Research Assignment #27: Argumentation through Toulmin Model For the Departments of English & Media Studies by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari

‘The Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Stephen Toulmin, an English philosopher, developed a practical approach to analyzing the logic of everyday arguments. His approach involves identifying and separating the various components of an argument into a specific order so that they may be appraised. More recently, Harley Dickinson has used this model of argumentation to illustrate the role of external evidence, individual clinical expertise and data from the individual patient in the clinical decision making process’.
Inquiring into an Argument

1.

Ask if you have understood the arguer's position on the issue.

The best way to do this is to restate, paraphrase, or summarized the thesis. (Face to face you might say, "I believe that you are saying… am I understanding you?") Be sure to note how strongly the claim is made. Has the arguer qualified it by suggesting conditions or exceptions? If you are inquiring into your own argument, ask if you have stated your own position clearly. Do you need to qualify in any way?

2.

Ask about the meaning of any words that seem central to the argument.

You can do this at any point in a conversation and as often as it seems necessary. When dealing with a written text, try to discern the meaning from context. For instance, if an author's case depends on the "fairness" of a proposed solution, you'll need to ask what "fair" means, since the word has quite a range of possible applications. You might ask, "Fair to whom?" Question: A king is kind A king is cruel. Supporters and opponents of a king would interpret above sentences differently. Explain how and why?

3.	Ask what reasons support the thesis.
	Paraphrasing reasons is a good way to open up a conversation to further questions about assumptions, values, and definitions.

4.

Ask about the assumptions on which the thesis and reasons are based.

Most arguments are based on one or more unstated assumptions. For example, if a college recruiter argues that the school is superior to most others (thesis) because its ratio of students to teachers is low (reason), the unstated assumptions are (1) that the students there will get more attention, and (2) that more attention results in a better education. As you inquire into an argument, note the assumptions and ask if they are reasonable.

Read the dialogue below

      Person A:  The schools of a kingdom are superior to most others      schools in other countries because the ratio of students to teachers is low in a kingdom.

Person B: But low ratio of students can be because of poverty because people are too poor to send their children to schools.

Person A: Even you are right assumption is unaffected.

Question:    Explain above dialogue.  

Clues:

Assumption can be affected if attention itself is no use or if things those derive attention are of no use or people themselves are not interested in deriving benefit from attention or things.

Task: writer dialogues to weaken assumptions.

5.	Ask about the values expressed or implied by the argument.
	For example, if you argue that closing a forest to logging operations is essential even at the cost of dozens of jobs, you are valuing environmental preservation over the livelihoods of the workers who must search for other jobs. Task Closing a kingdom to the outside world is essential even at the cost of ………, a king values ……… Fill the above blanks

6.

Ask about how well the reasons are supported.

Are they offered as opinions only, or are they supported with evidence? Is the evidence recent? Sufficient? What kind of testimony is offered? Who are the authorities cited? What are there credentials and biases? Are there other facts or authoritative statements that might weaken the argument? Opinion: A king is a great ruler. Question: How this opinion can be a fact? Make it a fact. Tell how this fact can be challenged or weakened?

7.	Consider analogies and comparisons.
	If the author makes an argument by analogy, does the comparison hold up? For example, advocates of animal rights draw an analogy with civil rights when they claim that just as we have come to recognize the immorality of exploiting human beings, so we should recognize the immorality of exploiting other species. Do you think this analogy is sound?

Read a brief passage below:

“I must be cruel only to be kind; Thus bad begins, and worse remains behind." The quotation is from Shakespeare's famous play Hamlet.

 Hamlet excuses the murder as he believes himself to be the scourge whose duty it is to set things right.

Shakespeare meant that in order to be kind, one must understand what cruelty means. It's also how one sees in reality. To be just, one must know true evil. It shows that there must be a prerequisite force before we know that force that makes it happen.

By looking at an American author separated from Shakespeare by over three-hundred years we can see a modern example of Hamlet's dilemma. 

At the climax of John Steinbeck's beautiful novella 'Of Mice and Men' George Milton must break an inner moral code to save his closest friend, Lennie Small, from a savage death at the hands of a predatory mob. George shoots Lennie in the back of head whilst he describes Lennie's idyllic dream of a farm with rabbits. By killing his best friend he is, of course, carrying out a cruel action but is, inevitably, acting out a much greater kindness. 
Hamlet wishes to shield his naive mother from suffering not unlike George wishes to shield the naive Lennie’.

Task:

A king is Hamlet. A king is George Milton write  an argument by analogy.

Prove that the comparison does not hold up.

Read a brief passage below:

People should not boss a king and exhaust him with their demands.

A king should not give in to ‘people’s tantrums’. 

 Look how kind history is to world leaders who take a firm stand on doing what is right, even though it might mean being unpopular at the time.”

A king must treat to his people and that how they will treat to themselves. A king is the voice in his people’s heads.

Question:

Do you think a king is justified to be Cruel to be kind? 

8.	Ask about the arguer's biases and background.
	What past experiences might have led the arguer to take this position? What does the holder of this position stand to gain? What might someone gain by challenging it?

Task:

Arguer A is a king supporter and Arguer B is a king opponent.

Tell how they both differ in biases and past experiences and what are they to gain by supporting and opposing a king.  

9.	Ask about implications.
	Where would the argument ultimately lead should we accept what the speaker advocates? For example, if someone contends that abortion is murder, asking about implications would result in the questions, "Are you willing to put women who get abortions on trial for murder and, if they are convicted, to punish them as murderers are usually punished?"

 Question:

Where would the argument ‘A king must be cruel only to be kind’ ultimately lead?

10.	Ask whether the argument takes opposing views into account.
	If it does, are they presented fairly and clearly or with mockery and distortion? Does the author take them seriously or dismiss them? Are they effectively refuted? Question: What could possibly be distortion and refutation of an argument ‘A king must be cruel only to be kind?