Date post: | 15-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | branden-casey |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Taming the Warrant
notes from article by James E. Warrenfrom English Journal 99.6 (2010): 41-46
Claim = teachers should make higher salaries
Data = teachers are as well-trained and hard-working as other, higher-paid professionals
Warrant (general, unstated proposition) =
Professionals who are similarly trained and hard-working should
receive similar salaries.
Qualifiers
“Nearly all teachers should make higher salaries.”
Exceptions to the claim (conditions of rebuttal):
Teachers who are incompetent do not deserve higher salaries.
Warrants usually remain implicit in an argument
• They bind together claims and data
• They can be brought to the surface through logical inference
Why identify your warrants?
• Once you are aware of your warrant, you can decide whether your audience will accept it automatically or will demand additional support.
Toulmin and the Syllogism
• All humans are mortal
• Socrates is a human
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
• Warrant
• Data
• Claim
Misidentified warrants
• Claim = don’t eat that mushroom
• Data = it’s poisonous
• Warrant = if something is poisonous, it’s dangerous to eat
Source: Everything’s an Argument
This warrant does not logically compel you to refuse the mushroom!
Remember that warrants guarantee the step from data to claim is valid.
Accurate warrant = Don’t eat poisonous things!
• Assuming you believe the mushroom is poisonous and assuming you believe you must not eat poisonous things, you must agree not to eat that mushroom.
Another misidentified warrant:
• Claim = Cocaine and heroin should be legalized.
• Data = legalization would eliminate the black market in drugs
• Warrant =
Eliminating the black market in drugs is good.• Is it possible to agree with the warrant and
still reject the claim that drugs should be legalized?
• Yes! Most Americans do!
• By this same logic, we should legalize child pornography because that would eliminate the black market in child porn.
Formula for Identifying Warrants
• If D [data], then C [claim].
• Data such as D entitle one to draw conclusions, or make claims, such as C
• Given data D, one may take it that C.
If that mushroom is poisonous (data), then don’t eat it (claim).
Warrant = don’t eat poisonous things.
If legalization would eliminate the black market in cocaine
and heroin (data)then we should legalize these
drugs (claim)
Warrant = legalizing cocaine and heroin would eliminate the
black market in them.
Convert your claim, data, and warrant into a syllogism to check
for accuracy• Claim in Toulmin’s model = conclusion Ex. Socrates is mortal.• Data in Toulmin’s model = minor or middle
premise Ex. Socrates is human.• Warrant in Toulmin’s model = major or initial
premise• Ex. All humans are mortal
Socrates is mortal because he is a human
and all humans are mortal (the warrant functions as a license to make the step
from data to claim)
Claim
• We should do a better job of teaching students how to identify warrants.
Data
• The ability to identify warrants accurately is an essential critical reasoning skill.
Warrant
• We should do a better job of teaching critical reasoning skills.