Final answer:
Toulmin and Rogerian arguments aim to achieve common ground by presenting well-supported, empathetic arguments that take into account and integrate differing viewpoints.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the background paragraph, both Toulmin and Rogerian arguments try to reach common ground. These methods of argumentation each have their own structure, but they share the goal of creating a coherent, well-reasoned argument supported by evidence and empathetic understanding of different viewpoints.
The Toulmin model focuses on establishing the validity of an argument through the use of data, warrant, and backing, while the Rogerian model seeks to understand and incorporate opposing viewpoints, ultimately steering all parties towards a mutually acceptable resolution.
Both argument strategies aim to avoid the obvious and provide support for their main points with strong evidence. Additionally, they both present a clear, definite viewpoint, backed by sound reasoning and evidence, and address counterclaims without dismissing them, often showing empathy for those with opposing views.
Their ultimate aim is to construct a persuasive argument that leads the audience toward a well-supported conclusion, which often takes into account potential counterarguments and integrates them into the overall perspective.