Terms of Logic and Types of Argument

AP English Language and Composition

Premise

A statement or position regarded as true that helps to support a conclusion.

Inductive Reasoning

The process of reasoning from specific to general

Begins with specific facts; draws generalizations or conclusions from those facts

Premises are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it

Example of Inductive Reasoning

I get hives when I eat salmon. My tongue swells when I eat flounder. I am allergic to fish.

Deductive Reasoning

The process of reasoning from general to specific

Conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises

Example of Deductive Reasoning

I am allergic to fish. Flounder is a type of fish. I am allergic to flounder.

Syllogism

Three-part deductive argument; conclusion follows from two premises

Major premise: General principle or rule. (A=B)

Minor premise: Introduction of new, more specific fact; verifiable by evidence (C=A)

Conclusion: Based on the two premises (C=B)

Examples of Syllogisms

Major premise: All human beings are mortal.

Minor premise: Socrates is a human being.

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Examples of Syllogisms

Major premise: All people have hearts.

Minor premise: John is a person.

Conclusion: Therefore, John has a heart.

Examples of Syllogisms

Major premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.

Minor premise: All black dogs are mammals.

Conclusion: Therefore, all black dogs are warm-blooded.

Valid vs. True

Truth: Accuracy of conclusion Valid: Method used to arrive at

conclusion A sound syllogism is both valid and

true. A syllogism may be true without being

valid, and valid without being true.

Valid, true, both, neither?

All cats are animals. All dogs are cats. Therefore, all dogs are animals.

Illogical Syllogisms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Enthymemes

A shortened, compressed syllogism that leaves one premise unstated/assumed

Depends on audience’s agreement with an assumption

Ex.) Socrates is mortal because he is a human being.

-What is unstated/assumed?

Aristotle’s Classical Model

Introduction (exordium) Introduces reader to subject Piques interest Establishes ethos

Narration (narratio) Establishes why subject needs addressing Provides factual/background information Logos or pathos

Aristotle’s Classical Model

Confirmation (confirmatio) Develops and proves the argument Most specific and concrete detail Appeals to logos

Refutation (refutatio) Addresses the counterargument (opposing side) Appeals to logos

Conclusion (peroratio) Brings essay to a close Answers the question, “So what?” Appeals to pathos

Rogerian Model- Basics

Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers

Emphasizes building bridges between speaker and audience

Focuses on problem-solving/coming to a consensus

Willingness to think about opposing positions and present them fairly

Rogerian Model- Purposes

Appropriate model for: Trying to reconcile conflicting parties;

achieving a compromise Issues that are highly emotional

Rogerian Model- Effects

Writer shows empathy for audience’s viewpoint

Opens door for mutual understanding and respect

A “win-win” situation

Rogerian Model-Strategies

Avoid heated, stereotypical, or attacking language that might put audience on defensive

Use appeals to emotions and character/credibility

Rogerian Model- Structure

Introduction: Statement of problem to be solved or question to be answered; how it affects both speaker and audience

Summary of Opposing Views: Described using a seemingly objective persona

Statement of Understanding: Concedes circumstances under which opposing views might be valid

Rogerian Model- Structure

Statement of Your Position (Thesis) Statement of Contexts: Describes

contexts in which your position applies/works well

Statement of Benefits: Appeals to self-interest of readers who may not yet agree with you; demonstrates how your position benefits them

Toulmin Model- Basics

Developed by Stephen Toulmin, 1950s “Acknowledges the complications of

life”

Toulmin Model- Structure

Claim: The argument you wish to prove Qualifier: Any limits you place on your

claim (usually, probably, maybe, in most cases)

Reasons/Evidence: Support for your claim

Warrant: Underlying assumption that links claim to evidence

Warrants: Practice

Because the mushroom is poisonous, you should not eat the mushroom, since…

You should not eat the mushroom.

Warrant/Assumption?

The mushroom is poisonous.

Warrants: Practice

I don’t like receiving grades in high school.

Grades in high school should be abolished.

*Disputable warrants have to be defended before you can continue arguing for your claim.*

Warrant/Assumption?

Toulmin Model- Structure

Backing: Evidence for questionable warrants (can be emotional, ethical, or logical appeals)

“My claim is true, to a qualified degree, because of the following reasons, which makes sense if you consider the warrant, backed by these additional reasons.”

Toulmin Model- Structure

Reservations/Conditions of Rebuttal Explains terms and conditions

necessitated by the qualifier Shows an understanding of those who

see your issue differently

Toulmin Model- Structure