Managing dilemmas and addressing conflicts as well as getting involved in any sort of analysis means being able to navigate among the existing options and analyze the arguments provided by each party to define the solution that suits the identified problem best. Traditionally, two types of arguments are used as the means of settling an argument. These are the Toulmin and the Rogerian models. Although each of the tools can be viewed as a solid foundation for selecting an appropriate option, the Rogerian model should be preferred as the one that creates premises for an objective evaluation of the alternatives and choosing the most appropriate one.
Toulmin vs. Roger
Presupposing that common grounds should be located to address any problem, the Rogerian argument model can be viewed as a milder approach to a specific dilemma. The model in question presupposes that any issue should be solved based on the principles of a compromise: “This way of approach is an effective avenue for good communication and good relationships” (Rogers 333). Therefore, when interpreting a particular problem through the lens of the model mentioned above, one should be prepared to take the opposing viewpoint into account as well. It is quite remarkable that the model under discussion opens opportunities for dialogue, therefore, putting a strong emphasis on the search for a solution as opposed to foisting a particular viewpoint on the audience as the Toulmin Model does.
The Toulmin argument, on the other hand, predisposes the development of the environment for persuading the opponent that a particular point of view is not feasible, whereas the other one should be viewed as the ultimate solution to the situation. In other words, the emphasis is shifted from the location of a compromise and the choice that could be viewed as the solution to a particular problem to the identification of the option that is superior to others.
It would be wrong to assume that the latter option should be viewed as inadequate for using it in response papers as a way of getting a certain point across. Quite on the contrary, the model suggested by Toulmin can and should be given credit to as a very efficient means of analyzing the veracity and legitimacy of an argument, therefore, justifying the decision to either choose the suggested course of actions or dismiss it as invalid.
Based solely on a logical analysis of a scenario, the model mentioned above may create obstacles to developing a compromise as opposed to the Rogerian model (Sower 397). Apart from serving as a tool for getting a particular message across, the model also deserves to be adopted as the means of considering two opposing arguments, as it provides a very detailed overview of the contradictory viewpoint. Although the use of the tool implies that the central argument should remain the key message that the reader has to be convinced about, the strategy under analysis helps acknowledge the existence of the opposing viewpoint and, therefore, make the argument well balanced and objective.
As far as the real-life application of the models in question is concerned, the tools under analysis have taught me that there are at least two ways of considering complicated dilemmas, the first one being the location of a sustainable solution and the latter concerning proving that a certain opinion is the most legitimate method of managing a problem. Moreover, the analysis of the methods listed above has also served as a valuable lesson regarding conflict resolution.
Particularly, the information about the two models has shown that proving the correctness of a certain approach cannot be viewed as the end in itself; instead when managing a specific problem, one must keep the focus on the analysis of the solutions provided, thus, maintaining objectivity rates high. Consequently, the fairness and impartiality of the judgment will not be jeopardized.
Therefore, applying the models mentioned above to real-life situations, one must refer to the Rogerian model as the tool for identifying the solution that will help address a particular conflict. The Toulmin Model, in its turn, should not be tossed aside; quite on the contrary, it can be adopted as the means of pitching a specific idea in a manner as efficient as possible. By applying the tool known as qualifier, which facilitates the assessment of the universality of the solution located, one will be able to make sure that the approach identified as the solution to the existing dilemma could be used in the analysis and management of similar conflicts:
Toulmin’s model reminds us that arguments are generally expressed with qualifiers and rebuttals rather than asserted as absolutes. This lets the reader know how to take the reasoning, how far it is meant to be applied, and how general it is meant to be. (“Toulmin Model of Argument” 2)
Despite being developed as the methods of addressing complex dilemmas and solving interpersonal conflicts, both models suggested by Toulmin and Roger have their flaws when it comes to designing solutions to real-life conflicts; nevertheless, the adoption of the Rogerian strategy needs to be viewed first, as it helps shed the most objective light possible on the subject matter whereas Toulmin’s model primarily promotes persuasion tactics without taking the accuracy of the argument into account.
Rogers, Carl. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. Print.
Sower, Victor E. Essentials of Quality with Cases and Experiential Exercises. New York City, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
Toulmin Model of Argument n. d. Web.