Notes 9/17/09

Arguments

Based on Generalization-
Common form. Whats true for a well chosen subject will likely be true for larger groups.
Ex. Claim: The dog is probably friendly.
Grounds: It's a golden retriever.
Warrant:(generalization) Most Golden Retrievers are Friendly

Analogy-
Extrapolating from one situation based on the outcome of a similar situation.
Found in Law-'case based' & 'precedent reasoning'(using an old case to define a current case)
Ex. "Life's like a box of chocolates.."
THE FALSE ANALOGY-"I can do___ well, thus I can also do___(unrelated thing) well too"

Via Sign or Clue-
The Idea that some evidence is the symptom/sign of a wider outcome.
Ex." where there's smoke there's fire"

Causal-
(the most complex of warrant forms) Event 'X' is the result of/is affected by factor 'Y'
DON'T MIX WITH CORRELATION- Just because events have a relationship doesn't always mean the relationship is causal.

Authority(ethos)-
Does person/ Text constitute an authoritative source on the issue?
The Authority's interests must be consistent with the issue, and is the issue something many authorities agree on, or just one?

Principal-
A Principle that is widely accepted and shows that a situation exists in which the principle apples.
Evaluation of principle-
Widely accepted? Accurately apples to the situation? commonly agreed on exceptions?

2ND Triad-backing,qualifier & rebuttal

The Backing-Gives more justification for the warrant(not always needed)
Ex. Claim: Use a hearing aid
Grounds: You've been having trouble hearing over 70% of people over age 65 have hearing aids
Warrant: Hearing aid help people hear better.
Backing: Hearing aids are conveniently available.

The Qualifier- States the degree of probability to be attached to the claim
Makes the argument a prediction not a definite.
Ex. of qualifier words: sometimes, maybe, might, many, few, possibly


~Adrienne