argument persuasive.
The model works for reading or writing not only in debate and single-
perspective argument but also in academic inquiry, negotiation, dialectic, or any
other form of argument that requires exchange and attempts to reach agree-
ment. It can even be a useful tool for one-on-one argument or personal decision making.
Writers of argument find the Toulmin model useful as both an invention
strategy and a revision strategy. It can be used to help an author come up with the
essential parts of an argument in the first place, and later it can be used to check
and evaluate the parts of a newly written argument. See page 143 for a writing
assignment that uses the Toulmin model as a tool to help the writer think about
the parts of a position paper. See page 142 for an example of a student-written
position paper with its Toulmin elements labeled in the margins.
Readers of argument find the model useful for analyzing and describing the
essential parts of a written argument. Listeners find it just as useful for analyzing
and describing the essential parts of an argumentative speech. Viewers find they
can use the model to analyze visual argument, whether it appears alone as an
argument, independent of text with only a few words of explanation, such as in
some paintings, cartoons, photographs,. or Web sites; or as support for ideas in a
·rten text such as photographs, drawings, graphs, and charts that illustrate and wn , ·d ·
1 . m· video images that support i eas presented on television in moVIes, exp am; or as ‘
Claim:
Support:
Logical
Warrant:
Backing:
Rebuttal:
Qualifier:
Contextual
Warrants:
9 ca-. – ac-a, c: D• • ••
10 CA,! • • • t C-• • D• ._
11 ca~ • • • cc • t:.D• .-
,ta – .-e a •C• •D• ct •
ta c A• • • • .-, • D1o •a•
14 . .. .. , . . – • Oa – · ·
11 ca~ ._. cc- . …… .
11 _, … . • O• • D• • • •
11 – • • ·• • C• 110 • • • •
II • A• , . ,. • C• “-D• …
19 c A, 11 ta• 11:Ca … cl •
IO • A• 11 a, • O• __., c••
– t.8 , cc :. • D• • • •
D c a c – • C• CD• …
D – •■• •-cu, •D• •• •
.. .. .. a c a ) – c lh, •
– cu – •C• •D• C – · a~ c■• ._C• •D• •• •
11 ._. ca a •C• • D• • l a
CA• – c.C• cD• ~■•
Value of the Toulmin Model 131
Figure 4.3 A Toulmin Analysis of a
Cartoon That Makes an Argument
This job applicant is probably not prepared for this particular job …
because he has taken tests in high school that rely on answer sheets, and he cannot
communicate effectively.
If the knowledge learned and tested in standardized tests is irrelevant to jobs in
the real world, it will fail to prepare students for those jobs.
Many people believe that standardized tests fail to measure the critical thinking
skills and communication skills, especially writing, that are required for success in
the workplace.
A rebuttal is implied against the position that standardized testing is an adequate
test of students’ knowledge and job skills. If we wanted a rebuttal that argues
against the claim being advanced by this cartoon, we might write: While certain
standardized tests fail to impart a measure of useful knowledge, others, in fact, do
teach and measure skills that will be effective on the job.
The job applicant is not prepared for this particular job because he has taken tests in
high school that rely on answer sheets, like those used with standardized tests, and
he is unable to communicate in the ways this particular employer finds effective.
Standardized tests detract from people’s ability to think critically; one of the
key requirements of many jobs is to communicate clearly; standardized tests
do not help students develop effective communication skills; a key purpose of
standardized tests is to prepare students for future jobs.
This cartoon will be convincing to you if you share the warrant and the backing. If you place a
different value on standardized tests than this cartoonist, it will not convince you.
or online. Figure 4.3 provides an example of a Toulmin analysis of a cartoon that
makes an argument.
The Toulmin model can be used to write or to a,nalyze both consensual and
adversarial arguments. It accommodates all of the various forms of arguments.
The model is summarized in a handy chart for quick reference for the use of both
readers and writers in the Summary Charts (page 424).
132
. Th Toulmin Model
f Argument. e
Chapter 4 The Essential Parts O an
ine Arg
lmin Mode
•
11
hanged the ways we encounter and responrj +
· f d’ · I It h s dramat1ca Y c ·· tO The rise o 1g1ta cu. ure a ‘d Web-based arguments come in a varietv
argument From onlme ads to YouTube vr eos, . ., of
different forms employing an array of different tools to p~esent and sdupport their cla irns. Thes
‘ h T 1 ·n model can be use to analyze arg e
changes present challenges to the ways t e ou mi . . urnent,
Because their claims can take textual, visual, video, or graphic form, onlme arguments demand
approach more specifically tailored to a multimedia en~ironment. Because ~hey draw upon ideaan
information, and evidence from a range of sources, online arguments require closer attentio s,
to the credibility of the support they use to advance their claims. And because they provide n
their audiences with so many opportunities to respond, online arguments invite more scrutin
of the interactive form rebuttals can take. The outline below provides you with a framework~
analyzing an online argument in Toulmin terms. How does each set of questions help you ta·, or
T I
·
1
1 or
a ou mm ana ysis to the specific features of on line argument? Then take a closer look at th
example of online argument that follows. What kind of argument does this digital selectio e
And h~w does the discussion that follows provide you with a model for conducting this ki ~ makei
analysis yourself? n of
• t t Claim
• Through what medium (Web site, social media post video etc) is the cla.
• Wh t
1
• d’ ‘ ‘ · 1m presented?
a mu time ia elements (textual, visual, video, graphic) are used to convey it? .
•• t Support
• What type of support is offered?
• What form (textual, visual, video graphic) does th·
‘ is support take?
• • • Logical Warrant
• What is the logical connection between thi I . • c s c aim and sup rtJ
an you state this connection in an “if/th ,, f po . en orm?
• t • Rebuttal
• What opport · · unities for audience feedb k .
• Do these opportunities strengthen or d~c. ~re included?
imin1sh the claim b . emg made?
”’ Qualifier ·
• What additional multimedia elements are used t .
o qualify th I . e c arm being made?
Value of the Toulmin Model 133
ed)
, , t Contextual Warrants
• What assumptions or associations do people typically bring to this particular medium?
• How do these assumptions or associations influence the claim being made?
••,Claim
GETIING HOME
SAFELY IS JUST
ACLICKAWAY
S erCar.govITlieRigtltSeat
• Parents and caregivers need to ensure their children are properly buckled up when in the car .
• The claim is presented in an online public service announcement (PSA) devoted to raising
awareness about the importance of child passenger safety.
• The PSA uses written text (“Getting Home Safely Is Just a Click Away”) and visual imagery
(a picture of ruby red shoes, a picture of a young girl in a car seat) to convey this claim.
••• Support
• Because this child is buckled up safely, she is secure in the knowledge that she will get home
safely.
• The PSA uses its visual imagery to present this support. The image of the smil ing girl conveys
the Web site’s point about traveling safely, while the red slippers capture the idea of
returning home. continued
134
· Model r ument: The Toulmin Chapter 4 The Essential Parts of an A 9
t t t Logical Warrant th ir children will arrive h() . h roper car seats, e rne • If parents and caregivers fit children tot e P
safely.
•••Rebuttal
” . . . h’ld fety resources, such as campaigns,” • The PSA provides viewers with I mks to other c I sa
ff marketing tools,” and “events/presentations.” , . f ation to support the PSA s key • These links are designed to give viewers further m orm
claim.
• It also includes a “search” field for viewers to find further connections themselves.
•••Qualifier
• The child here can feel confident about her own safety because she has been properly placed within the appropriate car seat.
•••Contextual Warrants
• Because they address issues that are in the broader public interest, PSAs are generally regarded as credible or trustworthy sources.
• This Web site builds upon this credibility through its reference to The Wizard of Oz, which evokes greater feelings of trust and identification in its audience.
Activity
Choose a multimedia text (Web site, social media post, video, podcast, etc.) that makes a claim about a topical issue. Then use the framework above to analyze this text in Toulmin terms.
Review Questions
I. Name and describe the six parts of the Toulmin model. Which parts, stated or inferred, can be found in any argument? Which parts are used, as needed, to make an argument more convincing to a particular audience? (L01)
2. What are some synonyms for the claim, the support, and the warrant? Consult Box 4.1 (page 119). (L01)
3. What are subclaims? What are some types of specific support? (L01)
J
Exercises and Activities 135
pefine warrants. Why d_oes argument work better when warrants are shared by
4
· tbe arguer and the audience? How does backing strengthen a warrant? (L01 )
Give some examples of qualifiers. (L01)
5,
pescribe the difference between logical and contextual warrants. How does
6
· each help you evaluate the effectiveness of an argument? (L01)
Exercises and Activities
J!. Group Work and Class Discussion: Truth versus Probability
This activity invites you to compare topics that are true and therefore not argu-
able with topics that are probable and thus open to argument. Think about
one other course you are taking this semester and write down one example
of something you have learned in that course that is absolutely true or untrue
about which you could not argue. Then write one example of something you
have learned in that course that is only probably true or untrue and that you
therefore see as arguable. Make a class list of these examples. Think carefully
about everything you put in the true and untrue columns. These must be
topics that no one would argue about because they have been proved to be
true or untrue. Here are some key words to help you think about these two
types of information.
