There are three different types of argument structures. There are linear, branching and joint structures of argument. Each of these structures are different according to the relationship between their premises and conclusions. In this paper, I will be focusing on the difference between joint and branching structures. Joint support is when there is more than one premise that only together, not independently, support the conclusion. In other words, these premises “work together” to support the conclusion. As you can see from the example (1), the premises work jointly to support the conclusion. Without premise 1 or 2, the conclusion would not be the same.
(1) 1. The best color is either Carolina or Duke blue. + 2. The best color is not
…show more content…
I do not like wizard movies. 1*. I have an early class tomorrow
2. ∴ I do not want to go to the Harry Potter marathon tonight.
If you were given a branching structure argument, you would be able to recognize that each premise could independently support the conclusion. In this sense, you would be able to come to a conclusion with a single premise. Whereas, if you were given a joint structure argument, you would recognize that the conclusion relies on the premises together. In this sense, you would not be able to conclude anything without each premise.
As you can see from the descriptions and examples throughout this paper, these two structures of argument are vastly different. Each argument structure serves a different purpose. The branching structure is important as it allows for each premise to serve independently to support the conclusion. The joint structure is important as it allows premises to work dependently together in order to support the conclusion.
In conclusion, each type of argument structure serves an important purpose. Depending on what type of structure you have, the conclusion can be viewed differently. It is important to know that differences between each structure so that you will not come to the wrong
By providing a base argument and the implications of
For most writers, we must know the different types of argumentation styles along with logical fallacies. There are three main types of argumentation styles including: Aristotelian, Rogerian, and Toulmin. All three styles have their own argumentation spin on arguments. Aristotelian refutes the opposing claim while at the same time promoting its own argument by using supporting evidence. Some of that evidence includes using rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos. A Rogerian arguments are the arguments that find the common ground in order for an effective argument. Last but not least there is the Toulmin argument, the Toulmin argument is similar to the Aristotelian argument yet instead of appealing to the audience Toulmin focuses
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, contexts, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The first piece Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution written by Elizabeth Bumiller, is an explanation. Bumiller addresses her points using facts rather than opinions, she also says, “Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.”(2), this signifies that this is an explanation and not an argument since he sees both sides instead of choosing one. For
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
Everyone has experienced some type of stress in their life. Whether it has been from work, school, or troubles at home, stress is stress. If anyone had played sports in high school, you know the challenge of balancing school and sports. Imagine that stress, then multiply it exponentially. Everyone knows that college is a much more rigorous version of high school. The only reason some athletes made it to college is due to scholarships for their performance on the field. If they don’t perform well on the field, that scholarship might get cut. This makes practicing the athletes main priority. However, college athletes have to concentrate on their grades so they don’t drop out of college. These athletes know they may not make it to the pro’s, so they know they have to have a back up plan. This back up plan is called a college degree. So college athletes have to concentrate both on sports and classes. Sounds kind of challenging. This is why I believe student athletes should be allowed to miss classes occasionally due to their sport. Athletes are under much more stress, are required to attend practices and classes, and complete their homework. This is simply impossible to do, at least for a human. I believe that this is an important topic because it affects all college athletes.
The argument posited by Sider (S1) can be seen as an argument by elimination, where the premises if accepted, reject the possibility of S2 and S3. As such, the argument suffers from whether the re...
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Premise one is a generalized argument, premise two is a specific argument, and the conclusion is the result of both premises. An explanation is due to be provided for how the argument posed obeys the two rules for a good argument. There are two rules for a good argument:
.... For argument is not about who is right, but what is learned as a
This structure shows the two initial premises which he argues, in detail, to be correct and in the case that they are correct a logically valid conclusion.
Both Moore’s and Gatto’s methods of argumentation are efficient although may prove ineffective in convincing some critical readers.
...unction argument points out its inadequacy to stand alone since the argument provides little evidence for some of its premises and rests only on certain common beliefs without making a strong connection to the supporting evidence.
When talking about an argument, it should be written in a manner that unfolds both the strengths and limits of the argument. The point of an argument is to come to a conclusion as close to the truth or realistic solution. In the twentieth-century, British philosopher Stephen Toulmin asked the question of where is the love and what are the uses of an argument. Stephen Toulmin then conducted a method constructing and analyzing an argument. This method, named after Stephen Toulmin, is called the Toulmin model. The Toulmin model involves breaking down an argument into six basic parts, looking at all supporting points and views both for and against the argument.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.