Приложение 4 Part 1

1.1 Introduction. Listen to the quote from Holly Bullock:


wo”. Today we are going to explore what ethos, logos and pathos mean.

2.1 Listen and repeat: ethos, logos, pathos, telos, purpose, persuasion, statistics, claim, inductive, deductive

3.1 Read the following words and word collocations.

Check any words you don't know in the dictionary. Write them down: broader generalization, premise, specific application, credibility, reliability, vivid, recreate.
4. 1 Match the words with their definitions.
1. colloquialism a) the art of persuasive writing or speaking
2. abstract language b) a question asked merely for effect with no answer expected
3. rhetorical question c) words we use to describe concepts or ideas
4. euphemism d) the special language of a profession or group
5. aphorism e) words we use to describe specific observable things, people or places
6. jargon f) a short witty statement of a truth about life
7. rhetoric g) a word or phrase used in everyday language, but not appropriate for formal writing
8.concrete language i) a more pleasant way of saying something uncomfortable

Key:1- g, 2 - c, 3 - b, 4 - I, 5 - f, 6 - d, 7 - a, 8 - e

5.1 Complete the text with the words from the box.

reader reach ethos beliefs Aristotle appeal persuasion Greek motivational information writer

Aristotle’s methods of persuasion

A _ _ _ philosopher Aristotle believed that to be a truly effective speaker or _ _ _ someone

has to________ three things when he gives an_______________ to the audience or a____________ .

The first is_________

or credibility. The second_____________ appeal described by___________ is pathos. Pathos refers to the______________

by appealing to the emotions, values and___________________ of an audience. Logos is an appeal to__________________ a

reason or logic.

6.1 Listen to the text “Telos, Logos, Ethos, and Pathos”.


What do Telos, Logos, Ethos, and Pathos mean?

6.2 Read the questions below. Listen to the text again and answer the questions. Work in pairs. Discuss your answers with your partner.

1) .What does telos mean?

2) .Which reasoning processes does logos include?

3) . What kind of information does inductive reasoning analyze? Give an example.

4) . What kind of information does deductive reasoning analyze? Give an example.

5) .Why does ethos appeal to credibility?

6) .What does ethos include?

7) . What kind of language does pathos use?

8) .What is the most effective persuasive technique?

7. 1 Put the words in the box below into three groups.

Common experience, reason, rationality, data, senses, credibility, emotions, charts, authority, facts, memory, research.

8.1 Retell the text, summarizing the ideas.

Part 2

1.2 Listen and repeat: equipped, evaluate, validity, Toulmin's model, submit, rigorous analysis, logician, organizational, syllogistic, scenarios, philosophy, academically.

2.2 Look at the words you have just listened to. Read them and check any words you don't know in the dictionary.

3.2 Complete the text with the words from the box.

instead, most, scheme, arguments, black, philosophy, logician, created, put, world

The Toulmin Model is named for the British _ _ _ and philosopher Stephen Toulmin, who _ _ _ this organizational _ _ _ to use for understanding and creating _ _ _ that can be applied to real _ _ _ situations, _ _ _ of the syllogistic, _ _ _ and white scenarios usually presented in _ _ _ classes. His _ _ _ famous work, where he _ _ _ forward the Toulmin Model, is a book called The Uses of Argument.

4.2 Read the text below. Use the word given in capitals at the end of each line to form a word that fits in the space in the same line.

There are________ to what the Toulmin Model can do for you

in the_______ or analyzing of arguments. The largest among these

restrictions is the fact, this is a model or outline of


arguments. That is, you couldn’t_______________ take a text produced in a simplicity

Toulmin Model example and put it into a _ _ _ and have a good

PARAGRAPHIC essay. Instead, think of the model as a heuristic or

problem-________ tool to help you working toward a complete essay, not solution

the method for__________ the essay itself. writable

6.2 Listen and repeat: theoretical, assertion, circumstance, evidence, advocated, merit, reverse, assumption, qualifier, justification, inferences, claim, backing, data, rebuttal, warrant, ground.

