Today's Movie

I was just wondering what everyone thought of "The Merchants of Cool." In my opinion, the documentary put our generation in a bad light and presented our behavior in a very exaggerated fashion. I understand that there are people who only care about there appearance and who want to be, as the movie put it, a "midriff" by wearing only a third of an outfit- but I think that we deserve a little credit since a large majority of teenagers do not act, or even think, in such a way. Perhaps, we have just become blind to our culture though, the movie was based in the nineties so maybe what was outrageous then has just become a part of our everyday lives. Basically, I thought that the movie was full of generalizations and stereotypes about "kids these days." 

I thought that it was an interesting point that as soon as "cool" is found the trend setters move on to something new. I also thought it was interesting that there are studies on what is cool for just our demographic, although what is cool in one place might not be somewhere else. Also, as an interviewer, how would you be able to know which teenagers are in that top percent of people who can determine what is the new fashion? Anyway, I would like to know what everyone else thought of the movie- maybe I just live in a bubble and just haven't realized just how much the media and marketers been shaped by our culture.

-Kelsey 

Relating to the Toulmin Model

Part 1: Loosely Comparing the Toulmin model to a math proof.

The idea came to me when I was reading about symbolism. This idea is to compare each part of the model to that of a basic mathematical proof. I was surprised to see how well it fit. However, as I thought about it more, I realized that they both have relatively the same basic objective.

The standard proof is very simple. It is given X prove Y using a,b, and c assuming a,b, and c are true. One would then fill in a series of postulates and theories that the mathematic community has for the time deemed true to come to a conclusion that they must also for the time deem true.

This is the model I came up with:

Given: (Warrant)
Prove: (Claim)
Theories: Grounds and Backing
Postulates: Further Warrants
Assumptions: Qualifier
Stating exceptions due to mathematic impossibility: Rebuttal

Now to explain how each one relates. The prove is somewhat obvious, the claim in the model must be proven and the claim in this proof must be... proven. OK, so thats over with. Now for the less obvious relations.

The given in the proof has to be the warrant. The given is something true that you have to base the entire proof around. Without that common ground on which to set the literal and figurative foundation on, your argument or chance at proving the claim will be blown away or collapse onto itself. Since everything spoken is essentially and argument, something agreed upon to be true is definitely a powerful tool.

This said, the warrant//given itself is not enough to get to the actual claim//proof. In the math proof, one needs to employ a series of theorems backed by postulates to logically show that the claim the proof is making has to be considered true. In the model, the theorems are similar to the grounds. They are ideas, facts, support, and data that aid in proving a claim. Of course , just as theorems are all based off of postulates, grounds are usually claims in themselves and need to be based off of their own warrants.

Fitting the Qualifier into this giant simile was not easy. In math there isn't usually a gray area, there is either true or false. There are, however, assumptions made not always supported by the given information. The occasional assumptions used in proofs are the closest match to the Qualifier in the Toulmin model. Like the assumptions, the Qualifier allows for some cushioning from someone pulling out a "well in this extreme and virtually irrelevant example its false so there goes your argument".

Of course what kind of mathematician would I be without mentioning impossibilities such as division by zero. These special cases where one preforms a completely impossible operation call for an exception in math. As opposed to the rebuttal, simply saying, "it's true except when this happens" is a much easier way to get past obstacles in the way of proving your claim. The rebuttal basically does the same thing but in a way much more convincing to most people one may be arguing with.

Well that basically raps up the comparisons. I will of course keep updated on this post and would love to make some changes/improvements in the future.


Part II: The importance and identification of the Warrant.

The Warrant. It even sounds authoritative. Warrant... Well, this sixth of the argument seems to be a challenge. According to the design of the Toulmin Model, the Warrant is never really said aloud, changes with each listener or reader, and, like the other parts of the model, is near impossible to win without. So, why is this piece so important and how does one impliment it into one's arguments?

The Warrant itself is a cornerstone to the argument. If your argument was a house, this is a cement basement keeping it from sinking into the mud. Guess what happens if you sent a die hard evolutionist to try to convince an equally biased evangelical creationist that evolution did in fact shape life on earth. Come on, guess. If you guessed that they would spend the entire time simply yelling opposing views, not acknowledging each others' opinions and/or getting nowhere then you are probably right. One of the big problems in that situation is that they lack common ground. They need a foundation to agree upon so that one may build a tower of argument onto it eventually reaching the high set goal of proving one's point. To put it bluntly: They need something to agree upon. The warrant is this something.

