2024年3月15日发(作者：)

1. Argument：claim+support+inference



Claim

:

what u want the audience to accept (what they don’t believe yet)

e.g. “ the state should permit euthanasia of terminally ill people ”



support: ideas that the audience accepts as true ( what they already

believe)

which provides foundation for acceptance of the claim

e.g. “ upon death, the terminally ill patient’s physical suffering ceases ”



inference: process of finding the connection between claim and support

e.g. “ since death ends physical suffering and euthanasia hastens the

inevitable death of a terminally ill person, then euthanasia is desirable. This

desirability, in terms of society’s public policy, becomes a reason for the

legalization of euthanasia.”

2. forms of argument

2.1

Simple model

: support→claim

( death ends suffering→legalization of euthanasia)

2.2

Chain model

: support→support/claim→claim

e.g. support/claim: individual’s right to choose to die which should be

respected. (maybe regarded as a claim to be proved, cuz the family and larger

society also have a stake in that person’s decision )

deep-rooted support: individual’s autonomy in decision making is essential

to his humanity.

2.3

Cluster model

: support+support+support→claim

e.g. support 1: individual’s right to choose to live or die should be respected

support 2: upon death, suffering ends

support 3: euthanasia relieves family’s financial burden

claim: euthanasia be legalized.

2.4

Complex model

: chain + cluster model

e.g. support / claim 1: individual’s right to choose to live or die should be

respected; (automony essential to humanity; acc’d to UN declaration of human

rights; consistent with natural law)

support 2: upon death, suffering ends;

support 3: euthanasia relieves family’s financial burden;

claim: euthanasia be legalized.

3. argumentation: the process of convincing the audience which argument is

better.

3.1

Descriptive argumentation

: the nature and definition of things.

e.g. the argumentation over whether euthanasia is murder.

Pro: euthanasia, like murder, is a willful termination of human life, cuz both

involve intentional act that results in the end of another’s life, thus it is euivalent

to murder.

Opp: while there’s similarity between them, murder is not like euthanasia cuz

it occurs without the consent of the person.

3.1.1 Ways of forming descriptive arguments

Differentiation

: place the issue in a general class then differentiate it from the

rest of that class.

e.g. nature/definition of global warming: it is the increase of temparature on

earth’s surface (general class) caused by atmospheric greenhouse effect

(defferentiation)

Example

: nature/ definition of free trade: it allows Nike to export jobs to

developing nations that don’t have strong regulations to protect labor or the

environment.

Analogy: nature/definition of marijuana’s recreational use: compare the

regulation and management on alcohol with marijuana as intoxicants.

Authority

: nature of education: it is foundamental human right cuz it is

identified as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3.1.2 opposing descriptive arguments (tests)

quality of being intrinsic

:

e.g. pro: capital punishment in US is racist.

Opp: the characteristic of racism is not intrinsic to the act of capital

punishment. While it maybe administered in a way that is racially biased, the

racially biased application of it is not an intrinsic characteristic of capital

punishment. It can be practiced in a way that is not racially biased.

quality of thoroughness

: whether all relevant characteristics have been

identified.

e.g. laws to prohibit of use of drugs.

Pro: such laws seek to protect people from activities that maybe harmful.

Opp: such laws not only protect people from themselves but also represent

the expression of a moral opposition to recreational drug use. Thus the

characterization of the laws as exclusively bebenicial is not a sufficiently thorough

description of antidrug laws.

3.2

(causal) relational argumentation:

the ability and likelihood one

phenomenon or event producing another.

e.g. whether making drug use illegal decreases the consumption of those

drugs.

Whether capital punishment deters crime.

Whether violence in the media causes actual violence.

Tip: make causal predictions about what what we believe will happen based on

the information we have.

3.2.1 forming relational arguments

Reduction:

a causal relationship will be reflected in a more narrow

consideration of that same causal relationship.

E.g. harsher penalties for driving while intoxicated would decrease drunk

driving.