7.2 Match the words on the left with their meanings.

1. qualifier a) the assertion the arguer is advocated
2. claim b) the evidence and other support reasons given to support the claim
3. backing c) the reasoning process used to connect the data and the claim
4. data d) the facts on which the argument is based
5. rebuttal e) additional support to the warrant
6. warrant f) the element of the argument which determines its strength
7. ground g) a specific circumstance when the warrant does not support the claim

Listen to the text about Toulmin argumentation and check your answers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-YPPQztuOY

Look at the words from the Ex. 6.2 again. Check any words you don't know in the dictionary. Write them down.

8.2 Read the text about Toulmin Argument. What is the main idea of the text?

Toulmin Argument

Toulmin arguments are PRACTICAL rather than theoretical or philosophical arguments, and thus work well with common, everyday situations. Theoretical arguments make

inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim. (Aristotle, Plato, etc.) Practical arguments reverse the order - first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas by trying to justify them.

How to Build a Toulmin Argument: The first three elements, “claim,” “data,” and “warrant,” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments. The next three, “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal,” may not be needed in some arguments.

Start with a Claim, a conclusion whose merit must be established.

Claim A: No unhealthy drinks should be sold on campus.

Claim B: I am an American citizen.

Next, provide Evidence or Data, a fact one appeals to as a foundation for the claim. (Often multiple evidence is required.)

Soda pop or coffee drinks are unhealthy.

I was born in California.

Then formulate the Warrant, or a statement authorizing movement from the data to the claim. The warrant is the assumption on which the claim and the evidence depend. Warrants can be implied (unstated) or explicit (directly stated). Which is stronger, and has more ethical appeal?

Warrant 1) People on this campus drink soda pop or coffee, which damages their health. Warrant 2) The school should not sell things which damages a persons health.

In order to move from the data, “I was born in California,” to the claim, “I am an American,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between data and claim with the statement “A man born in California will legally be an American.”

Backing = Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant.

Backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. Backing defends the warrant, or the assumption. Do you need some kind of backing to show that a man born in California will legally be an American, or is the warrant enough? Do you need backing to show people on this campus drink soda or coffee? Do you need backing to demonstrate that a school should not sell things which damage a person's health?

Rebuttal = statements recognizing the restrictions which may legitimately be applied to the claim.

A man born in CA will legally be an American citizen, unless he has betrayed the USA and has become a spy of another country; or if he is born on the foreign soil of an embassy, or if he renounces US citizenship.

Qualifier = Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. They express how strong you judge your claim to be.

Such words or phrases include probably, possible, certainly, some, always, never, usually, as far as the evidence goes, etc.

Do we need a qualifier for "I am an American citizen" (such as most likely, or almost certainly?)

Do we need qualifiers for "no unhealthy drinks should be sold on campus."

Claim: You should buy our tooth-whitening product.

Data: Studies show that teeth are 50% whiter after using the product for a specified time. Warrant:

When you research both sides of a question, you may find yourself being convinced first by one side, and then by the other. Each argument sounds good - at least while you are reading it. When you read an argument which takes an opposite position--that sounds good too, and soon you may feel completely confused. By identifying the parts of an argument so each can be evaluated separately, Toulmin created a very useful model for analyzing the validity of an argument. Submit each source you study to rigorous Toulmin analysis:

Identify each argument's claims, data, and warrants.

Look for qualifiers, rebuttals, and backing for the warrants.

Compare one claim with another. Compare data between the two arguments.

Compare warrants and their backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals.

By analyzing the separate parts of an argument, you'll be much better equipped to evaluate each argument's validity. Then, as you begin to write, use Toulmin's methods to submit your own argument to the same rigorous analysis.

9. 2 Complete the text with the words from the box. claim, data, warrant, qualifier, backing, rebuttal

The first three elements,____________ ,_______ and________ are considered as the essential components of

practical arguments. The next three,_______________ ,_____ and_______ may not be needed in some


10.2 Read the sentence below. Use the word given in capitals at the end of each line to form a word that fits in the space in the same line.