Well by now your may thinking, "Hey, John, how in the world would one find such a warrant?". I assume, however, that you already know seeing as you are in the exact same class as I am and have already learned this from our teacher. (Teachers tend to be a lot more qualified than me at teaching as well.) In which case this is simply to serve as a friendly, maybe more confusing reminder. The easiest way to find a warrant would be to simply chat with a potential audience or opponent until you agree to agree on something. That something should become your warrant. Another more difficult tactic one may employ would be to get an understanding of who it is you may be trying to convince. In this case, the more information you have about the person and their views, the better your chances at finding a good warrant are. For example if you are arguing with feminist than a good warrant would be "men and women should be treated/respected/seen/acknowledged/etc as equals in every way". I am assuming that for most pro-equality people some qualifiers wouldn't exactly work very well in that warrant but it is a warrant none the less. In my opinion, one of the most difficult but effective ways of producing a potent warrant is to actually work of an opponent's rebuttals. Because a rebuttal is a claim in itself, it too should be based pretty solidly on a warrant. If you can figure out what your opponent accepts as basic truth than that is a potentially great warrant.

Example: You are arguing that you should stay in Iraq. Your opponent rebuts and claim that too many soldiers are being killed there. If you can figure out that your opponent values life extremely highly from that than you not only have a counter argument but also a possible warrant to arm yourself with. A statement you could include based on that warrant may be "The current occupation in Iraq is one of the few things preventing full on civil war and a large body count."

The warrant is obviously and important part to one's argument and finding a warrant may be the difference between losing an argument and convincing someone that you are correct. As long as there is a warrant, you can win because your opponent has already accepted something you say or imply as true.

Part III: My interpertation of the Toulmin Model.

Well I see this model as a variety of things. When Mr. Lazarow taught us the model, he gave many great examples of how it would work in an essay and why it works much better than other methods in an essay. I sort of ignored the whole essay part and stuck to the model itself. This model is a platform for arguing. When I talk about the model, I am speaking about it as if it is a syntax in which to form an argument of any from rather than just in an essay or other publication. This is why I compared it to a math proof. I wanted to demonstrate not only that it fit together with other forms of arguments one may have already learned, but that it is applicable to vitually anything.

The more often I ponder the form of the model and the parts necassary to complete it, the more I see the strategy behind it. It sets a goal or point in the form of a claim that it needs to reach. The Toulmin model will take the opponent of the argument, whether it be a reader, listener, or actual designated opponent, and form the required negotiation to reach the goal. Rebuttals, qualifiers, and reservations need to be points given to your opponent so that you may get them to accept the grounds leading up to your point. As long as your warrant and grounds are enough to get to the point, it shouldn't matter what you have given to your opponent because the opponent will agree with the claim in the end. The Toulmin model takes the diplomatic middle ground and runs with it to both get a greater number of people to possibly agree and to make it easier to deal with opposition.

The more diplomatic approach of the Toulmin model compares much differently to other debate techniques. One technique that works towards the polar opposite of the Toulmin model is the skeptic approach to a pro argument. The skeptical approach can vary depending on the person employing it but it is somewhat constant in its basic principles. This approach is based on the believe that because the burden of proof lies with the affirmative, the negative usually has an easier time sowing doubt into the affirmitive than trying to build a case of one's own on why the negative is better. The skeptics understand that they do not need to win they just need the affirmitive to lose. Because there is no real claim to be achieved and no goal to build up but rather an opposing one to strip down, a skeptical strategy would likely be to turn each ground and backing into a claim and force the affirmative to provide further grounds and warrants for each. This would continue until either the debate ends and the skeptic couldn't prevent the claim from being proven or the affirmative runs out of grounds and warrants and is unable to prove the claim. There seems to be a pretty decent contrast between the Toulmin Model and other forms of argument making each unique and powerful tools in arguing.


This post is a little long and may have a decent amount of typos in it. Please feel free to post comments on the typos so that I may fix them as soon as possible.

