 I will in this video talk about argumentation, because as we said the university good arguments are a prerequisite for good assignments. The first thing that I will start talking about is where do we use argumentation, where do we see arguments and why is argumentation so important. The next thing that I will talk about is the theory behind arguments and argumentation. I will base this part on Tolmin's argumentation model and as a third point in the agenda I will present two good examples of arguments. And last but not least you will also get some practical pieces of advice that you can use when you have to make arguments. So where do we use argumentation? We use argumentation for example at home when we discuss and argue with family and friends. We also see argumentation used in society where for example politicians discuss and argue and we also see argumentation at the university. Because in all courses, in pretty much all courses we are told how important arguments are and how important argumentation in general is. But why is argumentation so important? To answer this question I have found a quotation from Christopher Buckley, an author that actually answers my question. He says, that's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly you are never wrong. So that quotation basically answers my question here. But what is a good argument then? A good argument is a structured statement, first and foremost a structured statement and that can both be an oral statement and it can also be a written statement. And this structured statement should include the following elements. A claim, data, a warrant, backing, rebuttal and a qualifier. So all these six elements are parts of a toolmeans argumentation model. I will in this video and in this presentation focus on the most central elements from toolmeans argumentation model which are the claim, the data and the warrant. What you see here at this slide is the entire model, the entire argumentation model that toolmeans presented. Here you can see all the six elements and how they are interrelated. I will as said before talk about the claim, the data and the warrant. I will primarily focus on these three elements in this presentation. Let's look at the simplified version of toolmeans argumentation model. We can start out with the claim. The claim is simply the point, the conclusion that you want to draw and convince the reader about the receiver of your argument. And the receiver in your case is the examiner that you have to convince about something. The claim is based on data. So data says something about which documentation do we have for our claim and data can be a broad thing. It can be tables. It can be numbers. It can be figures. And it can also be text material. And in your case in an exam situation, the most important data that you have is the case text. But it's not sufficient. It's not enough to just have a data, just to have some data and a claim. You also need a warrant to make sure that there is a theoretical and logical connection between the claim and the data. So which theoretical contributions do we rely on? What is the connection between the data and the claim? That's something that the warrant should say something about. We have now looked at the theory part, the theory behind arguments and argumentation. What I will introduce you to now is some examples where arguments are used. And that's some good examples. So the first example is structured in a way where we start out with the data. And I will strongly encourage you to pause the video and read this argument in details before you listen to me when I go through the argument. This argument is structured in a way where the data part comes first. And the data part is colored in blue. And next, after the data part, we can see the conclusion, the claim, which comes in the color red. And after both the data and the claim, we can see the warrant in green color. So you should notice that we actually have three pieces of data in this argument. The first piece of data that we have is the fact that the job security is low. That's something that we can extract from the information that we get in the case. The second piece of data that we get is that there are big safety risks related to this job in this particular company. And the third piece of data can be extracted in the facts that there is a widespread bullying culture in this company. And the bullying culture is something that we can see both based on the quotation from one of the employees in the company and also based on number material from table one. So we have three pieces of data that all support the same claim. And the claim in this example here is that the employees of firm XX could be dissatisfied. So we now have a claim that employees in firm XX are dissatisfied or could be dissatisfied. We have three pieces of data that supports this claim. Now we also have to make sure that there is a logical connection between our claim and our data. The logical connection can be found in Hadsberg's two-factor theory. Because Hadsberg two-factor theory categorize these elements like job security, working conditions and relations among employees as hygiene factors and if they are not fulfilled according to this theory then the workers, the employees in a particular company can be dissatisfied. So now we have made sure that there is a clear theoretical connection between what we claim and what we base our claim on. Let's move on to example two. This example is structured in a way where the claim comes first followed by the data pieces and then the warrant in the end. So the structure is a little bit different compared to the structure in example one. I will again strongly encourage you to pause the video and read through this example before you watch me analyze it. So we start out with the claim. In this argument we start out by claiming that Mr. X in firm XX uses in a high degree this coaching leadership style. That's our claim. We base this claim on again three pieces of data. The first piece of data is