Description
complete the 2 worksheets
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Rhetorical Analysis
Disclaimer: To keep this short, I ignore many gray areas and counter examples. I accept that they exist, and we will discuss
them in class.
What Should be Listened To?
The goal of Rhetorical Analysis is to decide if a given argument should be listened to and if it
would be effective to its given audience. Normally, those two answers are one and the same. If an
argument is effective, then it should be given careful consideration, and most people would listen to it
(if not agree with it).
Now, let’s lay our groundwork here. What does it mean for an argument to be something someone
should listen to? Without logical grounding, an argument should not be considered or listened to.
With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at what makes an argument logical or illogical outside of
relativity.
Logic works through Syllogisms. A Syllogism is a logical process in which two minor premises, if
agreed with, lead to a final conclusion. Now that term “if agreed with” is very relative, because what
makes one person agree with something is not what will make another person agree with that same
thing. However, when we are talking about the logic of something, we ask ourselves would this be
enough to elicit agreement from an unbiased, but logically educated, reader? If it would, then
generally it’s considered logical. If not, then generally it would be considered illogical. So we must
approach our Logos-based analysis by seeing logic as something that transcends bias, context,
and truth itself. In essence, we must be able to admit that something is logical, even if it is wrong,
or even if we disagree with it, and if it is logical, then it should be given careful consideration.
What Makes Something Logical?
Step 1: Is there a Reason to Believe It?
Like I said before, logic depends on Syllogisms, and that is because if you want to prove to someone
that something is true, you must give that person a reason it is true. This is a requirement of logic,
because otherwise we would have to believe every single claim given at all times, even those that
are contradictory to each other. A basic tenet of logic is “that which is presented without evidence (or
Reasonings) can be dismissed without evidence.” Put in other words, if someone doesn’t tell you why
you should believe or do something, generally you shouldn’t believe or do that thing.
Example: “You should kill this man.”
Analysis: This is an ineffective argument because it gives no reason for why you should kill
someone. Even if you should kill that person, or feel very strong feelings against that
person, this argument still cannot be called logical, and therefore should not be listened to.
Step 2: Does the Reason Support the Claim?
So we’ve established that someone needs a Reason for his or her claim. The next step we need to
decide is if the Reason logically leads to the Claim. If the Reason does not logically lead to the
Claim, then the argument is illogical, and should not be listened to. How does one decide if a
Reasoning leads to a Claim? By mapping the Syllogism. Syllogisms are mathematical in nature,
built off of the idea of Transference (which is itself based on the Rule of Justice). The most basic
Syllogism can be described as if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. If a reader agrees with the first two
statements, the reader must logically agree with the third statement.
Now, if a person made this statement: “A=B, and B=D, therefore, A=C,” is the conclusion logical? No.
Even if the reader agreed with the two basic premises, the premises do not lead to the final Claim,
and therefore the reader shouldn’t listen to the statement. Therefore, the next step is to determine if
the Claims given lead to the argument the same way we determined if the Reasons led to the claims. If
they do not, then the reader should not listen to the argument.
Example: “You should kill this man because one of his friends killed another human, and killing
people means you deserve death.”
Analysis: This is an ineffective statement because the Syllogism, while existing, doesn’t
actually lead to the main claim. The Syllogism goes as such: This man’s friend killed another
human (A=B), killing people earns one death (B=C), therefore, this man deserves death (D=C).
Regardless if the speaker could prove that this man’s friend killed someone, and
regardless of one’s beliefs on the Claim, this statement is illogical, because the two Claims
don’t actually lead to the main Argument.
Step 3: Do the Claims support the Argument?