The warrant is typically___________ (unstated) and requires implication

the listener to_________ the underlying reasoning that cognition

makes_______ of the claim in light of the grounds. sensation

11.2 Work in pairs. Explain each of the term below. Discuss your ideas with the partner. Then compare your answers with the teacher’s version. Make a summary of the text.

The list of the terms:

1. Practical arguments

2. Claim and its justification

3. Argument analysis

4. Data, Claim and Warrant

5. Qualifiers, Backing and Rebuttals

6. Testing ideas

Teacher’s version:

1) . Practical arguments--how real people argue, not the syllogisms of philosophers.

2) . Begin with a claim, then justify the claim (i.e. defend the reasoning by which one arrives at the claim)

3) . Toulmin is good for testing ideas and argument analysis (since they require the justification of every step of thought).

4) . Data, Claim and Warrant are always needed, and should always be stated clearly (in writing an argument or analyzing another)

5) . Qualifiers, Backing and Rebuttals may not be needed, but should be considered.

6) . While testing ideas don’t try to bridge the gap, but probe, carefully test how you think of a claim, until you are satisfied by the truth and strength of the claim.

12.2 Find the claim, warrants, data and rebuttal. Make a counterclaim.

1) . Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.

2) . Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air polluting activity.

3) . Because cars are the largest source of private, as opposed to industry produced, air pollution switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.

4) . Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years.

5) . Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that a decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels.

6) . Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.

7) . This combination of technologies means that less pollution is produced. According to ineedtoknow.org "the hybrid engine of the Prius, made by Toyota, produces 90 percent fewer harmful emissions than a comparable gasoline engine."

8) . Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages a culture of driving even if it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging use of mass transit systems.

9) . While mass transit is an environmentally sound idea that should be encouraged, it is not feasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work; thus hybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/03/

13.2 Work in pairs. Link the parts of the argument together. Use the model in the box:

Because data as support , therefore/so qualifier ,
claim , since warrant , because backing , unless
reservation .

Parts of the argument:

Claim - People should wear seatbelts

Support - High rate of serious injury in accidents when seatbelts are not worn

Warrant -Serious injury should be avoided

Backing - serious injury is costly, painful, and dangerous

Qualifier - Typically

Reservation - cases where seatbelts may be dangerous like small children Rebuttal -High rate of serious injury when seatbelts are worn

There is an example at:



14.2 Write your own arguments using the model in the previous exercise.

16.2 Dilemmas. Read the following dilemmas and decide which of two alternatives you prefer. Make your choices individually. Write down your argumentation, using the Model of Argumentation from the ex.13.2. Discuss the dilemmas in groups of three.

1) Would you prefer to be the only child in your family or to have siblings? Why?

2) If you could have two weeks visiting ten different towns or two weeks in one particular interesting place, which kind of holiday would you go for?

18. 2 Writing.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

How your life would have been different if you had been born of the opposite gender.

Use the outline:

1) Introduction: problem 2) Advantages 3) Disadvantages 4) Conclusion

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge.

Write at least 250 words. Use the model of argumentation.

Part 3 Argumentative training

3.1 Listen to a dialogue at the office. Who are the participants? What is this conversation about? How do the participants feel? Why do you think so?

Office Space - Working Tomorrow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjJCdCXFslY

3.2 Repeat the dialogue line by line after the speakers.

3.3 Work in pairs. Roleplay the dialogue, developing the ideas.

3.4 Argumentative stand. Poleplay different job situations using the strategies you know: collaborating, avoiding, competing, compromising, accommodating.

Situation: Individual Consulting

Technique: Role Play

Problem: Relationships at work

Ways of solving the problem: transactional analysis

Books to read: Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships by Eric Berne TA today. A New Introduction to Transactional Analysis by Ian Steward and Vann Joines. - Lifespace Publishing, Nottingham and Chapel Hill. - 1987

Strategies of Argumentation: collaborating, avoiding, competing, compromising, accommodating.

Sample 1:

Situation: Individual Consulting

Technique: Role Play

Problem: Working relationships

Ways of solving the problem: transactional analysis

Position: I am OK. You are OK.

Strategy of Argumentation: collaborating Participants: Boss, worker

B.: There are data we expected to get. I had marked that should be corrected. Please, control the process and report about its completion.

