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.
object to2.3 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 th
e 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.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。