Every argument involves Claims, which are unprovable opinions the speaker believes the listener can
be convinced to agree with, and are usually some version of the (B=C) part of the Syllogism. Most
Claims are ones that almost everyone believes (like Warrants), to some degree or another, and they can
be used as Evidence because the speaker knows that the audience will agree with that Claim. If they
aren’t ones the audience already believes, the the speaker will spend time trying to prove them to the
audience through Reasonings. When used correctly, they guide the audience from the Reasoning to the
Main Claim or Argument. The part of Claims that can be abused, however, is that they are often
unstated. People generally do not feel the need to explicitly state their Claims because they simply
assume everyone will agree with them anyway. Normally, this is fine, but there exists the possibility
to manipulate the audience by including a Claim the audience doesn’t know they actually don’t
agree with. If a Claim itself is illogical, then any conclusions based off of it are themselves illogical,
and should not be listened to. To list every illogical Claim would be a waste of everyone’s time, so see
the “Fallacy Worksheet” for more specifics.
Example: This man deserves to die because he stabbed someone, and later that person died,
therefore this man is responsible for that person’s death.
Analysis: The Syllogism for this is: This man hurt someone, who later later died (A=B), all
things that happen after something else are caused by that thing (B=C), therefore this man
caused someone else’s death (C=D), and people should be punished similarly to their actions
(D=E), therefore this man should be killed (A=E). Disregarding the moral argument of
commensurate punishment, this argument is fallacious (post hoc, ergo proctor hoc) because
it is based on an illogical Claim: that all things that happen after something are caused by
that thing. That is something one simply cannot believe, because then every person on
earth would be to blame for every murder that happened after his or her birth. Might the
stab have caused the death? Certainly, however this argument doesn’t show that, and therefore
the argument is illogical and shouldn’t be listened to. The stab could have happened years
before the death and be entirely unrelated. Without the proper Evidence proving that they
are connected, this remains illogical, and shouldn’t be listened to.
Step 4: Is the Evidence Sufficient?
The next step, and arguably the hardest: Is the Evidence itself sufficient for the scope of the Claim?
This is a hard question to answer, but generally we consider “sufficient” Evidence to be that which
accurately leads to the Claim it is meant to support while not providing too many other possible
explanations for its findings. How stringent the Evidence needs to be depends on how serious or allencompassing the Argument is. For instance, if I said that some dogs bite people sometimes, then
showed a video of a dog biting a human, that would probably be sufficient evidence for the claim. All
one needs for that claim is one example of a dog biting a human in order to make it logically
convincing. However, if I tried to use that Evidence to argue that all dogs are dangerous to society, and
therefore should be put down, and I showed one video of a dog biting someone, then the evidence
would be woefully insufficient as Evidence for that Claim. So we can see that the scope of the Main
Claim determines the amount of evidence necessary.
Example: This man should be put to death by the state. He has killed someone, and we have
several eyewitness testimonies of the murder along with the defendant’s signed statement
admitting to the murder as a crime of passion. This man is clearly full of homicidal tendencies,
and the only way that we can protect the public is to put him to death as soon as possible. If we
release him, he will kill more innocents, and if we keep him in prison, he will kill other
inmates. The longer we wait, the more lives we put on the line.
Analysis: This argument is illogical, because one murder of passion does not prove in any sense
that a man is hopelessly homicidal or is a danger to society. The Evidence is strong enough to
support the Reasoning of him having committed a murder, but it is not enough to suggest
that he is beyond rehabilitation, and therefore not enough to suggest that he should be
killed. This is an illogical argument that shouldn’t be listened to.
Step 5: Is the Evidence Strong?
Next, the Evidence itself must be logically sound, and the method of procuring the Evidence must
be logically acceptable as well. Almost every single argument that exists has some kind of Evidence
for it, and what happens when two contradicting arguments both have evidence supporting them?
