Module 2 Arguments: Basic Question Types

Assumption Based Questions

Assumption Sufficient
Assumption Necessary
Strengthen
Weaken
Flow
Evaluate
Reasoning Conforms
Parallel Flaw

Inference Based Questions

Inference
Point at Issue
Guided Inference

Structure Based Questions 

Main Point 
Method of Argument
Function
Parallel Reasoning 

Situational Questions

Paradox 
Principle Above 
Situation Conforms 

Assumption Sufficient

will prove the assumption to be true thereby proving the conclusion to be true

Assumption Sufficient - Question Stem Language

conclusion will follow logically if AC is true

conclusion will be properly drawn if AC is true

AC (answer choice) justifies the conclusion

Assumption Necessary 

ACs (answer choice) will provide information that is “needed” for the assumption to be true 

Assumption Necessary - question stem language

assumption required 

assumption on which the argument depends/ relies/ needs

assumption underlies argument 

Strengthen

ACs (answer choice) will make the assumption more likely to be true

Strengthen - question stem

AC strengthens

AC supports

AC most justifies

argument supported by the AC

Weaken

ACs will make the assumption less likely to be true

Weaken - question stem language

weaken

undermines

calls into question

Flaw 

Flaw ACs will make the assumption less likely to be true 

Flaw - Question Stem Language

flaw

error in reasoning

vulnerable to criticism

Evaluate

Evaluate ACs will ask a question that addresses the assumption

Evaluate - question stem language 

Evaluate 

Evaluation 

Validity 

Parallel Flaw

Parallel Flaw will have a correct AC that contains an argument that displays the same assumption as the argument in question Paralel

Parallel Flaw - question stem language

error in reasoning similar to which one of the following

flaws reasoning most similar

Reasoning Conforms 

Reasoning conforms ACs will state the assumption of the argument in langauge that is slightly broader or stronger than the perfect assumption 

Reasoning Conforms - question stem language

argument or reasoning forms to the following principle

Inference

Inference based questions

AC will provide a statement that “almost has to be true” according to the information given and “generally accepted reality”

Inference - question stem language 

inference 
argument supports answer choice 
answer choice supported by argument 
answer choice must be true/false
a conclusion
answer choice follows logically or is properly drawn from the argument 

Point at Issue

Point at issue ACs will provide a statement that both speakers addressed directly or indirectly in such a way that you infer that they disagree (or agree) with one another about that statement

Point at Issue - question stem language

point at issue
disagree
agree

Guided Inference (“Fill in the blank”)

ACs build on information given in the argument and key words leading up to the blank

Guided Inference Question Stem Language

Most appropriately fills in the blank
most logically completes the argument  

Maint Point

Main Point ACs simply state THE conclusion of the argument

Main Point Question Stem Lanaguage

main point
the conclusion
statement that the argument is attempting to establish

Method of the Argument

ACS describe WHAT the argument is doing usually in very vague terms

Method of Argument Question Stem Language

method of argument
method of reasoning
proceeds by
technique
by

Function

Acs describe the way that one aprticular part of the argument fits into the argument as a whole 

Function Question Stem Language

function
role
figures in the argument
purpose

Parallel Reasoning

ACs will present an entire argument that parallels the logical (not necessarily physical) argumentative structure of the main argument

Parallel Reasoning Question Stem Language

reasoning most similar
parallel reasoning

Paradox 

ACs will help to explain or resolve the situation in the argument that seems contradictory 

Paradox Question Stem Language

resolve the paradox
explain the surprising results
resolve or reconcile the discrepancy
explain the different

Principle Above

ACs will take the general principle that was stated or illustrated in the argument above and apply that principle to a new, specific situation

Principle Above Question Stem Language 

principle illustrated above
principle state above

Situation Conforms

ACs will state a general principle or just an idea that applies to the situation described in the argument above 

Situation Conforms Question Stem Language

situation above most conforms to - the following principle/generalization
situation above best illustrated the following

following proposition … exemplified by the situation above
example above illustrates .. the following proposition

Task in the argument - Assumption Based Questions

Always ID conclusion first
ID the target evidence
Find the missing link (assumption) between the Evidence and Conclusion

Attitude Toward the Argument - Assumption based questions

Trust the Evidence as truth 
DO NOT TRUST the author’s logical connection between the Evidence and the Conclusion
Question the validity of the Conclusion !!!

Task in the Argument - Inference Based Questions

Assess the facts, but do NOT ID conclusion OR evidence

Attitude toward the argument - Inference Based Question

TRUST the truth of the author’s statements
Do NOT question the validity of the author’s statements and do NOT try to critique the argument

Task in the Argument - Structure Based Questions 

Identify the Structural Components of the Argument 
ALWAYS ID CONCLUSION FIRST
Further analysis depends on the specific question type

Attitude towards the argument - Structure based questions 

DO NOT question the validity of the author’s statements 
DO NOT try to critique the argument 

Task in the Argument - Situational Questions

Identify the Components of the Given Situation

Attitude Toward the Argument - Situational Questions 

This is NOT even really an argument. It’s a fact pattern that may or may nto seem to make sense 

DO NOT question the validity of the author’s statements 

DO NOT try to critique the argument