ARGUMENTATIVE

COMMUNICATION

PRESENTED BY: BSED FILIPINO 1-1 GROUP 3

 The Group 3 Reporters are
Ms. Rochelle Joy Saguit Ms. Jamaica Paraguya

Ms. Mariel Arancana Ms. Shella Mae Moralde

Mr. Kenneth Española Ms. Christine Danila

Mr. Jake Lagrosa Mr. Joshua Luzon

Ms. Jeny Vivian Buagas

OVERVIEW:
This lesson will provide the student with a clear definition of
argumentative communication, knowing its type and components.

Learning Objectives:
At the end of the lessons, you should be able to
• Determine the meaning, the importance, the purposes and the components of argumentative
communication
• Recognize and understand inherent weaknesses in fallacies.
• Differentiate the three purposes of communication.
• Value the learnings gained from our discussion;
• Answer the questions given by reporters or teachers.
With 85% of proficiency
CONTENTS ON OUR DISCUSSIONS:
• What is Argumentative Communication?
• The Five highly relevant characteristics of Argument
• Why Argue?
• What is an Argumentative Personality?
• What’s the differences between Argument and Logic?
• How does Oral Argument differs from Written Argument?
• Types of Argument and their Importance
• Avoid the following on an Argumentative Communication
• How to avoid Logical Fallacies?
• Effective Argumentation Strategy
What is Argumentative Communication?

 Modern approach to making decisions considers real argumentations

where rational communicators do the best they can to justify their
standpoints in a certain context.

 This is considered to be argumentative communication, the art of

persuading based on reason, on facts and not emotions. It considers the
following:
Debating: explaining reasons (thesis) why a certain theory can (or cannot)
be considered persuading.

Argumenting: persuading the audience to support the speaker’s thesis.

Audience: it’s the core focus around which an effective debate is conceived
and formulated.
There are five highly relevant characteristics of arguments:
1. Argumentation is a social process. Having an argument involves two or more
individuals responding to one another’s claim and support for such a claim.
2. Argumentation aims to gain adherence from an audience. People argue to
gain assent for their positions. Argumentation is a listener and audience-oriented
activity even if the audience is just one person.
3. Argument is an art. As an art. Argument has techniques and general principles,
therefore is a learned craft.
4. Argument involves contested issues. As a mode of influence, argument has
persuasion as a central goal. Argument does not occur where there is consensus.
5. Argument fills much of our lives. Whether we recognize so or not, argument
dominates our lives.
Why Argue?

Why do we argue with one another? What is the intention?

How do we know when we have “won” or “lost” an argument?
What happens then? In is unit, we explore the functions and
purposes of argument to reveal the deeper reasons we engage
in this complex, frequently stressful activity and what we can
gain by having an enhanced perspective on it.
These are the aims or purposes that argument helps us accomplish:
1. To clarify thinking as individual or groups. Oftentimes, individuals
and groups do not know what they believe but are still faced with
information that requires interpretation.
2. To explain or defend actions or beliefs. Argument seeks to shed
light on those reasons and make them explicit and open to scrutiny.
3. To solve problems or make judgments. Argument helps facilitate
decision-making about what actors should and should not do.
4. To have fun. Participating in the clash of ideas can be an
intellectually stimulating process that is primarily pleasurable.
(source: University of
Pittsburgh)
5. To inquire. Forming our opinions or questioning those we
already have.
6. To convince. Gaining assent from others through case-
making. We seek an earned opinion, achieved through careful
thought, research, and discussion.
7. To persuade. Moving others to action through rational,
emotional, personal, and stylistic appeals.
8. To negotiate. Exploring differences of opinion in the hope
of reaching agreement and/or cooperation.
(source: Mt. Hood Community
College)
What is Argumentative Personality?

We must not be mistaken thinking that argumentative communication is

communication of argumentative person, meaning arguing or fighting with others.

Some people;
 Argue out of habit
 Always need to be right
 Make a fuss about most trivial thins, just to cause conflict
 Always be defensive
What’s the difference between Argument and Logic?
Argument is fundamentally a communicative exercise and is
an audience oriented process, where as logic is more
philosophical endeavor that does not champion persuasion as
primary goal.

