We have two cases this week, as we will for the rest of the summer. One is a Mind Over Murder for you adults and the other is a Mind Over Murder Kids as part of the Mind Over Murder Kids Summer Series.
Both cases this week have two goals.
The first is to derive a story that fits the given facts. But the second is the real exercise here: to logically link your conclusions with the evidence that leads you there.
We’re going to practice what is called the Toulmin Model of Argumentation, named after British philosopher, Stephan Toulmin, who hypothesized that, while Aristotelian logic is best used in the formulation of mathematical and natural science proofs, it is often unpersuasive in everyday argumentation.
The Toulmin Model of Argumentation comprises three primary parts: the “claim,” the “evidence,” or facts supporting the claim, and the “warrant” or the link between the evidence to the claim.
Let’s look at an example.
Take the statement, “Your car is at risk to be stolen.” Here, we have a simple claim but, as an argument, it lacks anything designed to persuade the car owner to agree.
“Why?” is a possible response.
If we are going to convince the car owner to take action, we must add two things to make it more persuasive: first, evidence or facts that provide a reason to believe the claim. And second, we need a logically valid connection between the facts and the claim.
So, let’s try, “Your car is at risk to be stolen. It’s dark outside and your car is unlocked.”
Okay, that’s a bit better. We have the claim: “Your car is at risk to be stolen,” and we have the supporting evidence: “It’s dark outside and your car is unlocked.”
But in order for this claim to be persuasive, we need a logical link to connect the claim and the facts that support the claim (evidence). This is called “the warrant.”
The warrant is a general rule that connects the claim and the evidence—it’s an assumption, a probability—that’s why we call them claims. We can never be 100% certain of their truth.
The warrant in this case could be: Generally, or as a rule, car thieves steal at night and choose unlocked cars.
So, the basic argument would be:
Evidence: It’s dark outside, and your car is unlocked.
Warrant: Generally car thieves steal at night and choose unlocked cars.
Claim: Therefore, you car is at risk for being stolen.
It’s the warrant that makes the claim logical and therefore persuasive.
Make sense?
Now, let’s see if you can solve the mysteries AND form your arguments using the Toulmin Model. The story that you come up with is very likely to be different from mine but, as long as your story rationally fits the facts, and your arguments are persuasive and valid, that’s success.
When you’ve finished solving the mysteries, click the button below to hear my analysis.
The Bookseller
Mr. Klein, owner of Beans And Books, a bookstore and coffee cafe in downtown Sayersville, went to an auction at Nunzio’s Auction House . He bid on and won one item, an antique book, for which he paid the auction house $100,000.
When Mr. Klein returned to his bookstore, he placed his purchase on the shelves amongst all the other books that were for sale.
Later that day, a customer bought the book for $17.50.
Why would Mr. Klein allow this to happen?
The Clues:
The suggested retail value of the book is $15.00.
Two days prior to the auction, a man left a bag with the bookseller.
The bag contained exactly $105,000 in small bills and a note with the title of the book.
The man who left the bag with the bookseller works for the auction house.
The Drive-Through
Joe Davis went through the Swifty’s Burgerama drive-through at 7:05pm and ordered a hamburger, fries, and a chocolate shake. But when he approached the pick-up window, the Swifty’s employee refused to serve him.
Why?
The Clues:
Swifty’s closes at 10pm every night.
Joe made no special requests to change his order and everything he ordered was available.
When Joe ordered, he spoke in a clear and easy-to-understand voice.
When the Swifty’s employee saw Joe, he refused to fill the order and insisted that, for safety reasons, Joe had to come into the restaurant to be served.
Finished working on the cases? Want my analysis?