True: certain, fact, exact statement, right, correct, valid; wrong, incorrect,
invalid
Probable: possible, opinion, qualified, reasonable, sound; unreasonable,
unsound
You will be learning both types of information in college. Which topics on the
probable list might be good topics for argument papers?
B. Group Work and Class Discussion: Using the Toulmin Model to Analyze
an Advertisement
Study the advertisement that appears on the next page. Answer the following
questions.
1. What is the claim? Complete the sentence, “The author wants me to
believe that . . . ” Is the claim stated or implied?
2· What is the support? Complete the sentence, “The author wants me to
believe that … [the claim] because … [support].” Look for subclaims
(reasons) and specific support (e.g., facts, opinions, examples).
3
· W~at is the logical warrant? Using the “if, then” (support, claim) model,
Wnte out what you see as the internal logic underlying this argument.
Remember that logical warrants supply the link between support and claim.
4
· What are the contextual warrants? What does the author value or believe
reg ct · . ar mg the claim? Are these values stated or implied? What assump-
tions does this advertisement invite its viewers to make?
CHAPTER Types of Claims
. ou will be able to:
After studying thzs chapter, y .
. . f ent types of clauns.
L01 Describe the five dif er s of claims operate in written
h w these type ‘ L02 Identify and analyze o
visual, and online arguments.
A
rgument theorists categorize claims according to types, and
these types suggest the fundamental purp~ses of given arg~
–
ments. Becoming aware of these categones and the special
characteristics associated with each helps you understand more fully the
purposes and special features of the arguments you read and improves
your writing of them. When reading, as soon as you identify the type o
r
category of claim in an argument, you can predict and anticipate certain
features of that type of argument. This technique also helps you follow
the author’~ line of tho~ght more easily. When writing, knowing the
types of claims can provide you with frameworks for develo in our
purpose and strategy. p g y
When you begin to read argume t . h h
and identifying it b t .. n wit t e idea of locating the claim
y ype, your ability to identif d ll he
parts of an argument w·ll . Y an understand a t i mcrease To acco li h . d
to learn the strategy descr·b d · mp s this goal, you first nee
i e next for anal .
purpose, and its constituent yzmg an argument, its key parts.
<
Five Types of Claims 15
1
five Types of Claims
. ually all arguments can be categorized according to one of five types of claims.
Vrrt can identify each argument type by identifying the questions the argument
you 1 · t f · · vvers. In genera, certam ypes o orgamzat1on and proof are associated with
an~ in types of claims, as you will see in the following discussion. There are no
ce I-and-fast rules about using specific organizational strategies or types of proof
har ·f· f 1 . I< · develop spec1 1c types O c aims. nowmg common patterns and tendencies,
to wever, helps readers make predictions about the course of an argument and
hO 1 d . h. lps writers pan an wnte t e1r own arguments.
he f. . f 1 . 1 Here are the IVe categones o c aims, a ong with the main questions that they
answer:
l. claims of fact: Did it happen? Does it exist?
2. Claims of definition: What is it? How should we define it?
3. Claims of cause: What caused it? What are its effects?
4. Claims of value: Is it good or bad? What criteria will help us decide?
5. Claims of policy: What should we do about it? What should be our future course
of action?
The sections that follow provide additional explanations of the five types of
claims, along with the general questions they answer, some examples of actual
claims, a list of the types of proof ( explained more fully in the next chapter) that
are most typically associated with each type of claim, the organizational strategies
that one might expect for each type, and a short written argument that illustrates
each type as it appears in practice.
CLAIMS OF FACT
When you claim that you turned a paper in on time even though the professor
cannot find it, or that you were not exceeding the speed limit when a police officer
claims that you were, you are making claims of fact.
Questions answered by claims of fact. Did it happen? Is it true? Does it exist?
Is it a fact?
Examples of claims of fact. (Note that all of the “facts” in these claims need to
be proved as either absolutely or probably true in order to be acceptable to
an audience. All of these claims, also, are controversial.) The ozone layer
is becoming depleted. Increasing population threatens the environment.
American drivers are becoming more ·responsible. America’s military is
prepared for any likely crisis. The abominable snowman exists in certain
remote areas. Women are not as effective as men in combat. A mass mur-
derer is evil, not insane. The American judicial system operates successfully.
Types of support associated with claims off act. Factual support, as you might
guess, is especially appropriate for claims of fact. Such support incl~des
b th . . z d t tionsfrom relzable 0 past and present facts, statzstzcs, real examp es, an quo a
authorities. Inductive reasoning, which cites several examples and then draws
1…n1 Describe
the five different
types of cla ims.
I
.~
152 Chapter s Types of Claims . 1 a conunon type of argument f h m IS a so d imil. . . or
1 • on from t e ‘ arisons an s an ties betw
a p_robable c~°:.n~~~gies that establish ~~:~onunonly accepted as true :en.
clauns o~ fact d something else thaf past or present state of affairs re
the subJect an . dence o a h are
f l Signs that present ~VI f f ct Expert opinion, w en used to support use u · r h claims o a ·
also useful to estab is d on fact. .
claims of fact, is usually basi:s Chronological order, w~ch t~ac~s what has
n,..ssible or”9anizational strateg_ . ually in the order Ill which it occurred
cv . . d of ume, us 1 h h’ , occurred over a peno . f fact For examp e, t e istory of th
d 1 claims o · . h e can be used to ev_e op . b rovided to show how it as happened
increase in populauon m1gh~ ~o;ical order may be used. In topical order
in time, from then to no~- ar: identified and then developed topic by
reasons to support a fac b . n for the existence of the abominable . might e give . topic. Thus, r_easons d loped at length. This chapter 1s organized
snowman, with each one eve .
according to topics: the five types of claims. . .
The claim of fact itself is often stated at or near the ~eg11:rung of the
argument unless there is a psychological advantage for stating It a~ the end.
Most authors make claims of fact clear from the outset, revealmg early
what they seek to establish.
An example of an argument that contains a claim off act. The following essay
argues that no less than seventy percent of students at community colleges
plan to attain a degree at a four-year college or university. The article seeks
to establish the fact that conventional assumptions about the students who
attend two-year colleges are inaccurate.
BEFORE YOU READ: What is your view of the college admissions proc -, I
experience, have you found it to be fair? ess · n your own
ESSAY #l 2-YEAR STUDENTS HAVE LONG HAD 4-YEAR DREAMS*
Stephen J. Handel
Stephen J. Handel is associate vice president for u d
st H . . n ergraduate ad · · . • ·a sy em. e wrote this article for The Chronicle of H’ h m1ss1on in the University of cahforn1
‘9 er Education.
Facts Last month the National Student Cl .
h h eanngho . t at more t an 60 percent of comm . use released a report shoWJ11g
f . . . unny-colleg our-year un1vers1t1es ultimately earn db e students who transferred to
f f e achelo ‘ d a ter trans er. I was pleased to hear th f· . r s egrees within six years
f. . . ese ind1ngs b 1rst-trme commumty-college students h ut not surprised New: ave alwa s b . , Y een ambitious.
*u2-Year Students Have Long Had 4-Year Dreamsu by Stephen J. Ha d 1 . . n e . from The
September 23, 2013. Reproduced by perm1ss10n. Chronicle of Higher Education.
.,,,, of fact c1a1i,,
statistics
Quotation
from
Authority
Quotation
from A Uthority
The baccal Five Types of Claims 153
aureate as irar
be refreshin to hi h ions and Ion -term 1 .
to the ersistent ubtr-e:ucation leaders because at~s of thes_e stud~nts should
develo in skills rath1c rhetoric insistin that toda ‘set .drov1de a correnive
. er t an ai • s u ents are foe · with those people who nm an education. Still I ct· usmg on . so casually ct· • ‘ am 1senchanted
eve1:1 _profligate, in light of the av . 1s:1:1ss th_ese intentions as unreliable
certificates or associate degr allab1hty of Jobs that require short-t ,
h. h r ees. My arg . erm
ig -qua Hy pre-baccalaureate creden _m~ent is no~ ‘:ith the proliferation of
economy. Rather, it is With the re t1al~, such trammg is essential for our
teresred in an education ev b~ su_mption that these students are unin-
11 · · • ery It as mtense th f enro initially in four-yea . . . as at o undergraduates who . r mst1tut1ons
Earning a four-year de . · .
most incoming commun}ree l: the pre-emment educational goal for
Department of Ed . 1 y-co ege students. A 2009 survey by the U S
ucat10n mdicated th t h · · first-time commun·t a more t an 80 percent of all new
was especially st i y-college students sought bachelor’s degrees. The de~ire
sented in hi her r;;g a~ong students f~om groups traditionally underrepre-
83 erce g ucat1?n,. such as Latmos (85 percent), African-Americans
( P ~t), and those m the lowest income quartile (84 percent).
