elements of argument

brief overview
prepared by dr. bonnie lenore kyburz
 "good faith" argument
I must first recommend Kenneth Burke's highly laudable and decorated book, A
Rhetoric of Motives. I will refer to it throughout the semester, and, here, for a
guiding conceptualization of "good faith" rhetoric that we recognize through
conventional elements of argument and how they are used. Burke proclaims that
rhetoric ...

                ... is not rooted in any past condition of human society. 
                It is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a
                function that is wholly realisitic, and is continually born
                anew; the use of language as a symbolic means of
                inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to
                symbols. (43)

 
 simplistic? too reductive?
                                    Burke endeavors to bring "rhetoric" to essentials ... and
                                    then to re-animate our understanding of how
                                    complicated it can be.

        ... the resources of identification whereby a sense of consubstantiality is

        symbolically established between beings of unequal status may extend far
        into the realm of the idealistic. [...] out of this idealistic element there may 
        arise a kind of magic or mystery that sets its mark upon all human 
        relations. (46)

For Burke, "identification" and "consubstantiality" are essential methods by which

we achieve an ability to cooperate symbolically. But what of that "magic" and
"mystery"? Can we not achieve cooperation with a simpler, more mathematical
precision? Not likely. Still, we identify "elements of argument" that may move our
language projects along ...
  claims (assertions of truth value)
keep in mind that claims are contextualized within a
specific argument. what, then,does the image @ left 
suggest about the ethics of claim-making?

1.) Must have probability of being true
(otherwise, we are not moving productively
toward any kind of "truth.")
 
2.) Must not be merely fact (otherwise, why
bother?)
3.) Must not be merely statements of opinion
(i.e., statements of faith).  Editing exercise:
Highlight “I think,” “I feel,” and “I believe”
statements. Delete them, and you have a
claim, for which you will need to provide
evidence.
4.) Must be arguable (this is the "d" or "all of
the above" category)
evidence
Inartistic proofs:  are enacted as rhetorical strategies used to
It's not that we don't call upon our aesthetics or
artistic sensibilities to use them, but we more
often than not see them as "unassailable"
(which they are not). However, inartistic proofs
have dominated with their claims to objectivity
and include the rhetorical use of knowledge
gained via observation or research. Inartistic
proofs are “external” in that they derive from
information gathered rather than “invented,”
such as , facts, reports, data, empirical
evidence, and other forms of “objective”
knowledge. associated with inductive
reasoning.
 
 Artistic proofs: 
I'm guessing that we like these. Artistic proofs
deliver an argument. An argument must be
created; it is driven by an “internal” logic that
emerges from the rhetor’s angle of vision and
emergent position (a position that is earned via
research, dialogue, peer response, reflection,
drafting, and revision). Artistic proofs are
invention-driven, creative, and often articulate
via figurative language or open-form prose.
Artistic proofs include the appeals: ethos,
pathos & logos, which do not wholly define
rhetoric or argument but are strategically
considered and possibly articulated within the
context of an argument.
 
reasons
Reasons are not essential to an argument, but they often add additional
support. They may provide room for insinuating a certain ethos for your
argument by using some of the methods described under "inartistic
proofs." Reasons answer the “why?” question implicit in a claim; thus, they
often lead off with "because." For example, 

        “we should walk more often because it is better for our health." 

Here, the reason is in bold and speaks to the claim that precedes it.
 warrants
Warrants provide a wonderful opportunity to evolve your ethos. Burke's
essential concern for "identification" is often addressed with a warrant.
Warrants do the rhetorical work of:

        1.) Explicitly or implicitly articulating the values, assumptions,

             and biases informing a position. You can probably imagine how 
             this helps to generate identification and consubstantiality but also
             how it liberates the rhetor to a position of comfort in working
             from her "truth." Thus, a warrant ...

        2.) ... situating the rhetor relative to her position.

 counterargument
using what we  know about how humans communicate to: anticipate objections, head off rejection of our
argument, and go in for the delightful WIN!

refutation

concession 1.) Questions, problematizes, deconstructs,

invalidates, or otherwise weakens positions
in opposition to her own.
1.) Summarizes and concedes validity of
alternative arguments. 2.) Exposes weakness of alternative
positions, often by pointing out logical
2.) Positions the rhetor as broad-minded, fallacies.
as having examined all possible
alternatives. 3.) Surfaces weakness of opposition's
position by  demonstrating the superior
3.) Performs the rhetor's “fair” ethos. nature of rhetor’s position (with reasons,
evidence, warrants, and all manner of
4.) Assists the rhetor in finding favor with artistic proofs -- this is sometimes
her audience, even when/if they may performed in a conclusive flourish that can
disagree. resonate as "podium banging" or artful
sophistication).

 see this helpful guideline to counterargument from Davis Oldham, Shoreline Community College.