Toulmin Analysis of Young Argument - Winter 2006 WR 122 Handout

Cora's Toulmin-Style Analysis of Young's Argument
WR 122 Handout - Winter 2008 - Prof. Cora Agatucci

Resources: AofA Ch. 3, especially “Concept Close-Up: Model Toulmin Diagram for Analyzing Arguments” and “Best Practices: Toulmin Analysis” (AofA pp. 52-53).

1. IDENTIFY ARGUMENT ANALYZED:

Young, Amber. “Capital Punishment: Society’s Self-Defense.” Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channel. 5^th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 54-58.

Discussion Question: Did Young’s argument convince YOU to accept her position on capital punishment? Why or why not?

Note Appeals to Emotion through use of concrete examples and case histories (Young 54-56: par. 1-5) presented before Case Claim is first introduced.
Note Also: Young plagiarizes by not providing in-text citations of the source/s of these opening examples & case histories!

2. IDENTIFY CASE CLAIM (thesis/central contention), as well as specific Qualifications and Exceptions (to the Case Claim)– and relevant Key Definitions & Distinctions. See also: AofA Ch. 7: “Analyzing the Thesis” (p. 206)

Case Claim:
“Capital punishment is society’s means of self-defense. Just as a person is justified in using deadly force in defending herself against a killer, so society also has a right to execute those who kill whenever the opportunity and the urge arise” (Young 56: par. 5). “. . . [C]apital punishment is necessary for the safety and well-being of the general populace. The strongest reason for capital punishment is . . . self-defense” (Young 56-57: par. 9).

Qualifications: Capital punishment should [ONLY?] be applied to “first-degree murderers, like Bundy, who hunt and kill their victims with premeditation and malice” (Young 57: par. 9), “those who kill whenever the opportunity and the urge arise” (Young 56: par. 5).

Exceptions [assumed but not explicitly stated: Capital punishment should NOT be applied to those convicted of murders committed WITHOUT premeditation and malice (?) OR to those convicted of lesser offenses.]

Young’s Analysis of her Audience’s Belief System, Identification and Overcoming Difference [See AofA Ch. 7, 207-209; & Ch. 8, 247]

Appeal to Principle/Shared Value: “[E]veryone wants a safe society . . .” (Young 56: par. 6)
Ends vs. Means: “. . . [S]ome people would say that capital punishment is too strong a means of ensuring it [a safe society]” (Young 56: par. 6).
[That is, what we disagree on is whether capital punishment is an ethical and effective means to achieve a safe society.]

Establishing the Grounds on which Young’s Argument will be conducted
Assumption/Claim: “We base our approval or disapproval of capital punishment on fundamental values relating to life itself, rather than on statistics or factual evidence” (Young 57: par. 10; emphasis added).

Discussion Question: Is this assumption/claim true?

Note: Young directs much of her argument at our values (and uses emotional appeals), rather than relying on or supplying quantitative “hard” statistical and factual evidence to make her case: see also AofA Ch. 7, 212-213.

3. IDENTIFY REASONS and EVIDENCE (offered to support author’s Case Claim).
See also AofA Ch. 7: “Finding Reasons” (pp. 207-210) & “Using Evidence” (pp. 212-214); and AofA Ch. 8: Audience Analysis: “Identification and Overcoming Difference” and “Using the Forms of Appeal” (pp. 246-254)

Reason #1: (Hierarchy of Values)
--“The preservation of life, any life [i.e. the life of Ted Bundy who murders with premeditation and malice vs. the lives of his victims], regardless of everything else [e.g., competing values of public safety, right to self-defense, liberty, freedom], is not an absolute value for most people” (Young 57: par. 11; emphasis added).
Qualification: “for most people”
Exception: e.g. Those [few] like Hendrick Hertzberg who hold an “absolute value-of-life position” (Young 56: par: 6).