W.: OK. I'll do it.

Sample 2:

Situation: Individual Consulting

Technique: Role Play

Problem: Relationships at work

Ways of solving the problem: transactional analysis

Position: I am not OK. You are OK.

Strategy of Argumentation: Avoiding

Participants: Two colleagues. One of them is a person who enjoys discussing private lives of others. The other doesn’t want to continue the conversation.

A. (Your colleague is going to discuss her private life with you. She has many problems. She is unpleased. She wants to know your opinion but does not want to follow your advice. Before she comes nearer you tell her something). Have you heard that Bill’s daughter is going to have a baby? She is so young, only sixteen.

B: Sorry, Edna. I must go right now. / I see, affairs are bad. But I have no time. I must go to the library to check my report. I hope everything ‘ll be OK.

Sample 3:

Situation: Individual Consulting

Technique: Role Play

Problem: Relationships at work

Ways of solving the problem: transactional analysis

Position: I am OK. You are not OK.

Strategy of Argumentation: avoiding Participants: Boss, worker

W.: Mr Brown, I forgot to tape the report you gave me a week ago. I don’t know what to do.

B. : You can do whatever you want, but I need the report by 4 o’clock.

I don’t want to discuss it. Come back with the tipped report. / It’s your job not mine. I’m busy now. Go and think how to do the work properly.

Sample 4:

Situation: Individual Consulting

Technique: Role Play

Problem: Relationships at work

Ways of solving the problem: transactional analysis

Position: I am not OK. You are not OK.

Strategy of Argumentation: Accommodating Participants: Two colleagues.

A: I have spelt my coffee on your table. There was your report on the table. I’m so sorry! What can I do to fix the situation?

B: Nothing can be done. Wait till I complete my chart and we’ll see how to solve the problem.

Part 4. Self-studying part

1.4 Read about the OK CORRAL: Grid for What’s Happening by Franklin H. Ernst Jr.,

M.D. Discuss the information in the groups of three.

Reference: Man is repeatedly evaluating himself as to the value of himself to himself and also to his companion; as to the value of his companionship for himself and for his companion. It has been found there are four major classes of outcomes which result from social encounters. The four classes of outcomes are called Get-On-With (GOW), Get-Rid-Of (GRO), Get-Away-From (GAF), Get-Nowhere-With (GNW) and described by the “OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening”:

Social Orientation: GET-AWAY- FROM

Personal Experience: “I’m not-OK and You are OK”

Game Pay-off: e.g. Embarrassed Activity: e.g. Truancy, Runaway Phrases: e.g. “I guess”, “I don’t know” Social Process: Devolution

Social Orientation: GET-ON-WITH Personal Experience: “I’m OK and You are OK”

Game Pay-off: e.g. Joyful Activity: e.g. Winner, Be the Best Phrases: e.g. “Thank you”, “I like you”, “win-win”

Social Process: Evolution

Social Orientation: GET-NOWHERE- WITH

Personal Experience: “I’m not-OK and You are not-OK”

Game Pay-off: e.g. Humiliated

Activity: e.g. Indigent

Phrases: e.g. “Why bother?”, “I’m not


Social Process: Obvolution.

Social Orientation: GET-RID-OF Personal Experience: “I’m OK and You not-OK”

Game Pay-off: e.g. Furious, Burned Up Activity: e.g. Crusader Phrases: e.g. “But anyway”, “I don’t care”

Social Process: Revolution

2.4 Think about the argumentative strategies people may use in each situation. Which phrases can you use for collaborating, avoiding, accommodating? In which cases are agreement, concession or objection required? Which phrases can be used to realise these strategies? Find the information using the Internet. Discuss it with other students.

3.4 Work in groups of three. Think of an example of GET-AWAY-FROM situation. Roleplay it with your partner. The third student will write down all the phrases connected with the strategies.

4.4 Work in groups of three. Think of an example of GET-ON-WITH situation. Roleplay it with your partner. The third student will write down all the phrases connected with the strategies.