Reaction to "Symbols" excerpt

So I thought the excerpt we read tonight was really interesting. You never really do think about language just being a symbol, do you? Also how basically everything you do or have is symbolic of something else. I liked how they explained not understanding the symbolic process makes you its victim, because that really makes a lot of sense. If you don't understand the process and that way of thinking then you can't possibly understand why you do the things you do. For instance when people our age shop at stores like Abercrombie and Hollister not necessarily because they really like the clothes but because those clothes symbolize a certain taste and that more mainstream status which can be seen as the way to be accepted by their peers. I just thought the whole thing was really interesting and sorry for posting so late.

~Olivia

Applying the Toulmin Model to Literature

I thought applying the Toulmin Model to a source of literature would serve as a useful and relevant practice for the quiz on Tuesday. I'm sure all of you have at least heard of the spectacular work of literary genius from one of the greatest writers in the western canon, a German writer so great he makes Thomas Mann look like a literary midget, of course Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis (Die Verwandlung in German). If you haven't read it (it's very short) I've added information below.
Now the story behind the claim for the Toulmin model is this:
Vladimir Nabokov, a great writer in his own right, and an accomplished entomologist, has claimed that that creature that Gregor transforms into is a beetle with wings (that he is unaware of). This opinion runs contrary to other beliefs that Gregor was transformed into a cockroach or other such beings. The book leaves it open to interpretation

Claim: In the Metamorphosis Gregor Samsa is/isn't transformed into a beetle.
Grounds:
Warrant:
Backing:
Qualification:
Reservation:
Rebuttal:

Information:
Nabokov's lecture on the subject-
Next question: what insect? Commentators say cockroach, which of course does not make sense. A cockroach is an insect that is flat in shape with large legs, and Gregor is anything but flat: he is convex on both sides, belly and back, and his legs are small. He approaches a cockroach in only one respect: his coloration is brown. That is all. Apart from this he has a tremendous convex belly divided into segments and a hard rounded back suggestive of wing cases. In beetles these cases conceal flimsy little wings that can be expanded and then may carry the beetle for miles and miles in a blundering flight. Curiously enough, Gregor the beetle never found out that he had wings under the hard covering of his back. (This is a very nice observation on my part to be treasured all your lives. Some Gregors, some Joes and Janes, do not know that they have wings.) Further, he has strong mandibles. He uses these organs to turn the key in a lock while standing erect on his hind legs, on his third pair of legs (a strong little pair), and this gives us the length of his body, which is about three feet long. In the course of the story he gets gradually accustomed to using his new appendages—his feet, his feelers. This brown, convex, dog-sized beetle is very broad.
Nabokov's imagining of Gregor's insect form:

Spark Notes

-Alexander Altaras

9/18 minutes

Today in class we further discussed the prewriting technique of the Toulmin Sentence. We reviewed the answer to the sentence we were supposed to write for homework:

Because there is a high rate of serious injury in accidents when seatbelts are not worn, therefore people should typically wear seatbelts, since serious injury should be avoided, because injury is costly, painful, and dangerous. However seatbelts shouldn't be worn in certain cases when they are dangerous like on small children. Even though ther is a high rate of serious injury when they are worn, there is an even greater risk when they aren't worn.

We went over the fact that there always must be a counter argument that follows the rebuttal. Otherwise, the rebuttal may be questioned and turn into its own claim. We also went over a few other examples when all of the information was given to us including the claim, grounds, warrant, backing, etc... Tonight for homework though, we have to write three Toulmin sentences when only the claim is given:

1. Claim: Students who work hard in school do better in college.
2. Claim: Faux news programs (e.g. "The Daily Show") are a (great/negative) addition to television.
3. Claim: The US should (get out of/stay in) Iraq.

Make sure in the Toulmin Sentence that you include the claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, reservation, rebuttal, and counterargument. The other homework assignment is still the vocabulary exercises, which will be due on Monday. We will also go over them on Monday.

--Alexis

Here is an example toulmin sentence

Because my participation grade needs a boost,
it is highly encouraged that I post something on
the blog since it would lead to a higher grade,
unless I were to post something mindless and
irrelevent. Some may say that my participation
grade is already a hundred, but that would just
be a rumor.