Evidence: Liberty is more important than death to many. “Few in our society go so far as to believe that we must preserve life above all else,” including our “founding fathers” (Young 57: par. 10; emphasis added).
[Appeals to Authoritative Tradition, Constitutional Law, & Hierarchy of Values]:
Declaration of Independence defines “life” as among our “inalienable rights,” but “there is no indication that life was more sacred to [our founding fathers] than liberty” (Young 57: par: 10; emphasis added). E.g. Patrick Henry, one founding father “instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, is most famous for his defiant American Revolutionary declaration, ‘. . . give me liberty or give me death!’” (cited in Young 57: par. 10).

Evidence/Support: “The sentiment that some things [i.e. loss of freedom/liberty] are worse than death remains” . . .
[Appeal to Shared Value/Emotion:] e.g. in our soldiers who risk and lose their lives “to preserve and defend freedom” (Young 57: par. 11; emphasis added).

-- “As much as we value human life, we inevitably weigh that value against social costs and benefits, whether we admit it or not” (Young 56: par. 8' emphasis added). See also Objection 3. Rebuttal 2 below.

Reason #2: Given “only two alternatives—life in prison or death”—“many prisoners would prefer to die than to languish in prison” because they value liberty over death (Young 57: par. 10, 12).

Evidence [Examples & Personal Experience of Two Primary Sources]:
--Ted Bundy (see Young 57: par. 12)
--Gary Gilmore (see Young 57: par. 12)

Evidence [Hierarchy of Values] “In our society, founded on the principle that liberty is more important than life, the argument that it is somehow less cruel and more civilized to deprive someone of liberty for the rest of his or her life than to end the life sounds hollow” (Young 57: par. 12).

Reason #3: [Implications or Consequences] Without the death penalty, convicted first-degree murderers who kill with premeditation and malice are all too likely to be set “loose to prey again on society,” creating “a risk that society should not have to bear” (Young 57: par. 13).

Discussion Questions: Are Young's reasons & evidence good? Are they relevant? Why or why not?

4. IDENTIFY REFUTATIONS (objections of the Opposition explicitly anticipated & addressed)

“. . . [S]ome people would say that capital punishment is too strong a means of ensuring it [a safe society]” (Young 56: par. 6).

Objection #1 (of the Opposition): Capital punishment is cruel because it is physically painful. E.g. “Contemporary social critic Hendrick Hertzberg,” with “his absolute value-of-life position,” objects that capital punishment even by lethal injection is “horrible and painful . . . to the prisoner” (Young 56: par: 6).

Young's Rebuttal #1: Execution is not that physically painful. “A needle prick in the arm is hardly cruel and unusual” (Young 56: par. 6).

Young's Rebuttal #2: [Comparison] ”Thousands of good people with cancer and other diseases or injuries endure much greater pain every day” (Young 56: par. 6).

[Appeal to Values/Assumption: Many innocent people suffer painful deaths so why shouldn’t bad people convicted of heinous crimes suffer pain when executed?]

Objection #2 (of the Opposition): : Capital punishment does not deter crime. E.g. Hertzberg “dismisses the deterrence argument as ‘specious,’ since ‘[n]o one has ever been able to show that capital punishment lowers the murder rate’ (“Burning” 4)” (cited in Young 56: par. 6).

Young's Rebuttal: “But the Florida death penalty has, in fact, made certain that Ted Bundy will never kill again” (Young 56: par. 6).

Objection #3 (of the Opposition): Innocent people might be executed.
Young's Concession: “Of course, the possibility of executing an innocent person is a serious concern” and “tragic” (Young 56: par. 7, 8; emphasis added); BUT . . .

Young's Supporting Reason: “[O]ur entire criminal justice system is tilted heavily toward the accused . . .” (Young 56: par. 7).
The accused is favored because . . .

Evidence:
--Criminal justice process is predicated on “strong individual-rights guarantees” of “the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution” (Young 56: par. 7).
--“The burden of proof in a criminal case is on the government, and . . .
--“guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (Young 56: par. 7).

Young's Rebuttal #2: If such [rare] mistakes do happen—“despite all the safeguards” [see Rebuttal #1 above]--then they are “tragic” but acceptable “social costs” of capital punishment that do not outweigh its social “benefits” (Young 56: par. 8; emphasis added).

Discussion Question: Has Young anticipated & successfully answered the most compelling opposing viewpoints?