Two Arguments Models; One Is from a Philosopher‘S View and the Other Is from a Psychologist’s View
Compare and Contrast
In this paper I will be discussing two arguments models; one is from a philosopher‘s view and the other is from a psychologist’s view. I will explain how and why these models are important. I will also discuss my understanding of the thinking and justification of each model of argument by compare and contrasting the two arguments.
In the philosopher’s view: The Toulmin Model has four parts to an argument: the first is “the claim”, which is your thesis or the purpose of what you are disputing. The second is “the grounds”; which is leaving no uncertainty to the meaning and reasoning of your claim. The third is “the warrant”, which ties the purpose of the claim and the grounds together. Finally “the backing” which is theory of reasoning that may be needed to influence the audience if the warrant is not accepted. The Toulmin method is an outline of how to state your arguments in more of an analytical way. It allows you to break down the argument in different part so we can make a conclusion on how well the different part work together, as well as an effective way to get to the how and the why.
In the Psychologist’s view: Rogerian Argument claims you would first state the problem, and give the opponent’s position, while validating whatever you find in the challenger’s position. Roger explains how doing all the steps first and then stating last what your position would be and how it would improve the opposing position. By using this type of strategy, you would find a common ground with your challenger and your own position may be more accepting to your claim, as well as having the challenger listen to your point of view, with a possibility of change or compromise.
In the Toulmin method I find it to be effective way to state your argument because you have an outline to show your position on the claim. The Toulmin method also helps improve on analyzing an argument, in which can be used in the really world. The Toulmin method is how most
In this paper I will be discussing two arguments models; one is from a philosopher‘s view and the other is from a psychologist’s view. I will explain how and why these models are important. I will also discuss my understanding of the thinking and justification of each model of argument by compare and contrasting the two arguments.
In the philosopher’s view: The Toulmin Model has four parts to an argument: the first is “the claim”, which is your thesis or the purpose of what you are disputing. The second is “the grounds”; which is leaving no uncertainty to the meaning and reasoning of your claim. The third is “the warrant”, which ties the purpose of the claim and the grounds together. Finally “the backing” which is theory of reasoning that may be needed to influence the audience if the warrant is not accepted. The Toulmin method is an outline of how to state your arguments in more of an analytical way. It allows you to break down the argument in different part so we can make a conclusion on how well the different part work together, as well as an effective way to get to the how and the why.
In the Psychologist’s view: Rogerian Argument claims you would first state the problem, and give the opponent’s position, while validating whatever you find in the challenger’s position. Roger explains how doing all the steps first and then stating last what your position would be and how it would improve the opposing position. By using this type of strategy, you would find a common ground with your challenger and your own position may be more accepting to your claim, as well as having the challenger listen to your point of view, with a possibility of change or compromise.
In the Toulmin method I find it to be effective way to state your argument because you have an outline to show your position on the claim. The Toulmin method also helps improve on analyzing an argument, in which can be used in the really world. The Toulmin method is how most