-Kelsey

For homework today we had to write three Toulim sentences, one about faux news such as the Daily show. Since I have never seen the show before, I watched a clip on you tube. I found it hilarious when it made fun of politicians and the stupid things politicians do, for example , the John Edward's scandal. Though, some things they say are not good taste. The clip made me think about how much freedom we as americans have, in that we can openly criticize our leaders. But do we reserve the right to mock people? Some people believe that it is disrespectful to call our nations leaders, such as the President an idiot. Does comedy television shows go to far? Has freedom of speech become the freedom of harassment?



Ashley Hill

9/17 Minutes

We do admit error
-Unlike other forms of writing, academic arguments often include discussions of possible objections and counterarguments to the position being advanced.
-Academic arguments typically take place in communities where competing or divergent positions exist.
-To engage members of an academic community in argument, writers must be aware of those members’ pre-existing beliefs and opinions, because it’s upon that basis that the writer will strive to build their claims and defend them.
-Dealing with counterarguments and objections is a key point of the building, refining, and interpreting and analyzing of arguments.
1.demonstrates the author is aware of opposing views. Writer is likely to seem fair and be more persuasive.
2.shows the writer is thinking about responses of readers, anticipating objections the reader may have. This can inoculate the reader against counterarguments.
3.when a writer contrasts their opinion with opposing arguments or alternative hypotheses, the writer clarififies the position for which they are arguing.

Dealing with the Devil
Tactic 1: strategic concession
Tactic 2: refutation
Tactic 3: demonstration of irrelevance

-any rebuttal is an argument in itself and thus, may include its own claim, grounds, warrant, backing qualifier – and rebuttal.
-A writer presenting an argument can seek both possible rebuttals, rebuttals to rebuttals and so on.

The Toulmin Sentence: a pre-writing organizer
-NOT A SENTENCE IN YOUR ESSAY
-Because (grounds), therefore, or so (qualifier) (claim), since (warrant), because, or on account of (backing), unless (reservation)

Superstition and Luck

During our studies of the Toulmin model of argumentation today we progressed to learn about the causation warrant. One of the main things to remember about using this type of warrant was to make sure that the relationship between the events was not simply a correlation, but a cause-and-effect relationship. Furthermore, we discussed the Chaunticleer fallacy which stems from a fable about a rooster believing the sun came up only because he crowed every morning.

While almost every person agrees with the theories that the sun doesn’t rise because of the rooster and the Chaunticleer fallacy in general, there are two common contradictions to this principle: superstition and luck. One of the most common superstitions is after someone says an event that you wish never to happen; you quickly knock on wood to prevent that malicious event. Even though it is quite obvious to even the most unintelligent of humans that knocking on a piece of a tree would have no impact whatsoever on future events, people still knock. In fact, in a survey seen here by Dr. Richard Wiseman 86% of people in the United Kingdom say they believe in knocking on wood to ward off malicious future events.

Luck defined as the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities is another seeming groundless belief contrived by the imaginative mind. One common and catchy saying, “See a penny, pick it up, and all day long you’ll have good luck,” clearly states that picking up a penny is going to in some way aid you during the next 24 hours. This is not based on any facts, studies, or experiments and is not in any way provable. Despite this when most people see a penny on the ground they pick it up, is it really because they want to be 1 cent richer? I don’t think so.

Even though there is clear, reasonable, and strong evidence to prove that superstition and luck are lunacy and idiocracy, do you think it is possible that humans are really that unintelligent, do you figure that sometimes people simply like to have fun and feel like a kid again, or do you believe that humans are able to overlook the evidence simply to ease their own consciences and subscribe to the forces of superstition and luck?

Tyler H.

9/16 Minutes

Argument via sign/clue
- notion that certain types of evidence are sympotomatic of some wider principle or outcome

Example:
-Where there's smoke, there's fire.
- Students with high SAT scores will do well in college.

Causal Argument
- "X" is the result of, or is affected by the factor "y"- the most complex forms of warrant

Example:
Claim: Needle exchange programs should be abolished.
Grounds: They only cause people to use drugs.
Warrant: More people will engage in risky behavior because you've made it safer.

-Don't mix causation with correlation
-Just because two events have a relationship doesn't necessarily dictate that the relationship is causal.

