Rogerian And Toulmin Argument Analysis

Words: 723
Pages: 3

Rogerian and Toulmin arguments both consist of principles that will structure a strong and effective argument. Toulmin arguments are focused on presenting the claim in a clear and direct way while making points that narrow the contexts into something that can commonly be agreed upon. On the contrary, Rogerian arguments focus on bringing together two points of view and concluding with a compromise or understanding.
Toulmin arguments are better used when there are two distinct sides to the argument. The argument can be used for two different reasons, either to strengthen the claim, or to lessen the credibility of the opposing party. A key aspect of the Toulmin structure is that most all claims are backed by experience. The claim is first made, and then
…show more content…
An argument about the human role in the damage to the environment would fit into the Toulmin style because there is a lot of clear evidence. To make a strong argument the claim must not have any gray area where different points of view could over power the argument. Toulmin arguments must focus on reason, and not emotion. These arguments are less inviting than Rogerian, but more direct. Most arguments that are made when dealing with the government. There is no seeing the situation from the other’s point of view, just a strong claim and hard facts.
If in a situation where there is no distinct yes/no, right or wrong answer, then a Rogerian style of argument may be more appropriate to solve an issue or get your point across. The beginning of these arguments consists of evidence, ending with the claim. As more of an objective view on the case, the main goal of a Rogerian argument is to create a compromise amongst opposing parties. The Rogerian type of argument aids to avoid combative or heated arguments, and generally ends with everyone having the ability to see the situation from the others’ point of view. When writing in this style, the author tends to have three goals