Evidence, like anything else, can be illogical itself, and can be based on flawed research methods or
faulty premises. Therefore, Evidence needs to make sure that it manages to prove to the audience that
the situation being presented is similar to the situation being argued. How does evidence prove
similarity? Through acceptable sample size, proper methodology, claims that are within the
bounds of its evidence, and logical conclusions. Sample size is very important, because without
enough subjects to suggest that the conclusion would be applicable to the group one is arguing toward,
one cannot make conclusions with any certainty. Even more so, if the evidence given isn’t of proper
sample size to prove similarity, then making broad conclusions based on it as if it were is illogical,
and those conclusions shouldn’t be listened to. An unbiased reader should have a clear idea of what is
absolutely unacceptable as a sample size, based on common sense. Proper methodology is equally, if
not more, important to proving similarity. If a study has been undertaken in an improper way, then
its conclusions are forfeited, it is illogical, and we shouldn’t listen to it. How can methodologies be
flawed? There’s countless ways, but the largest one would be attempting to prove causation with
correlation. If a study proves correlation, then that is all that it has proven. It has not proven
causation, and anyone arguing that it has is arguing illogically based on flawed Claims. The other
two requirements were already discussed above. Suffice it to say that Evidence must be put under the
same level of logical scrutiny as the Syllogisms they support.
Example: This man should be put to death by the state. He has admitted to killing multiple
people, and shows no desire to stop. Additionally, we cannot keep him in solitary confinement
because he continues to kill the guards who feed him. Also, my sister saw a picture of him, and
she said he “didn’t seem like the kind of guy who can change,” so we know that keeping him in
prison will never rehabilitate him. I move for this man to be executed by the state at the earliest
convenience.
Analysis: The methodology of this evidence was flawed because it wasn’t conducted by an
expert, and therefore its conclusions are illogical, and shouldn’t be listened to. Therefore,
the Claim of “This man cannot be rehabilitated” is flawed, and shouldn’t be listened to, and the
Claim of “We should only execute those murderers who will never change” cannot come into
effect because the idea that he cannot be changed is not proven. Therefore, the Argument that
this man should be killed is illogical, and shouldn’t be listened to.
Conclusion:
What we have gone over is far from an exhaustive checklist of what an argument must go through in
order to be considered “logical,” and therefore be given careful consideration (or, listened to), but it
will serve as a start. When analyzing an argument, ask yourself if this argument satisfies all of
these requirements to the best of your ability to determine. If it does, then this argument is
logical, and should be listened to (if not agreed with). That doesn’t mean that it will definitely
persuade someone to change his or her mind, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it will convince
someone to take action on the topic, but if an argument is logically sound, it should at the very least be
seriously considered, and should cause someone who disagrees with it to question his or her previously
held beliefs. Don’t allow yourself to, when presented with a logical argument that disagrees with
you, immediately disregard it simply because you disagree with it. On the other hand, avoid
becoming the kind of person who changes his or her mind the very moment a new logical
argument comes up. Rather, compare new logical arguments that disagree with you to logical
arguments you agree with, decide for yourself which is the more logical argument, then believe
that.
Example: This man needs to be executed by the state. He has spent his life killing innocent
people, and we have extensive forensic evidence and his own testimonies admitting to those
murders as proof. While in prison, he has repeatedly attacked and murdered other inmates and
the guards themselves without provocation. Several psychologists specializing in Criminal
Psychology and Rehabilitation have deemed him entirely beyond rehabilitation, and even after
all of these years, he expresses no remorse for his actions. To protect the lives of other inmates
and guards, we must end this man’s life, because if we do not, he will find ways to continue
killing, and every day we leave him alive is another day we risk the life of another human being
taken. We have no other effective means of protecting the lives of others than to end his.
