Gap Inc. is the authority in this case because the authority referred to is an internal source. By referring to an external authority the company could perhaps have had a strong argument for the claim product safety. – Regarding the overall type of argument 1 it can be classified as belonging to authorities since Gap Inc. relies on the credibility of the expert knowledge in the argument. ‘product teams’ Argument 2 D C We also test our products for a variety Product Safety of potential safety issues including: flammability; physical/mechanical hazards W (ensuring garment construction or trims can withstand certain levels of force and do not become hazards); durability; and toxicity. All of Gap products are tested Inc.’s In argument 2, the Claim is again and it is supported by the detailed Data that ‘Product safety’ explicitly states what is being done within the company and during production to ensure that the customer is not harmed in any way when a product is purchased in one of their many stores. Linking the Claim and the Data is the Warrant which implicitly argues that all products from Gap Inc. are tested. It cannot be only one piece of the clothing, that the mentioned tests concern, but it must be all of the products that Gap Inc. implicitly test before being set in production. With relation to argument 1, the Data in argument 2 could be a Backing for argument 1 if Gap Inc. had not added the adverb in line 7. This little word has a great importance for the ‘also’ entire argument both number 1 and 2. Had Gap Inc. not added in the text, the Data in ‘also’ argument 2 could easily be attached to the Warrant in argument 1 as a Backing since it concerns safety issues such as hazards (ensuring garment ‘physical/mechanical and (line 8 9). The discourse just mentioned construction)’, ‘flammability’ ‘durability’ –
Gap Inc. is the authority in this case because the authority referred to is an internal source. By referring to an external authority the company could perhaps have had a strong argument for the claim – product safety. Regarding the overall type of argument 1 it can be classified as belonging to authorities since Gap Inc. relies on the credibility of the ‘product teams’ expert knowledge in the argument. Argument 2 D C We also test our products for a variety Product Safety of potential safety issues including: flammability; physical/mechanical hazards W (ensuring garment construction or trims can withstand certain levels of force and do not become hazards); durability; and toxicity. All of Gap Inc.’s products are tested In argument 2, the Claim is again ‘Product safety’ and it is supported by the detailed Data that explicitly states what is being done within the company and during production to ensure that the customer is not harmed in any way when a product is purchased in one of their many stores. Linking the Claim and the Data is the Warrant which implicitly argues that all products from Gap Inc. are tested. It cannot be only one piece of the clothing, that the mentioned tests concern, but it must be all of the products that Gap Inc. implicitly test before being set in production. With relation to argument 1, the Data in argument 2 could be a Backing for argument 1 if Gap Inc. had not added the adverb ‘also’ in line 7. This little word has a great importance for the entire argument both number 1 and 2. Had Gap Inc. not added ‘also’ in the text, the Data in argument 2 could easily be attached to the Warrant in argument 1 as a Backing since it concerns safety issues such as ‘physical/mechanical hazards (ensuring garment construction)’, ‘flammability’ and ‘durability’ (line 8 – 9). The discourse just mentioned
F_rdig_opgave.docx