5.4 Work in groups of three. Think of an example of GET-NOWHERE-WITH situation. Roleplay it with your partner. The third student will write down all the phrases connected with the strategies.

6.4 Work in groups of three. Think of an example of GET-RID-OF situation. Roleplay it with your partner. The third student will write down all the phrases connected with the strategies.

Part 5.

1.5 Roleplay using the strategies:

Task 1

Situation GET-ON-WITH Strategy: Collaborating

Description: Your boss wants you to go to the conference next month. Think the idea over and give your opinion.

Task 2

Situation GET-AWAY-FROM Strategy: Avoiding

Description: During the party your colleague intends to discuss her article. The article has already been published and cannot be changed. You know that some of the ideas in the article is not fully supported by the data and do not want to embarrass your colleague. What is your reaction?

Task 3

Situation: GET-RID-OF Strategy: Avoiding

Description: You are the boss. An employee asks you if s/he can take a day off. There is a lot of work at the office. What is your reaction?

Task 4:

Situation: GET-NOWHERE-WITH Strategy: Accommodating

Description: You are told to supervise your new colleague's work. You don't have time to do it but you promised your boss you would.

2.5 Think up your own situations at work, when it is necessary to use collaborating, avoiding or accommodating strategies. Discuss the plot, the members, the time, the development and the ending, the setting. Roleplay the situations with your classmates.

Part 6. Reflective practice

1.6 Find the examples of Toulmin arguments in the Internet. Copy them and mark their parts, using abbreviations: Claim (C), Data (D), Warrant (W), Ground (G), Backing (B), Qualifier (Q), Rebuttal (R). E-mail seven examples of the arguments to your teacher.

List of definitions might be helpful:

Claim is the assertion the speaker isadvocated.

Data consists of the evidence and other reasons given to support the claim.

Warrant is the reasoning process used to connect the data and the claim.

Ground are the facts on which the argument is based.

Backing gives additional support (evidence) to the warrant.

Qualifier determines the strength of the argument.

Rebuttal is a specific circumstance when the warrant does not support the claim.

2.6 Call to your colleague-psychologist using Viber and read him /her the examples from ex. 1.6, you have found in the Internet. Ask him/her to identify the parts of the arguments.

3.6 Write down your own statements using Toulmin Model 1.

Model 1.

Data (D) => Claim (C )

It is raining outside. I should wear my jacket.


Because Warrant(W)

When it is rains I should protect myself by wearing a jacket

4.6 While developing the argument, the speaker may reason by: generalization, authority, cause, analogy or sign. These facilities help to establish the relationship between the claim and the evidence.

Which of the arguments are based on: generalization, authority, cause, analogy or sign?

1. Argument based on______

A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to be true for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.

2. Argument based on

An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between two contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?

3. Argument via______

The notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. Argument by sign is using telltale signs, such as clouds to tell when weather is coming, frowning faces to tell when someone is sad, and so on. Although a lot of times these signs can be a great indicator of what is going on around you, not always does it mean what you think it is going to. Quite often one sign may lead to different conclusions depending on the situation.

For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college.

4. Argument______

Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. Arguments by cause is using looking at the effects of something, and trying to justify a cause. This can be the most difficult argument to use, because many times there are many causes to just one effect.

There is also a lot of room for open argument in these cases, and can make it quite difficult to keep your point of view throughout.

5. Argument from______

Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on? Argument by authority assertion is when you hear something you believe is from a credible source, and you believe it yourself. A lot of false information can be passed around by this type of argument, and in the end you could be humiliated for arguing so strongly against a false fact.

5.6 Answers: 1- Generalization, 2- Analogy, 3- Sign/Clue, 4 - Causal, 5- Authority

7.6 Match the forms of reasoning with the examples:

generalization Students are like worker bees because they are constantly studying and doing work for their


authority When the fire alarm is going off in the kitchen, something is burning.
Cause My dad is too strict. All parents try to make life difficult for their children
analogy s The girls all got food poisoning when they were at the restaurant. They all ordered different entrees but had the same appetizer so they
have gotten sick from the appetizer.
Sign The church says the Earth is flat, therefor the Earth is flat.

