There are seven concentrations in civil engineering. I will be choosing one of them in my junior year as my primary concentration. According to my professor, students should be good at related field in their concentration. For example, a structural concentration would generally requires strong force analysis skills.
Grounds: I will choose the construction management as my primary concentration in civil engineering.
Warrant: I have strong skills in operations research area
Backing: I got an A in A level Business which contains big chunks of operations research stuff like linear programming, critical path analysis and decision tree
Claim: I will be doing well on the construction management concentration
Qualifier: Construction management must require lots of skills in operations research and I have to get good grades in that area
At first, I found it hard to follow your model, but after some analysis, it seems to me that you bumped each part of your Toulmin model to a different name. I feel like your grounds would be the claim, your warrant would be the grounds, the backing would be the warrant, and the claim would be your backing. (Your qualifier is fine the way it is.)
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your actual arguments, though, they all appear to be logical.
This seems mostly fine except that the titles for some of the statements seems to be mixed up. Like the Claim is more of the conclusion or what is being argued and the grounds is more of the reason.
ReplyDeleteBo,
ReplyDeleteI picked up on your use of the Toulmin model quite quickly as it was used well in this case. I would look over your grounds and claim, to decide whether or not they should be switched. For some reason I found they could be used either way.
Akbar
I think what you said is a typical application of Toulmin Model to solve a problem. Your analysis is really reasonable and convincible. However, I think your Grounds should be your Claims and your Claims should be your Grounds.
ReplyDelete