The desire to earn a four-year degree has a long history. Between 1966
and_ l 9~9, when the University of California at Los Angeles’s Cooperative
~s~itut10nal Research Program surveyed the educational aspirations of
JUnIO~-college, and then community-college, students separately from those
entenng four-year institutions, the proportion of two-year college students
whose education goal was a bachelor’s degree (or higher) never dropped
below 70 percent. Steven G. Brint and Jerome Karabel, in their classic book,
The Diverted Dream ( 1989), quote survey results from the 1920s through the
1950s, all of which reported the intentions of two-year college students as
largely directed toward a bachelor’s degree.
s Despite their desire to earn a baccalaureate, however, few achieve that
goal. Data indicate that only about one-quarter to one-third of students who
wish to transfer actually succeed, despite the fact that-as the clearinghouse
data reflect-their chances of earning a four-year degree after transfer are
good. Perversely, the low number of actual transfers is used to justify the
recalibration of student intentions toward pre-baccalaureate credentials. But
higher-education observers like Richard Kahlenberg, writing in The Chronicle,
argue the opposite: “Some look at these numbers and suggest community
colleges should downplay the idea of transfer, but it makes more sense to
improve and strengthen transfer paths.” .
Few people seem concerned about the mismatch between what commumty-
college students intend to do and what they actually achieve. A recently ~ub-
lished monograph chastises community-college leaders by noting that while
community-college “students will readily identify transfer and long-tennl this
. . . unfortunate Y
academic goals, their ultrrnate goal 1s on employment. · · · if su·pulate in . 11 ” Even we
simple fact is overlooked by most commuruty co egescl .th jobs it is unclear
the absence of evidence that students are concemeddoe.!,’:es that future. . oals” un iu………… •
how their focus on “transfer and acadermc g si·on has left us wondenng
f the recent reces hin It seems that the wreckage O will continue to signal somet g . a college degree
whether the investment in
‘II
154 Chapters Types of Claims d ·n a recent essay, “The
ff s reflecte I b J ff
Inductive Reasoning
Statistics
Historical Analogy
Claim
Liberal Analogy
Conclusion
Restatement of Claim
1 bor-rnarket payo , aw; II Street Journal, y e rey J. Selingo
other than a a_ hing Value,” in The a ,
Diploma’s Yams . ·
The Chronicle’s editor at lar?e. e that the nation fill a g~ow1ng number of
In response, there is ins1sten~ skills. This is acc~m~an1ed ?Y data showing
J·obs requiring pre-baccalaure~t d grees in certain fields will earn more · g associate e that individuals earnm . baccalaureate degrees.
initially than those who ob~am d ·nging is a nod to the cost-
Embedded in this rhetorical han _wncolleges, as if those institutions,
f . . and commumty h . effectiveness o Jumor tly matured into somet mg more than
around for a century, had only recen d d
colleges that other people’~ kid~ _a~ten feor. the vocational aspects of a
d . h aise of pohttCians . . 10 Yet, esp1te t e pr . have been unable or unwilhng to
community-college cr~dent1al, they letion rates. A recent report from the
Provide the money to improve comp • ·d h b . B ‘d · the Hiaher Education Dzvz e, notes t at etween Century Foundauon, rz :gmg v . . .
1999 and 2009, per-student support at private resea:ch mStitutwns went
up $14,000, while public community colleges benefited from a per-student
increase of just $1.
Of course, the pressure on college students to train for jobs has been
around for a long time. Critics have complained since Harvard was founded
that college learning yielded very little in the way of marketable skills. For
a time in the late 20th century, however, Big Science, the cold war, and
billowing middle-class incomes made the baccalaureate degree the accepted
passport to Mad Men martinis and split-level suburban homes-assuming,
of course, that you were not poor, a member of an ethnic minority group, or
a person with a disability. Those folks went to community colleges to train
for jobs, right? Then, as now, we comforted ourselves with the notion that
such stud~nts’. as~uming they were exceptionally qualified, could transfer to
four-year mst1tut1ons, perhaps even to elite universities. In reality, however,
ver: fe~ were admitt~d th~re. Res~archers at the University of Southern
Cahforma and the Umversity of Anzona estimate th b f f d . e num er o two-year trans er stu ents attending any one of the count ‘s 1 79 . • te and public campuses at fewer than 200 on av ry most ehte pnva . . , erage.
In a nat10n galvamzed around college com leti .
students attending four-year institutions P on, we label tragic those
earn four-year degrees. We seem satisfied e~en nonselective ones, who fail to
students-working toward an identi 1 ‘ 1 owever, with community-college An enduring contribution of Ame cr~ ~oa -who similarly fail.
ica s commun·t 11 . ue to be the breadth of credentials they off 1 Y co eges will contm
occupational certificates industry certi’f~rdstudents of all ages, including ‘ – 1e training · t degrees. But let’s not forget that many n f . programs, and assoCia e
students want something more. ew, IrSt-time community-college
They have always wanted more.
For Discussion:
What are some of the cultural stereotypes used to d fin d
d h e e comm · 11 ges aJ1 community-college stu ents? In w at ways are th uruty co e 7 ese stereotypes inaccurate-
Five Types of Cl aims
11v1s Of DEFINITION
cl)\ Iairn that an athlete who receives compensation for playing a sport is
Wbefl Y?u \,, and therefore loses “amateur” status, or when you argu e wi.th a
•professionahe’ r or not any war can ever be considered a “just” war, you are making
dwhet
friel1_ f definition.
a cJai!Il
O
·ons answered by claims of definition. What is it? What is it like? How
aueshtt uld it be classified? How should it be interpreted? How does its usual
s o . l eaning change in a parncu ar context?
rnples of claims of definition. (Note that here we are looking at definition
exa~aims that dominate the argument in the essay as a whole.
Definition
is also used as a type of support, often at the beginning, to establish the
rneaning of one or more key terms.) We need to define what constitutes
a family before we talk about family values. To determine whether an art
exhibition is not art, but pornography, we need to define what we mean
by pornography in this context. To d,~termine whether the police were
doing their job or were engaging in brutality, we need to establish what
we mean by police brutality. To determine whether a person is mentally
competent, we need to define what we mean by that designation. If we
have established the fact that a young man killed })is wife, shall we define
this killing as self-defense, a crime of passion, or premeditated murder?
Types of support associated with claims of definition. The main types of support
used to prove claims of definition are references to reliable authorities and
accepted sources that can be used to establish clear definitions and meanings,
such as the dictionary or a well-known work. Also useful are analogies and
other comparisons, especially to other words or situations that are clearly
understood and that can consequently be used to shed some light on what
is being defined. Examples, both real and hypothetical, and signs can also be
used to clarify or develop definitions.
Possible organizational strategies. Compare-and-contrast organization can
dominate the development of a claim of definition and serve as the
main structure. In this structure, two or more objects are compared and
contrasted throughout. For example, in an essay that expands the notion
of crime to include white-collar crime, conventional crime would be
compared with white-collar crime to prove that they are similar.
. . Topical organization may also be used. Several special qualities, character-
1st1cs, or features of the word or concept are identified and explained as dis-
crete topics. Thus, in an essay defining a criminal as mentally competent the
chara t · · ‘ c e~1st1cs of mental competence would be explained as separate topics
auct applied to the criminal. Another strategy is to explain the controversy
over the te d . f A.n exam rm an gzve reasons or accepting one view over another.
e pie 0! an argument that contains a claim of de-Finition. The following
ssay argue th h P b h s at t e way the U.S. government defines “poverty” needs to c:I; anged. The author argues that the term “poverty” should be dramati-
struy expauded to include millions more Americans whose daily economic
You ggles clearly qualify them to be defined as poor. Decide whether or not
agree. (Note the sources of the definitions used.)
155
156 Chapter 5 Types of Claims
I. ·n poverty in America? think ive I { BEFORE YOU READ: How many people do yo~ – –~ —i———-..,..- ~·”‘· . ‘ —-..,,,…,…..,..,… ____
ESSAY #2
Authority
Definition, Statistics
Definition, Example
MISMEASURING POVERTY*
Mark Levinson . . .