Reduction: a person would be less likely to drive drunk if he knew that harsher

penalties will result in more jail time.

E.g. we can motivate consumers to use renewable energy by offering subsidies

that would make it cheaper than non-renewable sources.

Reduction: people are self-interested and greedy and will therefore seek

products that are cheaper.

Analogy

: compare the unknown instance with circumstances that are known.

e.g. creating a public health system would solve the health care crisis in Us.

Analogy: similar measure prove to be effective in Canada and UK.

3.2.2 opposing relational arguments.(test)

Capability

: whether the proposed cause is capable of producing the proposed

effect.

e.g. Pro: capital punishment can deter murder.

Opp: most murders are acts of passion rather than rational intention.

Such detering measure requires the potential criminal to ponder the

consequences of his behavior will fail. Thus capital punishment will not deter

murder.

Quality of being necessary and sufficient:

the presence of exygen is a

necessary cause of combustion, it will not, by itself, produce combustion.

Absense

: without the proposed cause, the effect continues to exist.

e.g. Pro: violence in media products actual violence.

Opp: violence has been a part of human behavior since the dawn of time,

therefore media is not to blame.

Correlativity

: as the cause increases, the effect will simultaneously increase.

e.g. the rates of cancer are lower in cultures whose diets included foods rich in

antioxidants. （抗氧化物）

alternativity

: whether there are other causes capable of producing the same

effect.

e.g. Pro: increase in greenhouse gases was to blame for global warming.

Opp: earth experiences natural cycles of warming and cooling that change the

global climate. Thus the effect of greenhouse gas is suspected.

3.3. evaluative argumentation.

(desirable or undesirable,favorable or unfavorable)

3.3.1 forming evaluative argumentation

Identification of components of evaluation + comparison of those

components

e.g. This house fears the rise of China.

object of evaluation: the rise of China

evaluator: fear

step 1: define the object and evaluator. (descriptive argumentation)

(object) e.g. it may refer to China’s increasing economic influence, its political

authority, or its modernizing military.

(evaluator) e.g. a significant consolidation of power in one nation, unchecked

(未抑制;未核实) by a relatively equal accumulation of power in another, competitor

nation is then in a situation to be feared. （the standard of evaluating the object）

Mode: if an (object ) is (definition of evaluator), then it is (evaluator).

E.g. if a (nation)(consolidates power unchecked by competing nations), then

that nation is to be (feared).

Step 2: compare the object to the standard. (China)

E.g. this house shoulf legalize euthanasia.

Argument 1: it ends the suffering. (if a medical policy minimizes a patient’s

suffering, it should be legalized)

Argument 2: it honors individual aotonomy.(if a medical policy honors an

individual’s autonomy, it should be legalized)

Argument 3: it can avoid further expenses. (if a medical policy minimizes the

financial burden, it should be legalized )

3.3.2 Opposing evaluative arguments

1. challenge the definition of the object under consideration.

( the definition of object is inappropriate or incomplete)

e.g. by defining China’s rise as the development of its economic, political and

military strength is inappropriate. It can be the improved standard of living , access

to previously unavailable economic opportunities, and greater connection to

global community. All these are not to be feared.

2. challenge the standard to evaluate that object.

(the standard is biased or incomplete)

e.g. standard: unchecked accumulation of power.

Opp: incomplete.

By itself, the accumulation of power is inoffensive; only when that power is

exercised aggressively should we fear a nation. If China isn’t using the power

aggressively, then it is not to be feared.

3. challenge the measurement of the object against that standard.

( challenge the proof to measure the object against that standard)

e.g. Pro: china has accumulated unchecked and unrivaled economic, political

and military power.

Opp: China’s intercommunications with the global economy provides a

check on its economic power;

China’s political authority is tempered by other, like western nations that

have equal or greater political power;

China’s military strength is insignificant relative to that of Russia and US,

both of which serve as a balance to any military influence China might enjoy.