Here is a useful way of organizing and remembering seven key argumentative strategies:
- Argument by Generalization
- Argument by Analogy
- Argument by Sign
- Argument by Consequence
- Argument by Authority
- Argument by Principle
- Argument by Testimony
Richard Fulkerson notes that a single strategy is sufficient to make an argument some of the time, but it is often better to combine several strategies to make an effective argument. He organized the argumentative strategies in this way to compare the differences, highlight the similarities, and allow for their discussion. This model, often called by its acronym GASCAP, is a useful strategy to summarize six key arguments and is easy to remember. Here we have adapted it, adding one argument that is often used in today’s speeches and presentations, the argument by testimony. Table "Table 12.9" presents each argument, provides a definition of the strategy and an example, and examines ways to evaluate each approach.
|
Argument by |
Claim |
Example |
Evaluation |
|
|
G |
Generalization |
Whatever is true of a good example or sample will be true of everything like it or the population it came from. |
If you can vote, drive, and die for your country, you should also be allowed to buy alcohol. |
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 |
Alcohol is a drug. So is tobacco. They alter perceptions, have an impact physiological and psychological systems, and are federally regulated substances. |
Watch for adverbs that end in “ly,” as they qualify, or lessen the relationship between the 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.” |
Motor vehicle accidents involving alcohol occur at significant rates among adults of all ages in the United States. |
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 causally related. |
The U.S. insurance industry has been significantly involved in state and national legislation requiring proof of insurance, changes in graduated driver’s licenses, and the national change in the drinking age from age 18 to age 21. |
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. |
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, older drivers are increasingly involved in motor vehicle accidents. |
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 |
The change 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. |
Is the principle being invoked generally accepted? Is the claim, data or warrant actually related to the principle? What are the practical consequences of following the principle in this case? |
|
T |
Testimony |
Personal experience |
I’ve lost friends from age 18 to 67 to alcohol. It impacts all ages, and its effects are cumulative. Let me tell you about two friends in particular. |
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. |
- 16674 reads