Mark Levinson is the chief economiSt of the Se . ·rvice Employees International Union. This article Was
published in The American Prospect in 2012·
The “facts” about poverty can e eceivm · . . n b d · · g In her magisterial book Beh
1
• d
the Beautiful Forevers, Katherine Boo tells the stories of_ the mhab_,tants of~
Mumbai slum on the edge of a sewage lake who lack Jobs, housing, runnmg
water, health care, education, and police protection. It is not unusual to see
rats and frogs fried for dinner, feet covered with black fungus, and maggots
breeding in wounds wrought by trash-picking. Yet, Boo writes, “almost no
one in the slum was considered poor by official Indian benchmarks ….
[They] were thus part of one of the most stirring success narratives in the
modern history of global market capitalism.” Some success.
Our government’s own count of the poor, while not denying their exist-
ence, also minimizes their number-not by undercounting them (though
that’s a factor, too) but by setting the poveny bar so low that tens of millions
of poor Americans are not accounted for. This miscategorization not only
pamts a picture of a more prosperous America than in fact exists. It also
excludes a large number of the poor from assistance that th d d ffilg t ot erwise o tam. · h h · b · ey nee an
In fact, the poor are with us today in greater b h
since we started keeping track over half a c t num erst an we have seen
by the standards that most oth . d . _en ury ago. If we counted them
er m ustnahzed d . . numbers would increase by halft-from
46
.. emocrac1es employ, their
understand how that can be it 1-s 1- lllllhon to roughly 69 million. To ‘ mportant to gr h . poverty and what that definition hast d . asp t e way we defme
The United States measures Poven ° b O With economic hardship.
50 years_ago by Mollie Orshansky, a locfar;ian~ard dev~loped almost __
At that nme, the tYPical family spent b ecunty AdlIUmstration offiaal.
Orshansky calculated the costs of an a out one-third of its income on food.
pro_vide adequate nutrition for only ::~~~ncy food budget, which would
which would provide adequate nutr·t· ime, and also a low-cost budget, 1. d h l ion for th . I. p 1e t e cost of each budget by three t . e entire year. She then mun-
o arnve at
two Poverty thresholds.
*uMismeasuring Poverty” by Mark Levinson from The American p
rospect, Jun :2 . ‘A p,evious version of this essay used a diffmm meth.od lo, mcasu,in ‘ ‘· 2012. Reprinted with pennOsmtt
g these nu,-,.,b = ers.
Parisons cofl’I
Statistics
Cornp . arison
Quotar
~llth ion frorn
Of!ty
Five Types of Claims 157
5 Orshansky wanted to use th 1 thresholds. It made e ow-cost food _budget to compute poverty
Id
11
d sense to base the poverty lme on a food budget that
wou a ow a equate i:iutrition for an entire year. However, President
~yndon
1
Johnson and his Council of Economic Advisers decided to use a
figure c ose to the emergency f d b d h f 00 u get to set poverty-level income. Since
then, t e igure ha: been updated annually for inflation.
The proble~s _with the official measure have long been recognized. Not
only are_the ongmal thresholds too low, but they are based on outdated
a~sumptions about family expenditures. Food now makes up about one-
eighth of an average family’s expenditure. At the same time the costs of
housing, child care, and health care have grown. Thus, the ~fficial poverty
level no longer reflects the true expense of supporting a family at the mini-
mally adequate level. In addition, the current poverty measure is a national
standard that does not adjust for variations in the cost of living from state to
state and among urban, suburban, and rural areas.
The official poverty standard also fails to accurately tally family resources.
When determining whether a family is poor, income is counted before
subtracting taxes, resulting in an overestimation of how much families
have to spend on basic needs.· On the other hand, the method understates
the resources of families who :r:eceive some types of government assis-
tance because the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is not counted,
nor are in-kind government benefits such as food stamps and housing
assistance.
Last year, the Obama administration released a new measure of poverty
called the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which does not replace
the official measure but will be published separately. The SPM is based on
an approach recommended in 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. It
adds in-kind aid such as nutritional assistance and subsidized housing and
subtracts necessary expenses such as taxes, child care, and other work-related
costs as well as out~of-pocket medical expenses. Its thresholds are calcu-
lated by ranking households by what they spend on food, clothing, utilities,
and shelter and setting the poverty threshold at the 3 3rd percentile of that
ranking.
In 2010, according to the official poverty measure, 46.2 million people
(15.1 percent of America’s population) were poor, while 49.1 million
(16 percent) were considered poor using the SPM. There were, however,
some important differences between the two measures. Child poverty is
lower under the SPM because it takes into account the EITC and food stamps.
By contrast, the poverty rate for elderly Americans is higher because, unlike
the official measure, SPM subtracts out-of-pocket medical expenses from
income.
10 The SPM gives us a more accurate picture of the poor. Howeve~, it_doesn’t
fix the fundamental problem with the U.S. poverty threshold, which is, a~
Shawn Fremstad from the Center for Economic and Policy Research puts.lit,
. . down over the last severa
“the extent to which it has defined depnvatwn . . I living standards
decades because it has not kept pace with changes m typica
158 Chapter 5 Types of Claims . loW a level, and, as Frernstact
SPM starts at too holds if consumer expenditur
Statistics
Comparisons
Quotation from
Authority
Definition
im Based
>efinition
“The thres 200Q es in the United States. 11 lower poverty h y have between o anct 2010 . n actua Y 1. e-as t e points out, it ca . nd food dee Ill . prices.
on housing, utilines, a . and lower housmg rcent of median income Wh
f h recesswn 1 to 5 o pe en_ as a result o t was roughly equa . to about 36 percent. So today’s
The po~erty 1~;60s. It has now declme~ income-in a word, poorer-
it was set m the f ther behind the averag If we measured the number of
official P?or arete~arts were 50 years afoh median income, 22.6 percent
than ~helf couh~ are below 50 percent o . t e high as the official poverty rate
Amencans w rly half agaIIl as
(69.1 million) are poor-nea
of 15. l percent. . use a measure of povert~ based on the
Most other developed countries 60 ercent of median income. Adam
share of families below 50 percent 0 ~ . 1;,he Wealth of Nations. He defined the
Smith explained the rationale for_ this IIlf being unable to consume “not only
lack of “necessaries” _as the ~xp~ne:~::i necessary for the support of life,
the commodities which are mdispe y ders it indecent for creditable
but whatever the custom of the country ~en ,,
people, even of the lowest order, to be without. ff what a family requires
Several organizations have attempted to quan 1 Y . .
b · d The Economic Policy Institute has created Basic Famlly to meet as1c nee s. . ..
Budgets for more than 600 localities across the country. Wi~er Opport~mt1es
for Women has developed a Self-Sufficiency Standard for different family
types in more than 80 localities in 36 states, and the National Center for
Children in Poverty has designed Basic Needs Budgets.
All of these efforts show that families must have an average income
of at least twice the current poverty level to cover basic expenses. More
than one-third of Americans-more than I 00 million-live beneath that
more realistic threshold. These family budgets include only the most
essential living expenses and are based on modest assumptions about
costs. For example, the budgets assume that family members have access
~o employer-sponsored health coverage when not covered by public
msurance, even though the majority of low-wage workers don’t have
employer coverage. The budgets do not include mo h 1·f
d. b·1· • ney to pure ase 1 e or 1sa 1 1ty msurance or to create a rainy-day fund tha ·1
fund a child’s education. In short, these bud ets . . t would h~lp a fam1 y
family to cover their most fundamental r . g indicate what 1t takes for a
but not enough to get ahead. iving expenses-enough to get by
rs In I 964 when the War on Poverty was 1 of the President explained: “By the p aunched, the Economic Report
. . . oor we mean th h mamtammg a decent standard of livin _ h ose w o are not now
their means to satisfy them.” g t ose whose basic needs exceed
There are tens of millions of Americans toda 11
their means to satisf them” who are not 1 . whose basic needs exceed . . c ass1fied a cannot receive the assistance the need Th . s oor and who therefore . · at 1s the b define poverty. ro lem with how we
Five Types of Ua \rm
Discussion:
for · th t A · . his author argumg a more mencans should be classified as “poor”?
wbY 1d5 t
5
he think this change is necessary? Do you agree? Why or why n o t?
wbY oe .