In arguments, premises are offered to provide support for

the conclusion. Logic is about whether or not the support is
adequate.
How does Oral Argument differs from Written Argument?
• Speaking of Memory.
In Written Argument, it can be referenced again and again. Titles and subtitles give a
readers a preview of what is to come, aiding comprehension of their reading.
In Oral Argument, the exact phrasing disappears as soon as it is spoken. Consequently,
listeners often understand oral arguments only in fragments rather in their totality.

• Speaking of Physicality.
In Written Argument, generally is clearer. Consequently, the friction that is possible from
verbal interaction plays a large role in understanding.
In Oral Argument, intimately involves the human body. The pitch, rate, gesture and tone of
voices, are all forms of non-verbal communication that introduce the potential for
misunderstanding.
Types of Argument and their Importance:

There are several different types of arguments,

and each type is used in different scenarios.
Understanding the different types of
arguments is important because it allows you
to determine which type is most appropriate in
a given situation. Using the right type of
argument for the given situation will ensure
you get your point across is clear and
confident manner.
1. Causal Argument- used to persuade someone or a
group of people that one thing has caused something else.
2. Rebuttal Argument- centered in refutting an idea or
belief that has been present up until this point in time.
3. Proposal Argument- is one in which a person proposes
a particular solution to a specific issue.
4. Evaluation Argument- is used to evaluate whether a
particular element is “good” or “bad”.
5. Narrative Argument- is an argument in which an
individual states their case by telling a story that illustrates
a point directly related to the argument.
 6. Classical Argument- also known as Aristotle model
in argument is the most common type of argument. In this type, both
sides of an argument are analyzed and one side is proven right using
clear evidence. This efficiently utilizes Ethos (Authenticity)+ Pathos
(Emotion)+ Logos (Logic) to persuade an audience to a side of an
argument.

The structure of the classical argument model is as follow

a. Introduction- hook statement, brief background, thesis statement
b. Body- topic sentence, facts & evidence to prove the argument
c. Counter Argument- opposing arguments, evidence and reasons to
refute the counter arguments.
d. Conclusion- restating the thesis statement, call to action and
concluding remarks.
Scholars today believe
that there is one final
element to the proof:

Mythos: appeals to the

traditions and values of
your culture, legends
and folktales.
 7. Toulmin Argument- It presents only one side of
argument. This model works well when there is no clear truth
or an absolute solution to a problem. It breaks the argument
into 6 basic components.
• Claim- is nothing but a statement.
• Ground- is the reasoning behind the claim.
• Warrant- justifies the claim by making the ground to be
appropriate.
• Backing- gives additional support to the warrant.
• Qualifier- It restricts the comprehensiveness of the claim.
Another alternative is Reservation. It is a term which might
state that the claim is incorrect.
• Rebuttal- Even in a perfectly stated argument there is still
can use counter argument.
 Example:
Women make excellent administrators (claim)
Women are multitasking and are good organizers (grounds)
Women mostly are good listeners and are more sensitive in approaching
problems. This helps in the smooth functioning of an organization (warrant)
Women today are well educated (backing)
Women are home makers so most of them will have the ability to manage
any organization or country, in a better way (qualifier)
Women can be good administrators unless they are given good education
and exposure (reservation)
If equal exposure is given, women can achieve greater heights (rebuttal)

The Structure:
a. Introduction- thesis statement or the main claim
b. Body- facts & evidence to support arguments.
c. Conclusion- rebuttal of counter arguments.
 8. Rogerian Argument- used to analyze an
argument while providing a middle ground between opposing
parties. This model works on collaboration and cooperation.
It acknowledges that an argument can be looked at from
different standpoints.
The Structure:
a. Introduction- thesis statement
b. Opposing position- acknowledgement that there is another
side of the argument.
c. State your claim- your own perspective about the argument.
d. Provide a middle ground- carefully bring both sides of the
argument together and provide a compromised solution.
e. Conclusion- states the benefits of a compromised solution.
Avoid the following on an argumentative communication:
Lucas (2007) claims that to avoid defective arguments, the following must be
avoided.
1. Defective Evidence
• Misuse of facts
• Statistical fallacies
• Defective testimony
• Inappropriate evidence

