Classical Types of Argument
In and outside of college, there are many types of arguments that have different but recognizable structures. In college writing, your persuasive writing will be structured using a classical type of argument that has been practiced by scholars and students for decades or even centuries. You, as a writer, will be entering into a long tradition of learning how to argue persuasively and effectively.
The Aristotelian Argument
In many ways, the Aristotelian argument is the most basic and most common, an essay structure many of us learn in middle school and that follows us into college and beyond.
Chances are in previous classes, you composed a simplified Aristotelian argument essay in which you researched a controversial issue and formed an argumentative position on the issue. You wrote an introduction leading into your thesis statement (major premise), provided two to three reasons as discussion points (minor premises) which became the focus of the essay’s body paragraphs. You also provided a counterargument presenting an opposing view and offered both a concession and a refutation of that view. Sounds familiar, right?
Elements of an Aristotelian Argument
Claim: What do you want the reader to believe?
The thesis in an argument paper is often called a claim. This is a statement of position, a thesis in which you take a stand on a controversial issue. A strong claim is one that has a valid counter-claim — an opposite or alternative that is as sensible as the position that you take in your claim.
Background: What background information about the topic does the reader need?
Before you get into defending your claim, you may need to offer some context to your argument. Some of this context may be offered in your intro paragraph, but often there are other definitions, history about your topic or the controversy that surrounds it, or other elements of the argument’s contextual that need additional space in your paper. This background can go after you state your claim.
Reasons: Why should a reader accept your claim?
To support your claim, you need a series of “sub-claims” or reasons. Like your claim, this is your thinking – your mini-argumentative points that support the core argumentative claim. This is NOT evidence. This is not data or statistics or quotes. A reason should be your idea that you use to support claim. We often say that three reasons – each distinct points – make for a well rounded argument structure.
Evidence: What makes your reasoning valid? To validate the thinking that you use in your reasons, you need to demonstrate that your reasons are not only based on your personal opinion. Evidence can come from research studies or scholarship, expert opinions, personal examples, observations made by yourself or others, or specific instances that make your reason seem sound and believable. Evidence only “works” if it directly supports your reason — and sometimes you must explain how the evidence supports your reason (do not assume that a reader can see the connection between evidence and reason that you see).
Counterargument: But what about other perspectives? In a strong argument, you will not be afraid to consider perspectives that either challenge or completely oppose your own claim. In a counterargument, you may do any of the following (or some combination of them):
- summarize opposing views
- topic sentence makes it clear that you are making the shift to the counterview: “Opponents of X (your argument) believe/think/feel . . .
- explain how and where you actually agree with some opposing views
- acknowledge weaknesses or holes in your own argument
You have to be careful and clear that you are not conveying to a reader that you are rejecting your own claim; it is important to indicate that you are merely open to considering alternative viewpoints. Being open in this way shows that you are an ethical arguer – you are considering many viewpoints.
Response to Counterargument: Just as it is important to include counterargument to show that you are fair-minded and balanced, you must respond to the counterargument that you include so that a reader clearly sees that you are not agreeing with the counterargument. Failure to include the response to counterargument can confuse the reader.
**It is certainly possible to begin the argument section (meaning, after the Background section) with your counterargument response instead of placing it at the end. Some people prefer to have their counterargument first; some prefer to have the counterargument response right before the conclusion
The Rogerian Argument
The Rogerian approach to argument is based in the work of Carl Rogers, one of the founders of Humanistic Psychology. In the field of writing and rhetoric, the Rogerian approach is focused on personal growth, developing a sense of personal fulfillment, and finding common ground with others. This concept of finding common ground with others who hold opposing views or perspectives is a contrast to the traditional Aristotelian argument or the Toulmin argument.
A Rogerian argument presents the opposing view without bias or negative tone and finds subclaims or points within the opposition argument that have merit or align with your own position on the issue. If you understand the issue well enough you could authentically present two or more stances on the issue, you are demonstrating that you have brought an open mind to the issues and are probably trustworthy in presenting your own argument and the opposing view. That is, you will have validated your internal ethos to your audience.