,AIMS Of CAUSE CL . 1 . claim that staymg up ate at a party caused you to fail your exam the
}len you . 1 b W or that your paper 1s ate ecause the library closed too early you are
t~Y ‘ net. claims of cause.
n1akJI1g • stions answered by claims of cause. What caused it? Where or what is its
auesource? Why did it happen? What are the effects? What will probably be
the results over the short term? Over the long term?
examples of claims of cause. The United States champions human rights in for-
eign countries to further its own economic self-interests. Clear-cutting is
the main cause of the destruction of ancient forests. Legalizing marijuana
could have beneficial effects for medicine. DNA testing is causing courts
to review some of their death penalty decisions. The long-term effect of
inadequate funding for AIDS research will be a disastrous worldwide
epidemic. A lack of family values can lead to crime. Censorship can have
good results by protecting children.
Types of support associated with claims of cause. The argument must establish
the probability of a cause-and-effect relationship. The best type of support
for this purpose is factual data, including statistics that are used to prove a
cause or an effect. Analogies, including both literal and historical analogies
that parallel cases in history, are also used to show that the cause of one
event could also be the cause of another similar event. Another type of
support is based on the use of signs to establish certain causes or effects.
Induction, which entails citing several examples as a cause, may be used to
invite the inductive leap to a possible effect as the end result. Deduction is
also used to develop claims of cause. Premises about effects are proposed,
and a conclusion about the possible cause is drawn.
Possible organizational strategies. One strategy is to describe causes and then
effects. Thus dear-cutting would be described as a cause that would lead to
the ultimate destruction of the forests, which would be the effect. Or, effects
may be described and then the cause or causes. The effects of censorship may
be described before the public efforts that resulted in that censorship. You
may also encounter refutation of other actual or possible causes or effects.
An example of an argument that contains a claim of cause. The following
essay examines the role that new technology plays in encouraging stu-
de~ts to cheat. More specifically, the author argues that the professors’
reliance upon online teaching tools provides students with greater means
aud impetus to break the academic rules. The author’s conclusions are
subjective, and so it is possible that not everyone will agree with this
cause-and-effect argument. What do you think?
159
160 Chapter 5 Types of Claims
_ – . 7 In your view, is this a
define academic cheati~~~ between what does and
BEFORE YOU READ: _Ho~ do basis do we draw
th
e
straightforward question: O~ v~:~–.————~—s— -……__
does not constitute cheating· _
ESSAY #3
Claim of Cause
Authority
Statistics
Authority
–
S AND PROFESSORS
HIGH TECH CHEATING ABOUND ‘
ARE PARTLY TO BLAME*
Jeffrey Young • d · Th Chronicle of Higher 6 ucat,on.
Jeffrey Young writes the “College 2.0” column for _e
. . tl let slip a dirty little secret of large science
A casual 3oke on Twitter recen Y . h • . .
5
d ts routinely cheat on their omework and
and engmeenng courses. tu en
professors often look the other way. .
“Grading homework is so fast when they all cheat ~d use_the illegal ~olutions
manual,” quipped Douglas Breault Jr., a teaching ass1stan~ 1n mechanical
engineering at Tufts University. After all, if every answer 1s correct, the grader
is left with little to do beyond writing an A at the top of the page and circling
it. Mr. Breault, a first-year graduate student, ended his tweet by saying, “The
profs tell me to ignore it.”
While most students and professors seem to view cheating on examinations
as a serious moral lapse, both groups appear more cavalier about dishonesty
on homework. And technology has given students more tools than ever to
find answers in unauthorized ways-whether downloading online solution
manuals or instant~messaging friends for answers. The latest surveys by the
Center for Academic Integrity found that 22 percent of students say they
have cheated on a test or exam, but about twice as many-43 t-have
d
· ” h . d percen
engage m unaut onze collaboration” on home k
Ch
. . wor .
eatmg on an engmeering problem set could b th rf . .
h
· b d • . e e pe ect cnme, m
t at 1t can e one without leavmg a trace St d ·
b d b
. · u ents 1n a large lecture course
ase on a est-sellmg textbook can often find th .
with all the math it took to get th e answer onbne, complete ere.
s How can a professor prove that the cheat” out on their own? mg students did not work things
Enter David E. Pritchard a physics prof ‘ essor who t h .
courses at the Massachusetts Institute of T h eac es introductory.
laboratory devising new ways to use las ec nology (when he is not in his
supercooled atoms). ers to reveal the curious behavior of
*HHigh-Tech Cheating Abounds and Professors Bear Some Blame,, b , Y Jeffrey R y , h
Education, March 28, 2010. © 2010. Reproduced by permission. · oung from The ChronicleofHtg er
statistics
Data
Deduction
Data
Statistic
Data
Five Types of Claims 161
Mr. Pritchard did detective work on his students worthy of a CSI episode.
Because he uses an online homework system in his courses, he realized
he could add a detection system to look for unusual behavior patterns. If a
student took less than a minute to answer each of several complex questions
and got them all right, for instance, the system flagged that as likely cheating.
“Since one minute is insufficient time to read the problem and enter the
several answers typically required, we infer that the quick-solver group is
copying the answer from somewhere,” he wrote in a paper last month in the
free online journal Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research.
He and his research team found about 50 percent more cheating than
students reported in anonymous surveys over a period of four semesters.
In the first year he did his hunting, about 11 percent of homework problems
appeared to be copied.
Mr. Pritchard has no interest in becoming a homework cop. What he
really wants to do is understand the minds of the offenders. The issue, he
says, is far more nuanced than a story of “Top Students Caught Cheating.”
He told me that the dishonesty reveals flaws in the very way science is
taught, and indicates an unhelpful spirit of “us versus them” between
professors and students.
10 · He believes that the most important part of learning physics comes by
doing, and so students who outsource their homework learn little. His studies
of his students prove his point. The cheaters generally perform far worse than
other students come test time-students who frequently copied their home-
work scored two letter grades lower on comparable material on the exam.
Why Students Cheat
Here is what surprised me most when talking with people who have tracked
college cheaters. Many students simply do not view copying homework answers
as wrong-at least not when it is done with technology.
That is what Trevor Harding found. He is a professor of materials engineering
at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo who has
researched student cheating in engineering.
In surveys, he asked students if they viewed bringing a cheat sheet to an
exam as cheating. Most did. Then he asked the same students whether they
would consider it cheating to bring a graphing calculator with equations
secretly stored on it. Many said no, that was not cheating.
“I call it ‘technological detachment phenomenon,”‘ he told me recently.
“As long as there’s some technology between me and the action, then I’m
not culpable for the action.” By that logic, if someone else posted homework
solutions online, what is wrong ~ith downloading them?
1 s The popularity of Web sites full of homework answers seems to confirm
his finding. One of them, called Course Hero, boasts a free collection of “over
500,000 textbook solutions.” The company set up a group on Facebook,
where more than 265,000 people have signed up as “fans.”
Drew Mondry, a junior at New England College, who recen tly trans- k
ferred from Michigan State, is among them. “The feeling about homewor
162 Chapter 5 Types of Claims ,, he told me. (He said he does not cheat on
is that it’s really just busyworkd, a fan of the Course Hero site becau
k d only signe up as H d. se his homewor _an ,, . 11 our friend and say, ‘ ey, o you knovv th some friends did.) You JUSt ca Y e
answer?”‘ . . es he has taken, professors did not put much effo
. In the ~,g scrence Jo::: do not put real effort into learning, he says: •1 ha n
mto teachmg, so fstu e h ally loves teaching an introductory course Ve
yet to meet a pro essor w o re k b d f , and that translates,” was how he put it. “If you 100 ore out
O
your mind,
guess how much I care?” Some professors seem to believe that since stude~ts who c~t ~omer~ on
homework end up bombing exams, students get a ki?d of built-in ~umshment
for the behavior, says Mr. Pritchard. Poorly pe:form~ng students m~ght even
learn a lesson from their laziness. So the cheating will take care of itself,
right? That is the rationalization, anyway.
Definition Certainly, many professors put a lot of effort into their classes. And, to
them, blatant student cheating can feel like a personal insult. Eric Roberts,
20
a computer-science professor at Stanford University who has studied aca-
demic cheating, told me about a student in his course who went to a public
computer lab, found some other student’s homework assignment saved on a
machine there, ·changed the name to his own name, and turned it in as his
own work. Except he left the other student’s name on one page by mistake.
Busted.
“This is lazy cheating,” Mr. Roberts said. “They’re trying to put one over
on us. And if they’re trying to match wits with us, I’d just as soon win-if
that’s their game I’ll play it.”
For Discussion:
How does this essay challenge our commonly held ass 1. b d . h · ? ump 10ns a out aca ermc
c eatmg. How does a cause-and-effect explanat1·on th t . I d 1 1 d
b t h h
. a me u es a ro e p aye
Y eac ers c ange the way we typically th· k b .
the statistics presented here make an effect· m a out this phenomenon? Do · · 1ve case for t h I · · cheating? What are some of the bl a eac er ro e m causmg pro ems you see . h h. ?