Example: The growing population of storks as well as the simultaneous population growth of babies does not mean that babies come from storks. The two just happen to occur at the same time but are not directly related.
- If one thing follows another, the first thing must have caused the second.
Example: Baby: "I kicked and got milk, I'll kick again and get more." The baby thinks that by kicking he is getting milk, when in truth, he will get milk when it is time for him to be fed. Kicking has nothing to do with the situation.

Argument from Authority (ETHOS)

- Does person/text "x" constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question?
- What political, idealogical, or economic interests do they have?
- Will a significant number of authorites agree?

Argument from Principle

-Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle apploes
-Evaluation:
~Is it widely accepted?
~Does it apply to the situation?
~Are there commonly agree on exceptions?
~Are there rival principles?
~Are the consequences of the principle desirable?

Second Triad

-Backing
-Qualifier
-Rebuttal

Backing

-Provides additional justification for the warrant especially if the warrant is viewed as questionable

Example:
Claim: You should use a hearing aid.
Grounds: You've been having trouble hearing and over 70% of people over 65 have difficulty hearing
Warrant: Many hearing aid users sau it helps them to hear better
Backing: Hearing aids are conveniently available

The Qualifier

-Arguments are not expected to demonstrate certainties! They can only establish probabilities.
-Claims are qualified to meet objections of an audience
- States how sure the arguer is about its correctness
- Specifies the arguer's self-imposed limits to the claim, warrant, and backing by establishing conditionality.

Examples:
Sometimes
Maybe
Might
Many
Few
Probably
Possibly
Most
Usually
Always
Virtually
-Qualifiers can strengthen or undermind your argument

Example:
Claim: Hearing aids help people hear better.
Claim + Qualifier- Hearing aids help most people hear better

Qualifier Variant

-Reservation-offers the audience recognition of the greater possibility that the claim is incorrect-without saying so.

Example:
Claim: Hearing aids do no harm to ears.
Claim + Reservation: Unless there is no contrary evidence, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

The Rebuttal

-The acknowledges exceptions or limitations to the argument, and admits to those cirumstances or situations where the argument would not hold.
-Answers the question "What are the other possible views on this issue?"

We do not admit error
- Actually we do.
- Academic arguments often include counterarguments to the position being advanced.

-Melissa H.

More in-depth information concerning our discussion

Much like Hippocrates' belief of medicine, that one must understand the cause of a disease to combat its symptoms, I find that reading more into the reasoning behind logical thinking makes understanding it easier. I also think knowing the logical fallacies helps significantly. The reason I linked to wikipedia articles for a simple superficial overview, sacrificing that for reliability .

For instance the example provided today for opinions:

"-Claim: It looks like it's going to rain.
-Grounds: The Accu-Weather report said it would rain.

The report is from a credible and authoritative information source - although the reporter has only provided the listener with their claim not the grounds."

Accepting something as truth because the person who said it is an authority on the subject is called an appeal to authority. Which knowing is a fallacious argument, I feel, is important. Something important I don't recall being stressed is that, for practical reasons, the fallacy is one we essentially must live with. I'll use being sick as an example. Say someone falls sick, would it be better to go to a doctor , or take 8 years of medical school for relief? The latter is more reliable, however it is not at all feasible. Going to a doctor wouldn't be as reliable, but greatly more practical.

We later discussed how a fact must not be 100% true to argue it. Mr. Lazarow stated that will discuss this later , so I won't discuss this much, but I suppose I should link to Karl Popper and falsifiability. (Superficially) because our ability to gather information is limited by (again) practical reasons, we cannot demand 100% certainty. This introduces falsifiability into the mix.

When a false analogy is used to prove a point it is a non sequitiur. For instance: (taken from here)

Nuclear disarmament is like driving a car, both involve a risk.

to

Because of this, if you are willing to drive a car you should be willing to have nuclear disarmament.

This is an extraordinarily bad analogy. The two share a very distant, superficial, relationship (both carry a risk). The non sequitiur then comes to the conclusion that because both share something superficially in common, they equate each other. The non sequitiur does not take into account, however, the fact that one can have a standard for risk, that the person may feel that something is too risky. The risk gap between nuclear disarmament and car crash is great.

