Classical model
The classical argument originated in ancient Greece in 5th century B.C. This is based on logical syllogism, a form of argument that consists of two-part premise and a conclusion. The classical model, in its formal form, has six components. The two-part premise of syllogism is delivered by the introduction and background. What follows is the detailed proof of the proposition. This proof includes number of reasons, each supported by evidence. The arguer then considers the possible refutations to her argument, answers them and tries to convince that her position is the only acceptable one. The last part is the conclusion. This summarizes the whole debate and closes the argument. Here arguer makes emotional (ethos) and logical (logos) appeals to the audience. If the argument is that “I deserve a better grade on this paper”, the most probable exploitation will lie in the conclusion. Here, more than logical reasoning, almost any individual will make use of ethos and pathos (appeal to sympathy). Even in the long background one may be able to trap the reader in emotional appeal.
Toulmin Model
Toulmin Model can be understood as a refined form of classical model. Toulmin model has three primary components. These are the claim, the support and the warrant. Claim is like proposition in the classical model, the statement or position that one wants to prove. Toulmin criticizes the classical premise of an argument that tends to over-generalize the situation (Toulmin 100). So the Toulmin argument will not give any background for the argument. The support is the data or evidence to convince the reader to accept the claim. The third part of the Toulmin’s model is warrant. A warrant is a supposition or assumption that connects the claim and support. Warrant is widely held belief or value that is assumed to be shared between the arguer and the audience. This is not stated explicitly, but presumed. In the argument “I deserve a better grade on this paper”, the arguer might give a reason that she worked hard. The warrant in this case is that “Working hard deserves a better grade”. If the audience altogether rejects the warrant, the claim is no more stable regardless of the evidence. There is strong possibility that audience accepted the argument without evaluating the warrant. Here the possible exploitation lies. Almost always the audience falls to the trap of warrant and tends to accept the argument as it is.
Rogerian Model
The Rogerian model differs in its structure such that it lists the opposing viewpoints before the arguer’s own point. It starts with the introduction and then tries to convey the message that it respects the other views. Then after stating one’s own position, the arguer tries to demonstrate how one’s position might be better than others. In this part it appeals to self interest, or common values or principles to convince the audience. Before the argument “I deserve a better grade”, the arguer would try to convey that she knew the paper was not up to the expectations of her instructor, and that working hard might not always deserve a better grade. In this process the arguer tends to build a “conversation relationship” that obviously appeals to emotion of the audience and there lies the trap. The Rogerian model is peculiar in a way that it does not seem to try to ‘win’ in any situation (Brent 73-96). It also considers the situation where opposing viewpoints might work. The arguer might say that “This may be right that working hard does not always deserve a better grade, but that is for a class where everyone is working hard.” Rogerian model tends to avoid the debate that revolves around a single argument. It considers opposing arguments and accepts the situations where those might work. It engages into an ongoing debate and then states a new opinion.
Bibliography
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Brent, Douglas. Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric. In Argument Revisited, Argument Redefined: Negotiating Meaning in the Composition Classroom. ed. Barabara Emmel, Paula Resch, and Beborah Tenny. Sage, 1996. pp. 73-96.