2. Defective Patterns of Reasoning

• Evidential fallacies
a. Slippery slope
b. Confusing facts with opinion
c. Red herring
d. Myth of the mean
• Flawed proofs
• Defective Arguments
How to avoid logical fallacies:
To spot logical fallacies, you need a basic understanding of how an argument works.
In logic, an argument is a set of statements where one statement is inferred from the
other (or others). Premises are statements offered to provide evidence for the
conclusion of an argument. Conclusions are statements that are inferred from the
evidence provided. For an argument to be valid or logical, the premises must be
fully support the coclusion. They do this in one of two ways:
1. Using Deductive Reasoning
Here you start with general premises and reach a specific, certain conclusion.
Example:
Premise 1: Trucan Supply decided that, to minimize redundancy costs, it would
limits its layoffs to the New York facility only.
Premise 2: Trucan employee Tom received a layoff notice.
Conclusion: Tom works at the New York facility.
2. Using Inductive Reasoning
Here you start with specific premises and reach a generalized conclusion. This
“bottom-up” logic uses premises to reach a coclusion that is probable, but not certain.
Example:
Premise 1: April promotions over the last five years have increased sales by 15
percent, on average.
Premise 2: Over this period, summer promotions have produced any measurable
increase in sales.
Conclusions: To increase sales, it is better to have this year’s promotion in April rather
than in summer.

To check whether an argument presented to you has a firm grounding logic, apply
these two tests. If it passes, you can be confident that the argument is sound. If it
doesn’t, ask for more information and supporting evidence.
Effective Argumentation Strategies: GASCAP/T

Richard Fulkerson notes that a single strategy is sufficient to make an argument some of the time, but is
is often better to combine several strategies to make an effective argument (Resch & Tenny, 1996). He
organized the argumentative strategies in this way to compare the differences, highlight the similarities,
and allow for their discussion. This model often called its acronym GASCAP. Here we have adapted it,
adding one argument that is often used in today’s speeches and presentations, the argument by testimony.

G-Generalization Whatever is true of a good example or sample will be true of everything like it or the
population it came from.

Example: If you can vote, drive, and die for your country, you should also be allowed to buy alcohol.

Evaluation: STAR system: For it to be reliable, we need a (S) sufficient number of (T) typical, (A)
accurate, and (R ) reliable examples.
A-Analogy Two situations, things or ideas are alike in observable ways and will tend to be alike in many
other ways.

Example: Alcohol is a drug. So is tobacco, they alter perceptions, have an impact physiological and
psychological systems, and are federally regulated substances.

Evaluation: Watch for adverbs that end in “ly”, as they qualify, or lessen the relationship between
examples. Words like “probably”, “maybe”, “could”, “may”, or “usually” all weaken the relationship.

S-Sign Statistics, facts, or cases indicate meaning, much like a stop sign means “stop.”

Example: Motor vehicle accidents involving alcohol occur at significant rates among adults of all ages in
the united states.

Evaluation: Evaluate the relationship between the sign and look for correlation, where the presenter says
what the facts “mean.” does the sign say that? Does it say more? What is not said? Is it relevant?
C-Cause If two conditions always appear together, they are casually related.

Example: The US insurance industry has been significantly involved in state and national legislation
requiring proof of insurance, changes in graduated driver’s licences, and the national change in the
drinking age 18 to age 21.

Evaluation: Watch out for “after the fact, therefore because of the fact” (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)
thinking. There might not be a clear connection., and it might not be the whole picture. Mothers Against
Drunk driving might have also been involved with each example of legislation.

A-Authority What a credible source indicates is probably true.

Example: According to the National Transportation Safety Board, older drivers are increasingly involved
in motor accidents.

Evaluation: Is the source legitimate and is their information trustworthy? Institutes, boards, and people
often have agendas and distinct points of view.
P-Principle An accepted or proper truth

Example: The chane in the drinking age was never put to a vote. It’s not about alcohol, it’s about our
freedom of speech in a democratic society.

Evaluation: Is the principle being invoked generally accepted? Is the claim, data, or warrant actually
related to the principle stated? Are there common exceptions to the principle? What are the practical
consequences of following the principle in this case?

T-Testimony Personal experience

Example: I’ve lost friends from age 18 to 67 to alcohol. Impacts all ages, and its effects are cumulative.
Let me tell you about two friends in particular.

Evaluation: Is the testimony authentic? Is it relevant? Is it representative of other’s experiences? Use the
STAR system to help evaluate the use of testimony.
THIS IS THE END OF OUR
LESSON
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!