If you wish to look more into logical fallacies I recommend this video, which provides some real examples (somewhat making easier). This is also a very superficial list of the "top 20 fallacies."
-Alexander Altaras

9/15 Minutes

Credibility:
Example: It looks like it's going to rain
Grounds: Accu-weather said it would (reasonably reliable source)

-Case examples function much like straight facts do-- but not only do they help clarify points of discussion, they add persuasion and make the idea more memorable.
-Hypothetic examples can only demonstrate probabilities
1. "This one time, at band camp, I was.."
- personal example
- can fail to connect with audience
2. "Lets say you were..."
- useful if audience can place themselves in the situation
3. "During band camp last year.."
- less personal, more factual

"True" Facts?
-facts aren't always true
-all evidence is based on perception/assumption
example: 9 planets --> 8 planets and a dwarf planet
-facts change

-Grounds must stand strongly, grounds might be challenged so strongly that they become claims themselves--which would require the arguer to come up with MORE grounds for support-- deeper info and further argument.

-acceptance = won an argument
-dismissal = no way to win (wont even be argued)
-challenge = fight is on

THE WARRANT: The warrant is the inferential leap that creates a mental connection between the claim and the grounds -- thus establishing the claims legitimacy.
- Chains of reasoning
-unstated assumptions
- presuppositions
-general principles
-widely held values
-commonly accepted beliefs
-appeals to human motives

"Where is the author coming from?"
"What is causing the author to think this way?"

-Warrant links support to the claim by enabling the audience to accept/justify particular evidence as proof
-Warrants are implicit (unstated)
-The audience supplies the warrant
-Warrants establish links between the author and the audience; shared warrants result in successfully established common grounds

-Warrants reveal unspoken beliefs and values of the author, they invite the audience to examine its own beliefs and compare them.

6 Main Argumentative Strategies: (GASCAD)
1. Generalization
2. Analogy
3. Sign
4. Causality
5. Authority
6. Principle

Generalizations:
- common form of reasoning
- what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group/ population
Example:
Claim: That dog is friendly.
Grounds: It's a Golden Retriever
Warrant: Most/All Golden Retrievers are friendly -- Generalization

Analogy:
- Extrapolation from one situation or even based on the nature and outcome of a similar event
-found in law: "case based"
-Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities between 2 contexts?
"Life is like a box of chocolates"

False Analogy:
"I can do this well, so I can do that well..."


-Sammi Drury

9/11 Minutes

Hey guys, we didn't get to assign who was doing the class minutes for Friday, but in case anyone was absent, or just for the record, this is what we covered in class :

The Claim
- This is essentially the statement being argued - the assertion that the arguer would like to make
- Even though this is the part from which the writer starts to formulate the argument, it is actually the conclusion of the argument (since it's what the audience should believe in the end)
- Everything in the argument relates back to the claim (therefore if it doesn't, then it doesn't belong)
- It answers the question, "What is the author trying to prove?" "What is the bottom line?"

Variety (of claims that the Toulmin Model identifies)
1. Claims of Fact - focuses on empirically verifiable phenomena (based on evidence from the past)
2. Claims of Judgement/Values - involve opinions, attitudes, subjective evaluations (the present)
3. Claims of Policy - advocates courses of action to undertake (in the future)
- Each claim is equal in value but different in application
Example: 'It looks like it's going to rain' (Fact)
Explanation: Because we have a certain amount of past experiences (because when dark clouds were present, most of the time it rained), it's a fact because it can be empirically verifiable. If, however, I had said the statement even though the sky above me is perfectly clear and sunny, then it is no longer a claim of fact because someone else could very easily disagree with me and prove me wrong
- Most of the times, our claims are challenged, and this is when the grounds come in

The Grounds
- The basis of persuasion, the evidence/reasons/opinions/examples/facts gathered to bolster a claim
- It answers the question 'What additional information can the author offer?'
- The three types of argumentative supports are:
1. Facts - vivid, real, identifiable, and verifiable information of a more or less objective nature
2. Opinions - interpretations/reasoning (yours or that of other expert's) of relevant factual information
3. Examples - for the purpose of clarification and illustraion of facts and opinions
- Most importantly, argumentative support should be explicitly stated - not implied