Analysis: This argument is logical, though not as effective as it could be. The Syllogism goes as
such: This man will continue to kill unless his life is ended (A=B), we need to protect the
innocent (B=C), and therefore he must be killed (A=C). The first point is made through
Precedent, which logically suggests that if he’s spent his life killing, and he hasn’t changed, then
he will continue killing. There is sufficient evidence given to prove that he has killed, and if the
man himself admitted to it, then most readers would have to accept that step. The author then
shows the similarity of the past to the present through his lack of remorse. The claim that he
hasn’t changed is made through Expert Opinion, and since these several experts have spent their
lives studying criminals, the audience should believe their conclusions on the man’s mental
state unless counter evidence is brought up later. Therefore, if he has killed in the past, and
nothing has changed, it is logical to conclude that he will keep killing. The Claim of protecting
the innocent is invoked through the Example of the guards being killed, as it is logical to
assume that we don’t want to risk their lives for a murderer’s. Some may disagree with the
Claim, but most would believe that guards in prisons are not worthy of death, and if they had to
choose between the two (which is suggested through the Antithesis of the innocent vs the
guilty), they would choose the lives of the innocents. While this argument will not work on
some because of its failures to effectively argue that the only way to protect those lives is to kill
him, it gives sufficient evidence of a logical nature so as to make it one that people should
carefully consider, even if they disagree and will build their own arguments against it later.
Therefore, from a Logos perspective, this argument is effective. However, it is missing effective
appeals to Ethos and Pathos, and lacks effective Prolepsis, so it is doubtful that this argument
would change anyone’s mind on the topic.
Homework: Analyze one of these arguments, and decide if it is rhetorically effective or ineffective.
You do not have to analyze every aspect of the argument, but rather you can simply choose one
Rhetorical Strategy, appealing effectively or ineffectively to Logos, and show how it either makes
it so the audience should or shouldn’t listen to the Main Claim, and then argue how strongly the
audience would either agree or disagree with the Main Claim because of it.
Practice questions: NOTE: YOU ONLY HAVE TO ANALYZE ONE OF THESE TOPICS, AND
THE SECOND TOPIC DEALS WITH A SENSITIVE TOPIC THAT YOU MAY NOT FEEL
COMFORTABLE THINKING ABOUT OR ANALYZING. IF YOU FEEL THAT IS THE CASE,
I WOULD HEAVILY SUGGEST ANALYZING TOPIC ONE.
Topic 1:
Mario is a better mascot than Link. Hands down. It’s not even a question at this point. Here’s a list of
what makes a good mascot from justbusinesstips.com. The first attribute of a good mascot is attention
grabbing (par. 1). I mean, just think about Nintendo and who’s the first one who pops into your head?
That’s right Mario! With those iconic blue overalls, that sexy red shirt, that dapper red cap, and that big,
luscious, bushy mustachio. I’ll admit that Link catches the attention too, I guess. He cuts a strong
figure, with an immediately identifiable silhouette, especially if we’re talking about like Twilight
Princess or Breath of the Wild Link. However, he can’t compare to Mario’s simple yet profound design
that just grabs the eye. The second attribute is likability (par. 2). I mean, come on, that just screams
Mario. With his adorable little plump and short body. He’s both non-threatening and inviting. He’s
everyone’s fun uncle. Link, on the other hand, is constantly scowling. He’s got this “I just farted but I’m
trying to pretend it was someone else” face on, and he’s never excited about anything. Talk about a wet
blanket! Number three is confidence (par. 3). Mario’s got that in spades! From his iconic “It’sa’ me,
Mario!” line establishing his unerring belief in his own self-worth and identity, to his “Let’sa’ go!”
catchphrase telling everyone that he’s got this, he exudes confidence whether he’s got fifty lives and a
star or if he’s got one life in his little person mode. Now that’s not to take anything away from Link.
He’s definitely equal to Mario when it comes to confidence, and I would call this one a tie. The way he
never shirks from battle, never questions himself in the midst of chaos and conflict, and never even
reacts to the most terrifying of enemies tells us he’s the best of the best when it comes to confidence.
Next comes Colorfulness (par. 4). Now once again, we talked about Mario’s iconic Red and Blue
design. He’s got two of the three primary colors, telling everyone that he’s original and doesn’t settle for
anything besides first place. The red signifies “energy, . . . strength, power, determination as well as
passion, desire, and love (Color Wheel Pro par. 1), while the blue signifies “trust, loyalty, wisdom,
confidence, intelligence, faith, truth, and heaven” (par. 17). So Mario’s coloring is both eye-catching,
iconic, and deeply spiritually meaningful. While Link is just . . . Green. I mean sure, he’s got some dirt
brown in there, but it’s mostly just green. And I guess, maybe, green is also a primary color, but I mean
come on. Mario’s got TWO primary colors and how many does Link got? Yea that’s right, one. Weak.