Does this claim accord with your own er ~t t 1s type of support. p sonal expenences in the classroom?
CLAIMS OF VALUE
When you claim that sororities and fraterni·t· . f ies are th b . zat10ns or college students to join or that e est extracurricular orgaJll·
k
. . one college m . . h r you are ma mg a claim of value. aJor 1s better than anot e ‘
Questions answered by claims 0 £ value I . . ‘J • s it good b d?
Of what worth is it? Is it moral or imm or ad? How bad? How goo ·
those people value? What values or c . ~ral? Who thinks so? What do ntena sh I ·ts
goodness or badness? Are my values diff ou d I use to determine
1
or from the author’s values? erent from other people’s values
r
Five Types of Claims 163
ovamples of claims of value. Online technologies are a val bl .b .
µ,.. cl ua e contn ut1on to the modern assroom. Prayer has a moral funct1·on . th bl. h 1
. . . . . . In e pu IC SC 00 s. Viewmg teleVIs10n 1s a wasteful act1v1ty Mercy kill. • .
1
Th
· mg 1s 1mmora . e con-tributions of homemakers are as valuable as those of f • 1 . . pro ess1ona women . .Animal nghts are as rmportant as human rights.
rypes of suppo’: asso~iated with claims of value. Appeals to values are important
in developmg claims of value. The arguer thus appeals to what the audi-
ence is expected to value. A sense of a common, shared system of values
between the arguer and the audience is important for the argument to
be convincing. These shared values must be established either explicitly
or implicitly in the argument. Motivational appeals that suggest what the
audience wants are also important in establishing claims of value. People
place value on the things that they work to achieve.
Other types of support used to establish claims of value include analo-
gies, both literal and figurative, that establish links with other good or bad
objects or qualities. Also, quotations from authorities who are admired
help establish both expert criteria and judgments of good or bad, right or
wrong. Induction is also used by presenting examples to demonstrate that
something is good or bad. Signs that something is good or bad are some-
times cited. Definitions are used to clarify criteria for evaluation.
Possible organizational strategies. Applied criteria can develop a claim of value.
Criteria for evaluation are established and then applied to the subject that
is at issue. For example, in arguing that a particular televi.sion series is the
best on television, criteria for. what makes a superior series are identified
and then applied to the series to defend it as best; The audience would
have to agree with the criteria to make the argument effective. Or, suppose
the claim is made that toxic waste is the worst threat to the environment.
A list of criteria for evaluating threats to the environment is established
and applied to toxic waste to show that it is the worst of all. Another possi-
bility would be to use topical organization by first developing a list of reasons
why something is good or bad. Then each of the reasons is examined as
a separate topic.
You may also expect that narrative structure will sometimes be used to
develop a claim of value. Narratives are real or made-up stories that can
illustrate values in action, with morals or generalizations noted explicitly
or implicitly along the way. An example of a narrative used to support a
claim of value is the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan who
helped a fellow traveler. The claim is that helping one another in such
circumstances is valued and desirable behavior.
A.n example of an argument that contains a claim of value. The following
editorial engages a different, more light-hearted, debate over values,
arguing that the condescension and disdain many cultural elites feel for
reality television is misplaced. Pushing back against this attitude, the
author makes the case for the value-as well as the pleasure-of watching
this kind of pop cultural fare. Notice how the author appeals to values that
the audience is also expected to accept.
164 Chapter 5 Types of Claims
Id, nn • – 1·ty TV7 Do you agree with the • · about rea 1 • ·
BEFORE YOU READ: What is your op_inion . I value?
author that these shows have redeeming socia · -~ h ‘”–~~~~– ·-
ESSAY #4
Examples
Claim of Value
Narrative
REALITY TV: MORE THAN JUST A GUILTY PLEASURE*
A.K. Simon
S h I This editorial was posted to the New School Web site Free The author is a student at The New c oo ·
Press in 2012.
f t d ttempt to forge a sophisticated New School As part o my concer e a . . ,,
I d Derri.da pepper my speech with terms hke post-persona, name rop , h” ·
modernism,” and pretend I read Thomas Pynchon. Part of t is ince_ssant
charade is concealing my undying love for r~aJity TV be~a~se nothmg
destroys your tenuous claim to coolness faster than admitting you watc~ed
a “Toddlers and Tiaras” marathon over the weekend. I know enough to Just
nod enthusiastica~ly whenever someone makes a reference to “Mad Men.”
The shameful truth is that I’ve never seen an episode of “Mad Men” or
“30 Rock.” I have, however, seen every episode of “The Real Housewives of
New York City”-twice.
Hardly a shocking admission, I know. Pl~I?-tY of people relegate their love
of reality TV to their cache of guilty pleasures. along with their un-ironic love
for The Spice Girls and trove of Harry Potter fan fiction. But why does it incur
so much guilt? W}J.at’s wrong with reality TV anyway? Why is it nobler to
spend your time watching the umpteenth show about single girls and their
problems (They live in New York! Theyrre quirky! So many awkward con-
versations!) or an hour of Sorkin-bots delivering overwrought sermons about
the state of the wodd?
We like to think that what we wat\’.h on TV matters more than it actually
does. It can’t just be entertainment; it has to be a reflection of our ~alues
and personaliti~s. It’s an ~dentity. If we watch smart and witty shows,
then we are smart and witty. If we watch “Mob Wives” and “Hoarders,”
on the other ha~d, we’~e not only insipid but also partially responsible
for some staggenng societal decline that concerned critics everywhere are
attuned to. Who knew a remote could wield so much ? Who kfleW
d . I · · ld • . power. me were te evis10n cou mcite such widespread m 1 • ? A tly . a aise. pparen ,
the latest harbmger of the cultural apocalypse is “Here Comes Honey Boo
*”R a1·ty TV· More Than Just a Guilty Pleasure” by A.K. Simon from The New s h I 13 2012-
e l • c oo Free Press, September •
Reprinted with permission.
r
al to Values,
APPe .. n
.. , oefin1t10 Ne”
Five Types of Claims 165
Boo,” a new show on TLC (th k h b
11 • e networ t at rought you such classics as Extreme Couponmg” and “M St Add” · ” . Y range 1ct1on ) about an outspoken
pageant kid and her wacky Southern family. A review in the Hollywood
Report~r lamb_asted ~~e- show, calling it “heinous,” “horrifying,” and TLC’s
latest ma stn~g of c~imes against humanity.” According to the article, we
?ave a mo~al \mperati:e to not watch this show because it represents the
dehumamzat10n and mcremental tearing down of the social fabric.” Did
yo~ get that? Step away from the television, you rube, before you break
society.
In t~e spirit of this kind of hyperbole, let me declare this: Honey Boo
Boo will save the world. She, along with Snooki and The Kardashians, is
going to repair our frayed social fabric, fine tune our moral barometer, and
restore harmony to a.world gone awry. Is it true? Of course not. But it’s not
any more ridiculous than the claim that this gossamer social fabric is torn
every time a Honey Boo Boo comes along. If we’re a broken society, it’s not
because of what we watch on TV. If anything, reality TV gives us insight into
the lives of people we’d never know otherwise-adult babies and balloon
fetishists, Amish outlaws and Jersey meatheads. It’s a guided tour to all the
weird and wonderful stories burrowed deep in the fringes of humanity. Even
the most vulgar shows serve a purpose; we can cringe at the embarrassing
exploits of our fellow human beings and vow never to tread the same path.
If all else fails, at least we’ll have a couple hours of mindless entertainment.
So let’s curb the sanctimonious hand-wringing and take the guilt out of this
guilty pleasure-even if it means admitting that The Situation is your spirit
animal, not Don Draper. The quiet scorn of your classmates will eventually
fade, but the relief will last forever.
For Discussion:
According to this author, Americans tend to place too much importance on
the effect of what they watch on television. Do you agree? Would we be better
off if we regarded such pop culture to be as valuable as any other television
entertainment? Why or why not?
CLAIMS OF POLICY
ihen You claim that all new students should attend orientation or that all stu-
c]e~ts Who graduate should participate in graduation ceremonies, you are making
auns of policy.
Questions answered by claims of policy. What should we do? How should we
act? What should future policy be? What concrete course of action should
We pursue to solve the problem? (Notice that policy claims focus _on the
future more than the other types of claims, which tend to deal with the
Past or present.)