As you present the opposing argument and consider the supporting evidence, your goal is to work your way toward common ground; that is, the reasons and/or evidence both sides can agree upon, at least to some degree. Writing a Rogerian argument analysis expands your knowledge and understanding of an issue far beyond a simple pros and cons, and may lead you to develop a more sophisticated, complex qualified argument.
Elements of a Rogerian Argument
To give a Rogerian argument argument a try, follow these guidelines:
- summarize the opposing view’s argument
- determine if the opposing view’s argument is reasonable
- present their arguments and supporting points or premises accurately
- assess the evidence that provides backing for the value of the argument
- determine if the author’s assumptions are valid
- keep your tone respectful while acknowledging the “holes” or missing evidence in the opposition’s argument
- acknowledge your shared concerns (aka, find the “common ground”)
- follow up with support for your own argument
- compose your own strong counterargument based on what you know and have laid about the opposing argument’s support
- concede the opposition’s valid supporting points with which you found common ground
- refute the weaknesses in the opposing view’s argument
Keep in mind that the Rogerian structure is useful precisely because a combative or direct argumentative approach may be rejected by some audiences as too one-sided or may even alienate an audience completely. Applying the Rogerian mindset to the opposing side’s argument might help you find the common ground on which to base a stronger argument of your own.
The Toulmin Argument
The Toulmin argument was developed by philosopher, Stephen Toulmin. Toulmin is best known for his work on argumentation that moved argument out of classical logical reasoning based on syllogisms to what he termed “practical arguments” based on justification rather than abstract proofs.
Elements of a Toulmin Argument
Key elements of the Toulmin argument are the claim, qualifiers, the grounds or evidence, the warrants, and the backing.
Claim: the argument you wish to prove
The claim must be very clear and concise because it sets up the entire argument. Questions that a good claim might answer are:
- What issue/topic are you writing about?
- Why are you writing about it? What has happened or needs to happen?
- How will you write about the issue? What will the major points of your paper be?
- Why should we care about this argument? How will you get the attention of the average person?
Qualifiers: any limits you place on your claim
Qualifiers refer to primary language and its use in making claims. They are words used to soften your position to make the proposed fix more acceptable. Qualifiers suggest that the writer knows that there are other possibilities or contingencies rather than discussing them with certainty.
Suppose your initial claim suggested that we remove all of X from XYZ. Your qualifier may be that we remove only certain forms of X rather than all of them depending on the conditions present.
Grounds/Evidence: support for your claim
The next part of a Toulmin argument and the most in depth is the evidence that supports a claim. We are basically saying in our argument that the audience should agree with us because we have presented enough supporting. The key is to use evidence that is accurate, current, fair, and/or unbiased in order to credibly to support the claim.
Warrants: underlying assumptions that support your claim
Warrants are the common underlying principles that your essay’s argument can be linked to. Warrants usually help establish why an audience should care about the claim being made.
Backing: statements that support warrants
The backing are the statements in your argument supports a warrant and only the warrant. Remember to support your warrants.
Rebuttals: exceptions/counterarguments to the claim
The rebuttal usually has two parts:
- Address the main opposing point of view to your claim/position. This demonstrates that you understand what that position is and helps develop your own credibility as the writer.
- After you discuss the opposing view, then you provide evidence that casts doubt on that view, thereby suggesting that the other position might not be correct.
The Toulmin Argument Simplified
At its most basic, the Toulmin argument involves a claim, grounds, and a warrant.
Here’s an example of a simplified Toulmin argument that might help you get started as you brainstorm and develop your own:
- Claim: a college education should be required for all adults.
- Grounds: adults with a college degree often earn more money than adults without a college degree.
- Warrant: a college education is valuable for adults’ livelihoods.
Remember that different topics and audiences might require different structures of argument. It’s up to you to consider the rhetorical situation as you decide which type of argument might work best.
Sources Used to Create this Chapter
Parts of this chapter were remixed from:
- Claim Your Voice in First Year Composition, Vol. 2, by Cynthia Kiefer and Serene Rock, which was published under a CC-BY license.
