1705136632
1705136633
1705136634
1705136635
1705136636
In that example, the claim is that all children under the age of 16 should be required to attend school. The claim is supported by evidence suggesting that people who attend school are less likely to be poorer than people who do not attend school. That evidence might come in the form of a statistic or an empirical study. The evidence does not lead directly to the claim because the argument contains nothing to suggest that requiring children to attend school will have any effect on their actual attendance. Thus, a link is drawn suggesting that laws requiring children to attend school will help ensure their attendance. Such a link probably takes the form of a causal relationship, indicating that certain laws (the cause) lead to more children attending school (effect), as discussed in Chapter 17. That link connects the evidence to the claim in a way that makes the claim plausible. The illustration also contains an exception regarding children who might need to be exempt from attendance because of medical or religious exemptions.
1705136637
1705136638
One subtlety needs to be added to the discussion of the four elements of argument. In many instances, evidence may consist of a previously supported claim. For instance, in the above example regarding education, a debater may have previously constructed a cause and effect argument that had as its claim, “People who attend school are less likely to be poor.” Then, that claim is used in an argument as evidence to support a new claim that “All children under 16 should be required to attend school.”
1705136639
1705136640
Although the above diagrams clearly illustrate how arguments move from evidence to claim via links, very few arguments are ever that simple. For this reason, we have adapted Toulmin’s Model to illustrate a few different argument structures. In addition to the simple argument structure above, other structures include combined and independent arguments. Although they do not even begin to exhaust all potential argument structures, they are some of the more common ones encountered in debate.
1705136641
1705136642
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132501]
1705136643
18.2 Combined Arguments
1705136644
1705136645
A combined argument is one in which two or more bits of evidence are joined to support a claim. When a single piece of evidence is insufficient, it must be combined with another piece of evidence to support the claim. The following diagram illustrates the structure of a combined argument:
1705136646
1705136647
1705136648
1705136649
1705136650
The feature that distinguishes a combined argument from a simple one is that more than one piece of evidence is required to infer the claim. Thus, the above diagram uses two pieces of evidence connected to one another with a plus (+) sign to indicate that both pieces of evidence must be added to one another to get to the claim.
1705136651
1705136652
To illustrate a combined argument, we have chosen a claim that “Nations of the world should reduce their dependence on nuclear power.” The following diagram illustrates the argument:
1705136653
1705136654
1705136655
1705136656
1705136657
That particular argument suggests a claim that nations of the world should reduce their dependence on nuclear power. The claim is supported by two pieces of evidence both of which might come in the form of expert testimony. The first piece of evidence is that nuclear power is a dangerous alternative. Any astute debater would quickly notice that the first piece of evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to support the suggestion to reduce the use of nuclear energy, because so far, the argument has not suggested that safer, less dangerous alternatives exist. Thus, a necessary second piece of evidence, perhaps also in the form of testimony, is introduced: alternative sources of energy are less dangerous than nuclear power. Neither of the two pieces of evidence alone supports the claim. The claim is only supported when a debater successfully produces both pieces of evidence.
1705136658
1705136659
Then, to fully support the claim, a link is added to suggest that safer alternatives should replace dangerous ones. The claim results from a combination of two pieces of evidence that are then linked to the claim. In some instances, the debater may not wish to hold to this claim in all circumstances. In those situations, the debater may suggest an exception such as the one presented in the illustration.
1705136660
1705136661
The unique feature of the combined argument structure is that the arguer produces a collection of evidence that, if taken together, supports the claim. The structure of the argument is such that the audience must believe all of the evidence in order to support the argument. If the debater fails to convince the audience of even one piece of evidence, the entire argument structure falls. On the other hand, using the next argument structure—the independent argument—any single piece of evidence can provide sufficient support for the argument.
1705136662
1705136663
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132502]
1705136664
18.3 Independent Arguments
1705136665
1705136666
An arguer using an independent argument structure presents several pieces of evidence, any one of which provides sufficient support for the argument. In other words, a debater may present three pieces of evidence to support a claim and the members of the audience should accept the claim even if they are convinced only by a single piece of evidence. The following diagram illustrates the structure of an independent argument:
1705136667
1705136668
1705136669
1705136670
1705136671
The illustration presents three pieces of evidence that are independently joined to the claim by one or more links—hence, the name “independent argument.” Unlike the combined argument, the pieces of evidence are not joined by a plus (+) sign. The absence of the plus sign indicates that each piece of evidence can work, even without the others.
1705136672
1705136673
An independent structure can be illustrated by using the nuclear power example:
1705136674
1705136675
1705136676
1705136677
1705136678
Using that example, a debater can make the claim that nuclear power is dangerous using three independent pieces of evidence, any one of which, properly argued, can be sufficient to support the claim. If nuclear power has a risk of accidents (the first piece of evidence), it is dangerous whether or not it creates waste or emits low-level radiation. Similarly, if nuclear energy produces dangerous waste (the second piece of evidence), it is dangerous even without the risk of accidents or low-level radiation. Additionally, if nuclear power emits low-level radiation (the third piece of evidence), it is dangerous even if it does not risk accidents or create waste. Thus, the three pieces of evidence operate independently of one another.
1705136679
1705136680
Of course, each of the pieces of evidence must be connected to the claim using a link as suggested in the illustration. Although it does not contain an exception, it is easy to imagine how one might be introduced into the argument. The advantage of the independent argument structure is obvious. With combined structures, the loss of one piece of evidence endangers the entire argument, whereas, with the independent structure, the argument can prevail even if only one of the pieces of evidence survives.
1705136681