–
166 Chapter 5 Types of Claims .
1
should be sent to prison r
h rim.1na h ath . s of policy. T e c should be taug t to recognize er
Examples of clat~ I institution. Everyon~ lace Every person in the Dn~lld
than to a me~ :arassment in the wl hor !re s·m.all business loans IllUst Itbect report sexua 10 hea t c · • f e h Id have access br sh their busmesses a ter a nat
Sta~es sva~~ble to help people rees~; groups should make objection:t
~a e a Both film.makers and recor to prospective consumers. Batte e disaster. . tter known . . .
1
G . rect
language and subJect ma ould not be placed in Jal . enet1c engineer.
men who take revenge sh lled Parents should have the right t wo ·tored and contro . o
ing should be mom . hildren attend. . .
choose the schools their c . 1 . oEpolicy. Data and statzstzcs are Used . ted with c aims ‘J -‘1\•pes of support assocta . r’e moral and commonsense appeals to
A-.J’, r la1m but so a . 11
to support a po icy c ‘ M tivational appeals are espec1a y hnpor.
what people value and want.d. o needs to become sufficiently moti-
tant for po~icy claims. The .:u a
1
~~;:rent way. To accomplish this degree
vated to thmk or even act 1 vince the audience that they want
f . . the arguer must .con h o mot1vat10n, 1 ed for motivation. T e audience h A peals to values are a so us
to c ange. P . h Id follow a policy to achieve important becomes convmced they s ou ·
value~. 1 . 1. es support policy claims. The arguer estab-Lzteral ana ogzes some 1m d
• h h · ·1 eople or groups have · done an suggests the hshes w at ot er s1m1 ar p . .
hi k · thi·s case also Or a successful effort 1s descnbed, same t ng can wor m • ,
and the claim is made that it could workeven better on a broader scale.
This is another type of literal analogy because it compares a small-scale
effort to a large-scale, expanded effort. . . .
Argument from authority is also often used to establish clarms of pohcy.
The authorities quoted, however, must be trusted and ‘must have good
credibility. Effort is usually made to establish their credentials. Cause can
be used to establish the origin of the problem, and definition can be used
to clarify it. Finally, deduction can be used to reach a conclusion based on
a general principle.
Possible organizational strategies. The problem-solution structure is typical of
policy claims. The problem is first described in sufficient detail so that the
audience will want a solution. Then the solution is spelled out. In addi·
tion, the solution suggested is usually shown to be superior to other solu·
tions by anticipating and showing what is wrong with each of the others.
In some arguments the problem and solution sections are followed by _a
visualization of how matters will be improved if the proposed solution 15
accepted and followed. Problem-solution arguments often end with a1l
action step that directs the audience to take a particular course of actioll
(vote, buy, etc.).
An example of an argument that contains a claim of policy. The article oll
pages 167-168 addresses the problem posed by th · . I growtb
in bottled water. The author describes this probl efexpo~;;ua t poiJltS
. . em rom eren
of view, and outhnes the_ different policy solutions that might best address
it. Pay partic~lar attent10n to how she describes the problem and tbC
potential s0Iut10ns.
I
Five Types of Claims 167
…:,,0 – ….
sffORE YOU REA~: Are you a fan of bottled water? What are the advantages and
I otential costs of this particular product?
p . .,..__-· – –,.,,,-,,,– ·– – .
vaiue
comparison
(laim of Policy
comparison
Statements of Values
1tatist· ICS
IS BOTTLED WATER A MORAL ISSUE?*
Rebecca Cho
Rebecca Cho is a frequent contributor to The Christian Century.
5
Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Thou
shalt not … drink bottled water?
Rooted in the notion that clean drinking water. like air. is a God-given
resource that shouldn’t be packaged and sold, a fledgling campaign against
the bottling of water has sprung up among religious groups.
And though the campaign is at a relative trickle and confined mostly to
left-leaning religious groups, activists hope to build a broad-based coalition to
carry the message that access to water should not be restricted to those who
can afford it.
Cassandra Carmichael, director of eco-justice programs for the National
Council of Churches, said she has noted an increasing number of religious
groups that consider the bottling of water a wrongful, “perhaps immoral” act.
“We’re just beginning to recognize the issue as people of faith,” Carmichael said.
In October, the National Coalition of American Nuns, a progressive group
representing 1,200 U.S. nuns, adopted a resolution asking members to refrain
from purchasing bottled water unless necessary.
Likewise, Presbyterians for Restoring Creation, a grassroots group within
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), launched a campaign in May urging indi-
viduals to sign a piedge against drinking bottled water and to take the mes-
sage to their churches.
The United Church of Christ, partnering with the National Council of
Churches, produced a documentary, Troubled Waters, that looks at the dan-
gers of water privatization around the world, including the bottling of water
for sale in poor areas. The documentary aired on ABC television in October.
In the developing world, Carmichael said, water is being sold as a com-
modity where the resource is scarce. On the rationale that bottling water
takes water resources away from the poor, the environmental issue has
become an important one for people of faith, Carmichael said. “The moral
call for us is not to privatize water. Water should be free for all.”
Americans consume more bottled water than any other type of beverage
except carbonated soft drinks, according to the Beverage Marketing Corpo-
ration, a New York-based research organization. In 2005, Americans drank
about 7.5 billion gallons of bottled water, a 10.4 percent increase from 2004·
The U.S. leads the world in bottled-water consumption.
IQ Ps liope I h · · c tury January 9 o,_ © 0 Make Bottled Water a Moral Issue ” by Rebecca U. Cho from The C n5t1an en ‘ ‘
2010 ‘
· Reproduced by permission.
168 Chapter 5 Types of Claims . f h world’s population lives in vvater-
Problem
Claim
Claim
Solution
Solution
. one third o t e . d’
10
At the same tune, – . will double by 2025, accor mg to a 2
stressed conditions. That proportion ·ty Water is scarcest in arid develop·006
. ort on water scarci . h f . lllg
United Nations rep ht and ollution, such as Sout A nca, where
countries plagued by droug p
agri~ulture fuels demand. the National Coalition of American ~uns board
Sister Mary_Ann dc~~~~he measure against bott~ed water, said the fear is
member who intro u modity access to it will no longer remain a righ
that as water becomes a com ‘ t
for all people. · Sh ‘d th t · th
d d
• ki bottled water as a sin. e sai a m e U.S.
Coyle regar s rm ng , . ,
1
. for bottled water when the country s tap water 1s among
peop e are paymg
the safest in the world. , . . “The use of bottled water in the U.S. is more a lifeStYle issue :han a necessity,”
Coyle said. “In this country, we should do more to push [avmdance of]
bottled water unless we need it.”
But Stephen Kay, spokesperson for the International Bottled Water Asso-
ciation, said targeting bottled water among the hundreds of other products
that use water will not lead to long-term solutions in poor areas. Arguing
that bottled-water providers are actually a minimal user of ground water, Kay
said better solutions would come from determining how to get clean water
into areas struggling with access. “It narrows the focus with what I imagine is
good intent,” he said.
1s The Coca-Cola Company, a leading provider of bottled water with its
Dasani brand, recognizes the serious nature of water issues and is working on
several community initiatives in developing countries, said spokesperson Lisa
Manley. “From our perspective, water solutions require the efforts of multiple
organizations, nonprofits, governments, community organizations and the
like,” Manley said. “I hope we’d work toward the same purpose of making
safe water accessible to all people of the world.”
No~etheless, _Rebec~a Barnes-Davies, coordinator of Presbyterians for
Restonng Creation, said she hopes that boycotting bottled water would apply
pressure on companies marketing it to act responsibly in the U.S. and the rest
of the world.
For Discussion:
How eff~ctively does this ,essay identify bottled water as an environmental or
human nghts problem? Are you convinced by the evid h h resents?
D
. h . h f h . ence t e aut or p 7
o you agree wit e1t er o t e solutions her essa tl· ? H h w not, you 1nes. ow or o
Rebecca Cho’s essay (“Is Bottled Water a M°.ra,~ls_sue?”) raises questions about the ethical and
environmental effects of the bottled water l~ldus~~- In ord_er to better’ understand the different
typ
es of claims this discussion involves, ~s we. a~ e ;ays; connects to the question of
. k I ly at the sample d1scuss1on on t e ne Pj:IQe.
citizenship, loo c ose
Five Types of Cia ims 169
, , , Thinking Like a Citizen: Claims of Value
• Why do I care about this issue?
As someon~ w~? regularly drinks bottled water, I am very interested in understanding the
effects my md1v1dual co_nsumer choices have on the world around me. If it becomes clear
tha: the bottled water mdu~trY_ constitu_tes a threat to the environment, I would likely
decide that the cost of contmumg to drmk bottled water outweighs the convenience.
• Who else cares about this issue?