Also, green signifies “ambition, greed, and jealousy” and “cowardice, discord, and jealousy” (par. 16).
So, you know, no comparison. Easy win for Mario.
We’re just gonna’ blow through the rest of them because I’m wasting way too much time doing this.
Five is a tangible personality. Mario. Easy. He likes Spaghetti! What more do you’a’ want’a’!? What’s
Link’s personality? Yeah that’s right, he doesn’t have one. Come at me Legend of Zelda fans! Six is that
he’s fun. Have you seen Mario’s mustache!? Dude’s got fun falling out of his linguine-filled pockets.
Link’s as much fun as a root-canal, and at least your dentist will actually talk during it. Eight or maybe
seven is that he’s larger than life. Tie there, I guess. Eight is that he uses props. Mario’s got mushrooms,
but I gotta’ admit Link wins this one because he’s got fifty-thousand different weapons, so there’s that.
Nine is some attitude. Mario Mario has this one. Guy’s got attitude. You know what the attitude is?
Enthusiasm! Whoooooo! Who doesn’t love someone who’s ready for anything and literally never
knows when not to just be way too happy about everything!? What’s Link’s attitude? No one knows,
because HE NEVER TALKS! Ten is that the mascot reflects the crowd. Link’s an elf, and an Aryan (sus
if you ask me). No one looks like him. He’s this ethereal creature we can never understand BECAUSE
HE NEVER TALKS. Mario, he’s fat. And short. Just like me. Just like all Americans (and America is
all that matters). We love him, because he tells us that even if we’re overweight, we can still crush small
reptiles with our weight.
Last one wasn’t on there, but it should be. Everyone should know a mascot’s name. You show people a
picture of Mario, they’re gonna’ say it’s Mario. Heck, you show them a picture of Luigi, and they’re
gonna’ say it’s Mario (sorry ‘uigi, you’re still my guy!). You show people a picture of Link and they’re
gonna’ be like “Oh yea I know that chick. That’s Zelda.” Checkmate, Zelda—oops, I mean Link, fans!
Given all of these very clear criteria, reasonings, and FACTS, I think it’s clear that Mario is the superior
mascot to Link. Choose Mario over Link in this one, or else you’ll make the kids sad. You don’t want to
make the kids sad, do you?
Analysis:
Topic 2:
We have a huge problem in America. Statistics based on surveys done by the National Sexual Violence
Resource Center (NSVRC) show that sexual assault is on the rise since 1993, including an estimation
of 738,630 threatened, attempted, or completed rapes in 2018 (NSVRC par. 4), compared to when it
was previously at its highest of 630,000 in 1993 (RAINN par. 1). Additionally, the NSVRC has found
that while self-reports of sexual violence are increasing, police reports are decreasing (par. 6). Other
statistics groups agree that sexual violence has been steadily on the rise since 2013 (Statistia par. 1). So
what could be causing this rise in sexual assault? While there are surely many factors, can we dismiss
entirely that the widespread use of pornography is one of them?
Of course, Porn access and use in America is always increasing (Pornhub par. 3), and while correlation
does not equal causation, it should cause us to wonder why the correlation exists. Is there a logical
reason that the increase in Pornography would be at least one of the factors contributing to the rise of
sexual assault?