Answers: 1- Analogy, 2- Sign, 3- Generalization, 4 - Cause, 5- Authority

6.6 Read and analyze the example of casual argumentation.

Congress should ban animal research (Claim 1) because animals are tortured in experiments that have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of cosmetics (Data). The well being of animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics industry (Warrant). Only congress has the authority to make such a law (Warrant) because the corporations can simply move from state to state to avoid legal penalties (Backing). Of course, this ban should not apply to medical research (Qualifier). A law to ban all research would go too far (Rebuttal). So, the law would probably (qualifier) have to be carefully written to define the kinds of research intended (claim 2). http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/toulmin.pdf

7.6 Develop the casual argumentation on the topic: “Eating a lot of sweets is unhealthy”. Use the text from the previous exercise as an example.

8.6 Task: Look at the diagram below and make up your own statement using generalization. Transform it for Authority, Cause, Analogy and Sign. Use different qualifiers. There is an example given.

Example: "Smoking in Public Places Should be Banned"

You should stop smoking [Claim] because studies show that almost [Qualifier] 80% of smokers can develop lung cancer [Data/Ground]. Stopping a bad habit can help reduce the occurence of its bad consequences [Warrant, *can be stated or left unstated]. Life expectancy is lengthened if habits bad to one's health are stopped [Backing Statement]. Although it is not always the case that people who smoke will suffer from lung cancer, the risks are higher for those who smoke routinely [Rebuttal].


9.6 Look at the scheme. Use these words in your argumentative speech: many, many times, sometimes, seldom, a little, probably, possibly instead of everybody, all people, everyone, absolutely, nobody, never.Develop the arguments with these words.

10.6 You are going to take a part in the roleplay. The topic is: “Applying for a job”.

You are seeking for a job as a psychologist at school after graduating the University. There are other three candidates applying for the vacancy. You are going to get a collective job interview with the headmaster.

Create profile cards for you and other candidates. The cards should include age, gender, working experience, hobbies and professional skills of each person. Think about the questions for the job interview the headmaster may ask.

Think about the way to persuade the headmaster that you are the best candidate for the position. Use a competitive strategy and models of argumentation in your speech. Be ready to use the cards of your classmates and play the roles of people described or the role of the headmaster.

Be ready to discuss your successes and failures with your classmates after the interview.

Think about:

1. Was the competitive strategy the right choice? Which other strategies may have been more effective?

2. Were you nervous when speaking with your opponents? Your boss?

3. How many arguments did you use during the interview?

4. Did you get the desired result? Why?/Why not?

5. Did you take an active part in the conversation? Did you lead or were you led?

6. Give the feedback and share your feelings with your classmates.

<< | >>

Еще по теме Приложение 4 Part 1:

  2. ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ А (справочное)
  5. Базовые спектры нейтронных потоков для формирования обучающей и проверочной выборок
  6. Исследование способов создания опорных нейтронных полей с различной формой энергетических спектров
  8. *В соответствии со статьей 1 Закона Республики Беларусь «О порядке вступления в силу Конституции Республики Беларусь» вступила в силу со дня ее опубликования.
  10. Статья 1. Республика Беларусь - унитарное демократическое социальное правовое государство.
  11. Статья 2. Человек, его права, свободы и гарантии их реализации являются высшей ценностью и целью общества и государства.
  12. Статья 3. Единственным источником государственной власти и носителем суверенитета в Республике Беларусь является народ.
  13. Статья 4. Демократия в Республике Беларусь осуществляется на основе многообразия политических институтов, идеологий и мнений.
  14. Статья 5. Политические партии, другие общественные объединения, действуя в рамках Конституции и законов Республики Беларусь, содействуют выявлению и выражению политической воли граждан, участвуют в выборах.
  15. Статья 6. Государственная власть в Республике Беларусь осуществляется на основе разделения ее на законодательную, исполнительную и судебную.
  16. Статья 7. В Республике Беларусь устанавливается принцип верховенства права.
  17. Статья 8. Республика Беларусь признает приоритет общепризнанных принципов международного права и обеспечивает соответствие им законодательства.