RHET 1003 · Argumentation and Evidence: Building and Evaluating Claims

Led by Toulmin Simulacrum

Argumentation from evidence types and burden of proof through refutation, deliberative argument, and ethical reasoning.

1. Module 1

   Evidence Types: Empirical, Testimonial, Statistical, Analogical, and Authoritative

   Led by Toulmin Simulacrum

   The question

   Not all evidence is created equal — and the type of evidence appropriate for a claim depends on the claim being made. A claim about the physical world requires empirical evidence. A claim about what happened requires testimony. A claim about probability requires statistics. A claim about what might work requires analogy. A claim about expertise requires authority.

   Outcome

   The student can describe the key concepts of this module and apply them to real-world examples. (Evidence Types)

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 1.1 Empirical Evidence: Observation, Experiment, and Replication Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   2. ○ 1.2 Testimonial Evidence: Eyewitness, Expert, and the Reliability Problem Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   3. ○ 1.3 Statistical Evidence: When Numbers Support and When They Mislead Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   4. ○ 1.4 Analogical Evidence: Reasoning from Similar Cases Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   5. ○ 1.5 Authoritative Evidence: When to Defer and When to Challenge Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Begin the course → Print certificate of completion
2. Module 2

   Burden of Proof: Who Must Demonstrate What

   Led by Toulmin Simulacrum

   The question

   In law, the prosecution bears the burden. In science, the hypothesis-proposer bears it. In everyday argument, the burden shifts with the claim. The principle: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The person making the positive claim (X exists, X causes Y, X is better than Z) bears the burden of demonstrating it — the opponent is not required to disprove it.

   Outcome

   The student can describe the key concepts of this module and apply them to real-world examples. (Burden of Proof)

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 2.1 The Presumption: What Is Assumed Until Proven Otherwise Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   2. ○ 2.2 Burden of Proof in Law: Beyond Reasonable Doubt vs. Balance of Probabilities Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   3. ○ 2.3 Burden of Proof in Science: The Null Hypothesis Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   4. ○ 2.4 Shifting the Burden: When the Opponent Must Respond Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   5. ○ 2.5 The AI Application: Who Bears the Burden When the Machine Makes a Claim? Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion
3. Module 3

   Refutation: How to Dismantle an Argument

   Led by Toulmin Simulacrum

   The question

   Refutation is not disagreement — it is the systematic demonstration that an argument fails. Four methods: attack the evidence (the data is flawed, the sample is biased, the testimony is unreliable), attack the warrant (the inference from evidence to conclusion does not hold), attack the claim directly (provide counter-evidence), or show that the argument proves too much (if the reasoning were valid, it would also prove something absurd).

   Outcome

   The student can describe the key concepts of this module and apply them to real-world examples. (Refutation)

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 3.1 Attacking the Evidence: Challenging Data, Testimony, and Sources Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   2. ○ 3.2 Attacking the Warrant: The Inference Does Not Follow Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   3. ○ 3.3 Counter-Evidence: The Affirmative Case Against the Claim Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   4. ○ 3.4 Reductio ad Absurdum: Showing the Argument Proves Too Much Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   5. ○ 3.5 The Steelman Obligation: Refuting the Strongest Version, Not the Weakest Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion
4. Module 4

   Deliberative Argument: Persuading on Questions of Policy

   Led by Toulmin Simulacrum

   The question

   Deliberative rhetoric addresses questions of policy — what should we do? The deliberative argument must establish: that there is a problem (the ill), that the problem is significant (the significance), that the proposed solution will work (the plan), that the plan's benefits outweigh its costs (the advantage), and that the plan is feasible (the solvency). Policy debate is structured around these five stock issues.

   Outcome

   The student can describe the key concepts of this module and apply them to real-world examples. (Deliberative Argument)

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 4.1 The Five Stock Issues: Ill, Significance, Plan, Advantage, Solvency Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   2. ○ 4.2 The Status Quo Defence: Why Change Is Risky and Continuity Has Value Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   3. ○ 4.3 Counterplans: Accepting the Problem but Proposing a Different Solution Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   4. ○ 4.4 Disadvantages: The Unintended Consequences of the Proposed Plan Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   5. ○ 4.5 Deliberative Argument in the AI Age: Arguing About Technology Policy Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion
5. Module 5

   Ethical Argument: Reasoning About Values, Rights, and Obligations

   Led by Toulmin Simulacrum

   The question

   Ethical arguments differ from empirical arguments — they cannot be settled by experiment. The ethical argument appeals to principles (deontological — what is the right thing to do regardless of consequences?), consequences (utilitarian — what produces the most good for the most people?), virtues (what would a virtuous person do?), and rights (what are the inviolable claims of the individual?).

   Outcome

   The student can describe the key concepts of this module and apply them to real-world examples. (Ethical Argument)

   Sub-units

   1. ○ 5.1 Deontological Argument: Duty, Rules, and the Categorical Imperative Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   2. ○ 5.2 Consequentialist Argument: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   3. ○ 5.3 Virtue-Based Argument: What Would a Good Person Do? Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   4. ○ 5.4 Rights-Based Argument: The Inviolable Claims of the Individual Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   5. ○ 5.5 Ethical Argument About AI: When Principles Conflict in Machine Decision-Making Open this unit → ✓ ↻
   Open this module → Print certificate of completion