What is the significance of the psychology of argumentation to the application of Toulmin''s Theory of Argumentation? Do you believe that persuasion requires an appeal to Logos, Pathos and Ethos? Why or why not? What examples can you think of that illustrate how the lack of knowledge concerning hidden values, attitudes or beliefs can prevent an argument form being persuasive? For instance, If you hold no value for formal education, will I ever be able to persuade you that I am an expert based on the degrees I hold? Arguing from Analogy An analogy is an extended comparison between unlike things; it shows similarities between two ideas or processes that on the surface may appear to have little in common. Critical thinkers use analogies to clarify complex ideas and to persuade audiences. Analogies provide images that help readers visualize and understand meaning and gaining their attention. Yet analogies also can fool uncritical thinkers into assuming that important similarities exist where they might not. For instance, scientists often use analogies to explain complex or abstract processes. They relate something familiar to something unfamiliar, such as comparing a strand of curly hair to the structure of an amino acid. Lawyers also use arguments from analogy when they argue from precedent (that one case resembles a previous case). The goal of analogy is to show how your conclusion is supported because the same conclusion has already been determined in a previous argument. By analogy, you attempt to show that something has certain characteristics (is true, right, good, etc.) by comparing it to something else, which is already determined and agreed upon as having those characteristics. In essence, by comparing two things on at least one relevant trait, you demonstrate how the two things are the same and thus they should be treated or viewed in the same way - the way already established and accepted for one of the things. Usually the conclusion being argued is not already accepted and arguments by analogy allow a comparison with something simpler and already agreed upon. However, if an analogy oversimplifies a comparison, making it appear there are more similarities between the subjects that there actually are, it is called a false analogy. A false analogy is a logical fallacy. We will study logical fallacies in more depth in Units 4 and 5. The second type of argumentative strategy we consider in this unit is….Arguing from Classification As a strategy of argumentation, classification enables you to analyze a subject and break it down into parts or types in order to discuss or evaluate them. You use categories to develop and defend a claim, in order to help you see distinctions within a complex topic. However, using improper classification is a type of uncritical thinking. Stereotypes are a good example of the improper use of classification. Stereotypes place things in ready-made categories, ignoring individual differences. In any case, classification is an important strategy of argumentation because the way you divide a topic into categories influences the way you think about that topic, either for better or worse. ... racial stereotyping, for instance. The third type of argumentative strategy we consider in this unit is….Arguing from Cause and Effect