Yes. Countless studies have been performed by reputable scientists tying male viewing of
mainstream porn with problematic views of women:
Content analyses have revealed pornography to be high in both sexually objectifying images of
women (Dr. McKee from University of Glasgow in the Journal of Sex Research, 2005) and
verbal and physical aggression toward women (Dr. Sun from Wesleyan University, Dr. Bridges
from University of Arkansas, Dr. Wosnitzer from New York University, Dr. Scharrer from
University of Massachusetts, & Dr. Liberman from University of Colorado, Sage Journals,
2010). Adolescent boys who consume higher levels of pornographic media tend to hold beliefs
that women are sex objects (Dr. Peter & Dr. Valkenburg from University of Amsterdam, 2009)
and be more adherent to traditional masculine ideals in pursuing relationships with women [i.e.,
they tend to be more likely to objectify women and focus on appearance over personality traits.]
In addition, mainstream pornography typically presents women as props for male sexual
pleasure. Dr. Vega and Dr. Malamuth (in Wiley Online Library, 2007) found that pornography
use interacted with hostile masculinity and antisocial behaviors in predicting men’s sexual
aggression toward women, even when controlling for other contributing factors (qtd. in Dr.
Mikorski and Dr. Szymanski 259).
Even experts arguing for female empowerment through pornographic use focus almost entirely on
queered, female-only pornographic examples for their points (Fritz and Paul par. 1), which make up a
very small amount of the total pornographic videos on the Internet. The majority of pornography men
(who are committing the majority of sexual assault) are consuming is inundated with these images of
sexual objectification, and the experts in the previous paragraph have found that viewing those images
make men more likely to be sexually aggressive with woman and see them as objects.
All of this information (which is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the amount of
studies done corroborating their findings), while certainly concerning, still only suggest a correlation
between viewing pornography and a propensity toward seeing women as objects and sexually
assaulting them. After all, it could be that men who are prone to objectifying and/or assaulting women
are simply also more likely to watch pornography, right?
Well, “Dr. Millburn, Dr. Mather, and Dr. Conrad (2000) found that exposing men to sexually
objectifying media clips made them less likely to express empathy toward a hypothetical rape victim”
(qtd. in Mikorski and Szymanski 257). And, in a study by the University of Edinburgh, Dr. Casey
Bevens and Dr. Steve Loughnan found that “objectification and human nature [seeing women as
human] were found to be significant predictors of rape proclivity” (par. 30). Alongside them, Dr. Laurie
A. Rudman and Dr. Kris Mescher from Rutgers University presented “direct support” for the belief that
“dehumanizing women” and “male sexual aggression” are aligned through a study that “demonstrate[d]
that men who implicitly dehumanize women (as either animals or objects) are also likely to sexually
victimize them” (par. 13). These studies prove that there is evidence of pornography consumption
causing objectification and increased chances of sexual aggression.
What we see here is no longer correlation, but causation. According to these studies, Porn
viewing causes men to objectify women, and men who objectify women are more likely to commit
sexual violence against them. Therefore, it is logical to believe that viewing of mainstream
pornography is one of the causes of the rise of sexual assault against women in the US, which means
that it is detrimental to their overall treatment.
Listen, I’m not saying we should stop all Porn sites immediately, or that we need to make Porn
illegal, but this is a subject that needs careful consideration, and more studies should be done to
determine just how much causation there is between porn viewership and the objectification and/or
sexual assault of women. If it is determined that there is heavy causation between them, or that
pornography is one of the leading causes of objectification and/or sexual assault of women, then we
need to ask ourselves exactly one question: Is it worth it?
Analysis:
Works Cited
“Color Meaning.” Color Wheel Pro.com. Web.
Fritz, N., Paul, B. “From Orgasms to Spanking: A Content Analysis of the Agentic and Objectifying
Sexual Scripts in Feminist, for Women, and Mainstream Pornography.” Sex Roles 77, 639–652
(2017). Web.
Jeremy. “10 Characteristics of a Good Mascot.” Justbussinesstips.com. 2018. Web.
Mikorski, R., & Szymanski, D. M. “Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and men’s
sexual objectification of women.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4) (2017). 257–267.
Web.
NSVRC. “Statistics.” NSVRC.com. 2018. Web
Pornhub. “Celebrating 10 years of Pornhub.” Pornhub.com. Web.