Clearly, an issue like this would be of great interest to anyone concerned about the state
of the enviro_nment: activists, advocates for different environmental causes. Another key
stakeholder in this discussion includes representatives of the bottled water industry itself,
whose interest would be in ways to maintain the financial viability of their business.
, , , Arguing Like a Citizen: Claims of Fact, Definition, and Cause
• What sorts of facts, information, or data most help support my point of view?
The data I would find most useful are those that provide clear, objective evidence of the
bottled water industry’s harmful effects. Examples include statistics about the amount
of unrecyclable waste this industry produces annually and scientific data documenting
a causal connection between such wastes and specific environmental threats like global
warming. Such data would enable.me tq_ create a definition of the “environmental
effects” of the bottled water industry that others would find credible.
• What facts, information, or data most help support others’ points of view?
For industry advocates, the most useful types of information could include statistical
studies establishing the purity or healthful properties of bottled water and data about
industry plans to dispose of bo’ttled water waste more efficiently and safely. These kinds
of information would enable such advocates to advance a definition of the bottled water
industry’s “environmental effects” that takes these factors into account.
• t • Acting Like a Citizen: Claims of Policy
• What concrete action could I take to advance my own point of view?
To advance my own view, I could create a forum (i.e., a campus gathering, a Facebook
page) in which my peers could gather to discuss and debate the issue of bottled water
consumption. If I wanted to advocate more directly for my view, I might orchestrate a
letter-writing campaign to the major bottled water companies, urging them to reconsider
their own policies.
Activity
F’ tst•. choose one of the issues raised in one of the essays in this chapter {i.e., Is the college
~rnissions process fair? Should our established definition of “poverty” be chang.ed? 1~ the
Widespr d . . . . . Id I brate?) Then using the ea popularity of reality telev1s1on something we shou ce e · · ‘ .
sarnp1 d’ h. · sue raising questions of Ila e iscussion above as your guide, discuss the ways you see t ,s ts
lue, fact, definition, cause, and policy.
170 Chapters Types of Claims
[ / .
L ~ –•-‘c..–..-‘.·S
. f contexts and come in a variety of . f und in a variety o r th In our multimedia environment, claims are o f ·r n cause, value, or po ICY, . ere are certain
forms. But whether they involve issues of fact, de inic;:i~s work in an on line environment:
steps you can follow to better understand how such
• t t step 1: Find the Claim r P
d f . ·r n cause value, or po icy . • What type of claim is being made (fact, e mi 1o , ‘
. . · Wh · ch It Is Found t t t Step 2: Descnbe the Medium 1n 1 . . .
• • 1 media post on line video, email, etc)”> • Through what form is this claim presented (Web site, soc1a ‘ • .
t t t Step 3: Identify the Multimedia Features Used to Present It
• What multimedia elements are used to convey this claim (textual, visual, graphic, video)?
Example
To learn how these steps can be put into practice, let’s look at a specific example. The screenshot below
is excerpted from a White House Web site that addresses the issue of energy conservation. The Web
page makes two claims: one of fact, and one of policy. Look over this selection carefully, as well as the
discussion that follows. How does this sample provide a model for analyzing claims in a digital context?
The President bas taken
unprecedented action to
build the foundation for a
clean energy economy,
tackle the issue of climate
l’hange, and protect our
environment.
‘ ‘.. t
t t t Step 1: Find the Claim
• \\ 11 I \l IL, ‘l ,~
1 MILLION BARRELS
.. ..
Cl lMb.Tt
CH,\NGE OtH’~
ENVIRONMENT
• — ,., ,, i 1-.,,u , r
• The key claims here can be stated this way: The President •
is taki to help create a clean global economy (fact), and this action ng unprecedented action
. . needs to. I energy technology ,n order to preserve the environment (Policy). inc Ude every modern
r
vaiue of the Claim Types and the Claim Q . uest1ons for Readi . . ng, Viewing, and Writing Argument 171
• ~~~7r’T’.~~~–
‘ .. ;J ‘·~’A’
n . rgume11 . ‘, .’t’.,fo1?i
es of Claims (continued.) . ·11.1
, , , Step 2: Describe the Medium in wh· h ~-• , 1c It Is Found
• These claims are showcased in a Web site d pro uced by the White House.
, , , Step 3: Identify the Features
• The Web site uses both textual and visual elem t t · •
I
.
1
• en s o convey this claim. The textual
e ements me ude the written statements· “The p ·d h k · · d h . · resi ent as ta en unprecedented action
to bud t e foundation for a clean energy economy” d “W d
for the future-an all-of-the-above strategy for the 2tstncentueryntehe tadn enlergy strategy f · a eve ops every source
0 ~~encan-made energy.” T~ese claims are supplemented by the image of the President
~tndi~g purpose!ully acr~ss a f1~ld that depicts solar panels in the background. This image
1s ~e_s1gned to reinforce viewers sense of the administration’s leadership in taking on
this issue.
Activity
Go online and find an example of each of the five types of claims covered in this chapter (fact,
definition, cause, value, policy). Then use the three steps outlined above to identify and analyze
how each of these claims works.
Value of the Claim Types and the Claim
Questions for Reading, Viewing,
and Writing Argument
Readers and viewers of argument find the list of the five types of claims and the
questions that accompany them useful for identifying the claim and the main
purpose in an argument.: to establish fact, to define, to establish cause, to assign
:alue, or to propose a solution. Claims and claim questions can also help readers
identify minor purposes in an argument, those that are developed as subclaims.
When a reader is able to discover the overall purpose of an argument, ‘it is much
easier to make predictions and to follow the argument.
Viewers of visual argument will discover that images express the same types of
Purposes as those found in written argument: some images primarily estab~sh fa~ts,
0thers define a term or a problem, and still others establish cause-effect rela~onships, ass· . 1 v· ers of online argu-ign value to a subiect or propose a solution to a prob em. iew . rn J ‘ • • f · al images wntten
ent Will make a similar discovery: that the combmanons O VISU. ~ses
text, and Web-based links can also be analyzed in terms of these five purp ·
L02 Identify
and analyze
how these
types of claims
operate in
written, visual,
and online
arguments.
172 Chapter 5 Types of Claims
. f the five types of claims and the que . t find the list o . . 1 . st10tl Writers of argumen 1 ·ng an issue, wntmg a c aim about it s
that accompany them usefu~ for ~a r:~ for a paper and additional ideas tha~ at1d
identifying both the controllmg P rp 1 of how this can work Th call
. h Here is an examp e · e auth
be developed mt e paper. t’ as in the example “Should highs h 0r
writes the issue in the form of a ques tn;he claim questions about this iss c Oo!s
be safer places?” T~en the author as of them: Is it ·a fact that high schouel and
writes a paragraph m response to eac
1
k O s are
h ld e define unsafe? What causes a ac of safety in h· h unsafe places? How s ou w f d b d? Wh lg
schools, and what are the effects? Is a lack of sa ety goo or a. · . at criteria
could be established to judge the goodness or badnes~ of safety m high schools?
What can be done to make high schools safer places? Fmally, the author reacts th
paragraphs and selects the one that is most promising to form the major clai:rn an~
purpose in the paper. For example, suppose the author decides to ‘:r~te a policy
paper, and the claim becomes “Parents, students, teachers, and adm1mstrators all
need to cooperate to make high schools safer places.” To show how that can be
done becomes the main purpose of the paper. The information generated by asking
the other claim questions, however, can also be used in the paper to provide rea-
sons and evidence. The claim questions, used in this way as part of the prewriting
process, can generate considerable information and ideas for a paper.
Review Questions
1. What are the five types of claims? (L01)
2. What are the questions associated with each type? (L01)
3. ~ow d~ claims tY.Pically appear in written argument? That is do writers limit
t emse ves to a smgle purpose and claim or not? Discuss. (L02)
4. What events have occurred in the past few m .
the national or international level that have onths e1!her on campus or on
of these issues? (L02) generated issues? What are some
Exercises and Activities
A. Cl.ass Discussion: Predicting Typ
. . es of Claims
B:mg m the front page of a current new
Discuss headlines that suggest contr sp_aper or check its “top stories” online.
th · overs1al top· p . . e type of claim that will be made. ics. redict from each headline
B. Group Work: Reading and Anal .
YZIIlg Types of Cl . The class is divided into five groups d auns
, an each g . essay on pages 173-175. Prepare for gr roup 1s assigned to read the
with your group, answer the followingoqup w?rk by reading the essay. Then,
uest1ons A . your answers to the class. · ss1gn a person to report
I. Which sentence is the claim? Remember th .
ning, in the middle, or at the end of the essaat 1Dt can appear at the begin·
y. nderline it.