Mr. X's view on his employees that we extract from the quotation that you see in the argument where we can interpret that his view on employees is that employees are individuals that should be developed. The second piece of data that we use in this argument is the development courses that Mr. X implements when he becomes a leader. And the third piece of data that we have in this argument is the weekly development conversations that Mr. X also implements in the company when he becomes a leader. So that's three pieces of data that all supports our claim that he's a coaching leadership style. But how can we make sure that they logically support this claim? That's something that we can that's something that we can do based on our warrant because in the warrant this theory part the theoretical connection is presented. Our warrant is based on Goldman's framework. So this theoretical frameworks that describes the coaching leadership style as a leadership style where we put the employee in the first row and focus on the development of the employee. So now we have made sure that there is a logical and theoretically founded connection between our claim and our pieces of data. We have now been through two examples of good arguments and you should notice that both examples are not full answers to a given exam question. They are only extracts and that's something that especially applies in example two where we use Goldman's framework and only focus on one leadership style. In an exam situation it could actually occur that you can identify more than one leadership style based on Goldman's framework. So just notice that when you read these arguments. I will now present some useful pieces of advice that you can use when you have to state arguments. So first I will strongly encourage you not to write too long sentences in your assignments. I will also strongly encourage you to build paragraphs logically in your assignments and to be precise and concrete in your language. I will also advise you to use meta communication. It's not a requirement just to be clear it's not a requirement to use meta communication but it's a good piece of advice because you can with meta communication in the beginning of an answer to a question tell the reader what you want to do how you would like to do it and why you would like to do it. I have an example here. So in my example it says I will first with an outset in the case give a short outline of Hadsberg's two factor theory that's telling the reader what I would like to do then continuing by identifying hygiene factors and motivation factors in firm XX that's telling the reader how I would like to do it and in the end here I will do this to be able to analyze in which degree the employees in firm XX are dissatisfied with hygiene factors and satisfied with the motivation factors. That's simply telling the reader why I would like to do what I do. So this is a good example of meta communication that again I will encourage you to use it but it's not a requirement to use meta communication in an exam assignment. Focus on creating a red threat and when you answer a given exam question and focus on answering the question that's really, really important because the way that you are evaluated at the exam and the degree that you get is based on how well you answer the question that you have in front of you. And as a rule of thumb I will advise you to use approximately two to three direct quotations in your argumentations from the case and that's per question. I have to say that this is a rule of thumb and of course this can vary quite a lot depending on the case question, which type of case question do we have and also depending on how many theories you actually apply and use to answer a given exam question. I will also say that it's extremely important that you remember to reference both the case and the literature that you use. So reference the pieces in the case that you refer to and also to the theory that you use, the literature that you use to answer the exam questions. I will also say that you should avoid something because you should avoid phrases like I think, I feel, I believe, I mean. That's really emotionally laden phrases that you should avoid using. You should also avoid stating conclusions and claims that are not clearly related to the case or the theory. We of course know that you possibly do not have all the data and all the information that you need in an exam situation to answer a given exam question fully. So this is also the reason why we actually allow you to make assumptions. So you are allowed to make assumptions in an exam situation but they should be stated explicitly. That's the first thing and it should also be reasonable assumptions and an examiner knows what a reasonable assumption is. That is basically the end of this presentation. I will now sum up what we have been through. So first and foremost, where do we use the argumentation and why it's so important. That's something that we have talked about in this presentation. We have also looked at what a good argument is, the theory behind a good argument and argumentation where we looked at Tolmin's argumentation model and focused on the claim, the data and the warrant. We have also looked at two good examples of arguments, two different examples structure-wise where in the first example we had the data first and in the second example we had the claim first. And last but not least, we have also been through some useful pieces of advice that you can use when you have to state arguments. What you see here is a slide with all the references and the supplementary literature that I have based this presentation on. The first two references are related to the theory behind arguments and argumentation and the two following references are related to the examples that I have been through. Thanks for watching this presentation. I hope that you have learned something and remember the quotation that I presented earlier. That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you are never wrong.