Facts
- Various forms include:
1. Detailed reports of specific events ('I was there')
2. Statistics
3. Experimental results
4. Physical evidence
Example:
Claim - 'Needle exchange programs should be abolished'
Grounds - 'They only cause more people to use drugs'
Facts - (I forget the exact example Mr. Lazarow used in class..) 'Statistics have shown that there has been a 40% increase in the number of people who relied on drugs since the needle exchange programs had been enforced'

Opinions
- Statements involving opinion have an important role in argumentation
- While we've almost always been told that our own opinions are unecessary and less effective than facts when presented in an argument, the thing is, opinions can be just as persuasive when used in the right way
- Opinions cannot exist without facts from which they stem
- Opinions are a result of the interpretation of facts
- The majority of claims involve an expression of interpretation, rather than one of pure facts. Without interpretation, it is merely a meaningless factual statement
Example: 'Lady Macbeth uses the word 'blood' 27 times.'
Note: The question, 'But why?' arises, and therefore an interpretation/explanation is needed.
- One might ask, 'Whose opinions should we trust?' Renowned authorities? Credentialed experts? Family and friends? The thing is, no one source can really outweigh the rest. Depends on the situation, different opinions will be more valuable than others - the key is to know which to use.

-Julie W

Examples of the practical critical thinking advocated by the Toulmin Model

It appears to me that reading or listening to skeptical texts or podcasts would be very helpful for English essays. These are built on logical thinking, and that is precisely what any good essay should accomplish, regardless of the material being discussed. Whether that be Shakespeare, Kafka or the supposed medical effects of homeopathy. I would imagine that the thinking being applied to scientific claims, would not be different from the thinking being applied to claims regarding a piece of literature (the repeated use of the word blood in Macbeth by lady Macbeth was used as an example in class). It is because of this, that I think adapting the style of thinking in these podcasts would be very useful for writing essays in English.

When we were discussing the Toulmin Model of Argumentation today, some brief examples of the Toulmin reasoning process applied to certain claims were brought up. I was immediately reminded of this podcast that I listen to (also in print form), Skeptoid. The individual essays mainly focus on the more imaginative variety of claims (i.e. the paranormal, alternative medicine, etc.) The grounds are always based on the empirically proven facts. The creator also offers his own interpretation of the facts. For the most part, these are actions advocated by the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. These episodes are essentially larger, in-depth examples. I find that they're relatively entertaining and short (approx. 10 minutes) so they won't significantly take up your time.

Another useful podcast on critical thinking is the LSAT Logic For Everyday Life from Princeton Review. For those who don't know, the LSAT is the Law School Admission Test. Again, these are more elaborate examples of critical thinking.


-Alexander Altaras

Hey Guys 

Today in class we started the presentation about The Toulmin Model of Argument 

The Notes we got so far were: 

Why will it matter? 

* Because we've been working on a basic rhetorical model, especially when dealing with the thesis statement. 

* The thesis is essential to the success of an essay. 

*Becoming a better writer isn't about plugging in the correct bit. It's about understanding why the mechanisms of an essay work the way they do. 

The Toulmin Model is a complicated process - The thesis becomes more elaborate then the basic thesis you've become used to. It's going to be difficult, yet rewarding. 

*It works because it is constructed in response to the REALITY of argument. It defines ABSOLUTES in favor of QUALIFIERS. 

* Lets first agree that all verbal communication is persuasive to some degree, therefore everything uttered is intended to get the listener to believe as the speaker believes. 

* Stephen Toulmin was a Brittish Philosopher/Logician. He became frustrated with the inability of traditional logic to explain the process of real, everyday arguments. 

The Toulmin Model says that good, realistic arguments typically consist of six parts. 

* Claim 

*Grounds

*Warrants

*Backing

*Qualifiers

*Rebuttals 

-Alex Ryan 

Welcome, English IIIH scholars of MHS Class of 2010! It's a great pleasure to greet you as, and a special pleasure to welcome you to your home on the web--your class blogsite.

Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.

I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings.

Please note the following rules:

1. ONLY students currently enrolled in my English IIIH may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.

2. anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.

3. all discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.

4. to ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.

5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.

6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.

7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed in every respect as the equivalent to the traditional Rhetoric/Composition class required of all college freshmen. That's right--you're taking a college-level class, two years ahead of time. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.

8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!

That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class each day.

MR. LAZ