RAINN. “Scope of the Problem: Statistics.” RAINN.com. 2016. Web
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of Animals and Objects: Men’s Implicit Dehumanization of
Women and Likelihood of Sexual Aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–
746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436401
Statista. “Reported forcible rape rate in the United States from 1990 to 2018.” Statista.com. 2018. Web.
Toulmin and Analysis
The Toulmin Method, created by Stephen E. Toulmin, is a form of argumentative summary that can be
used to better understand an argument and therefore produce an informed rhetorical analysis on said
argument. On its own, the Toulmin method does not analyze, but I believe you’ll agree that the Toulmin
Method aids analysis quite powerfully once you get the hang of it. Granted, the Toulmin Method is
rather hard to initially understand, but once one becomes familiarized with it, there’s no better method
of understanding an argument.
If you look up the Toulmin method online, you’ll be met with countless explanations that are all rather
confusing (although if this guide doesn’t help, feel free to try to find one that does), and hopefully this
one will be a bit more in-depth. To begin with, though there are six parts of the Toulmin Method, for
our intents and purposes, we will only need three of them. Why is that, you may ask? Well, the first
three steps of the Toulmin Method—Claims, Reasonings (or grounds), and Warrants—are the
fundamental parts of it, and the last three—Backing, Qualifier, and Rebuttal—are more auxiliary, and
can be just as easily explained through rhetorical strategies. Plus, the complicated nature of Toulmin
becomes ever so much more so when all aspects of it are considered. With that in mind, focusing on
only the Claims, Reasonings, and Warrants will narrow our focus and hopefully make a rather difficult
subject more or less easy to understand. So, with all of that being said, let’s begin at the beginning.
Claims: Every argument has Claims, because they are necessary for an argument to be considered an
argument. Claims are simply what the author is attempting to convince you of. If the author
attempts to convince you of something, then that thing is a Claim. Some methods of summary (like
PACES) pretend that the author’s Main Argument (or Main Claim in Toulmin) and his or her SubArguments (or Claims in Toulmin), are somehow fundamentally different from one another. In
actuality, the Main Argument is just another Claim, and the only difference between the two is that the
Main Claim is the only Claim that isn’t used to support another Claim.
In general, Claims are very easy to recognize and understand. Just look for what the author is trying to
convince you of, and it will be there. Here’s an example:
“We need to get off of this island, okay? We’re running out of food and water, and the mutant jellyfish
are growing bolder by the day. And I say that boat is our only bet at freedom.”
In that example there are two Claims (One could argue for four, but we’ll save that for the discussion on
Reasonings. The first Claim is that they need to get off of the Island. We know it’s a claim because it
has to be supported and it can be reasonably disagreed with. The speaker then gives two reasons for
why they need to get off of the island. One would imagine that the listeners would not be able to
disagree with the Reasonings (unless the speaker were being deceitful, but let’s give him or her the
benefit of the doubt), because they are statements of fact. If the listeners agree with the Reasonings,
they will likely agree with the Claim that they need to get off of the island. The speaker then uses that
Claim to lead to a new Claim: that they should use the boat. The Main Claim of this small argument
would be that they should use the boat, but you’ll notice it’s not functionally different from the other
Claim. They’re both opinions the speaker attempts to persuade the listener to agree with. However,
Claims are almost worthless without Reasonings.
Reasonings (or Grounds if you’re a heretic): Reasonings are also rather simple to identify and
understand. Every time someone wants to convince you of something, that person should have to tell
you why you should listen to him or her. That’s all Reasonings are: Why you should agree with the
Claims being presented. Not every argument has Reasonings, but every good argument does.
Someone could simply say “You need to give me a hundred dollars,” but unless you are a fool (or have
some sort of previously established agreement to give that person a hundred dollars), you would either
say “No” or “Why?” Every good argument needs an answer to that question: Why? And the
effectiveness of an argument will more often than not be decided primarily by how persuasively the
autho
