Study Notes on Argumentation
ARGUMENT
WHAT IS ARGUMENT?
The term "argument" can invoke various thoughts and associations.
Reflection Exercise:
Consider what the term means to you and write down your thoughts.
WHAT ARGUMENT IS
The objective of understanding argumentation is to
Move away from viewing arguments as zero-sum games resulting in winners and losers.
Understand arguments as tools for gaining insight into both differing viewpoints and one's own perspectives.
MAKING A CLAIM
Definition:
Every argument contains a claim, also known as an assertion or a proposition.
Characteristics of a claim:
It represents a position or opinion on a topic.
Distinction: A claim must be arguable; mere statements of fact do not qualify.
It indicates positions that can be agreed or disagreed with by others.
Transition from Topic to Claim:
Involves expressing an informed opinion about a topic.
Process to Develop a Strong Claim:
Explore the topic through research.
Discuss the subject with peers.
Engage in brainstorming exercises.
Take detailed notes.
TYPES OF CLAIM
There are three principal types of claims in argumentation:
Claims of Fact
Claims of Value
Claims of Policy
Practical Implication:
It is common for a single argument to incorporate multiple claim types.
CLAIMS OF FACT
Definition:
Claims of fact assert that something is true.
Examples:
You cannot argue that Zimbabwe is not in Africa.
Arguable statement: "Zimbabwe has an unstable government."
Factors that make facts arguable:
Facts come into question when they are
Controversial
Challenging existing beliefs
Example Claim of Fact:
"The Social Security program will go bankrupt by 2045."
Considerations for Establishing Claims of Fact:
Utilize reliable authorities.
Reference recent data.
Ensure data is accurate and typical.
Define terms clearly.
CLAIMS OF VALUE
Definition:
Claims of value posit that something is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable.
Characteristics:
Must be arguable and involve personal judgments and objective evaluations.
Example:
Arguing that "Ryan Reynolds is the best leading man in Hollywood" is subjective.
Development of an Argument from a Claim of Value:
Establish criteria or standards of evaluation.
Demonstrate the extent to which the subject aligns with those standards.
Requirements for Claims of Value:
Establish standards of evaluation (warrants).
Acknowledge the prioritization of the value in the instance being assessed.
Demonstrate advantages (both practical and moral) of the established standards.
Provide examples to make abstract values tangible.
Cite credible authorities for support.
CLAIMS OF POLICY
Definition:
Proposes a change and is characterized by a specific structure.
Structure of an Argument of Policy:
Define the issue (a claim of fact).
Explain the significance of the issue (a claim of value).
Propose the necessary changes (a claim of policy).
Key Considerations:
Some policy arguments advance recommendations for changes in perspectives rather than direct actions.
Requirements for Claims of Policy:
Clearly present the proposed action.
Establish the necessity of action (justification).
Provide a workable plan for implementation.
Highlight the anticipated benefits of the proposed action.
Anticipate opposition or counterarguments.
FROM CLAIM TO THESIS
Developing a claim into a thesis statement involves specificity regarding the argument intended.
In longer, professional essays:
The claim may be implicit.
In academic contexts, the claim should typically be expressed as an explicit one-sentence thesis statement featured prominently in the introduction.
Effective Thesis Statement Characteristics:
Articulates clearly the main point or points intended by the author.
CLOSED THESIS STATEMENT
Definition:
A statement that communicates the main idea along with previews of the major points.
Characteristics:
"Closed" implies limitations on the number of points covered.
A useful structure for short essays or time-constrained writing contexts.
Assists in organizing thoughts and outlining specific argument points.
OPEN THESIS STATEMENT
Definition:
A statement that does not enumerate the points to be covered in an essay.
Effectiveness:
Particularly beneficial for lengthy essays containing many points.
Avoids confusion for readers who may struggle to track numerous argument points.
PRESENTING EVIDENCE
Importance:
After establishing a claim and developing a thesis statement, a writer must support it with relevant and accurate evidence.
Characteristics of Relevant Evidence:
Must connect specifically to the argument being posited.
Writers must explicitly illustrate how each piece of evidence relates to the argument.
Standards for Accurate Evidence:
Ensure quotes are represented without misrepresentation or out-of-context use.
Consider the biases of sources (data may be flawed if sourced from biased entities).
Balance of audience perceptions—select credible sources.
LOGICAL FALLACIES
Definition:
Logical fallacies represent weaknesses or vulnerabilities within an argument.
Key Insight:
A common cause of failing arguments is the use of poor evidence.
A logical fallacy can be viewed as a failure to establish a sound logical connection between a claim and its supporting evidence.
Origins of Logical Fallacies:
Can occur inadvertently but can also be employed intentionally to deceive or manipulate.
They can undermine the integrity and clarity of discourse vital to effective argumentation.
Utilization of Logical Fallacies:
Analyzing published arguments for fallacies can help identify weaknesses.
Self-analysis for fallacies can enhance one's argument strength.
COMMON TYPES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Definition: Attacks the character of the opponent rather than addressing the argument's merits.
Example: Opposing the renovation of a park based on the personal history of a supporter.
Faulty Analogy:
Definition: Uses analogies that lack significant similarities, leading to weak comparisons.
Caution: Assess dissimilarities to avoid fallacious reasoning; advertisements often exploit this for emotional appeal.
Example: Comparing euthanizing animals to ending human suffering without recognizing significant differences.
Straw Man Fallacy:
Definition: Misrepresents an opponent's argument by oversimplifying it to easily refute.
Example: Dismissing a complex proposal about space exploration as simply seeking "little green men."
Either/Or Fallacy (False Dilemma):
Definition: Presents two extreme options as the exclusive possibilities.
Example: Claiming that the only alternatives are higher taxes or perpetual debt for future generations.
Hasty Generalization:
Definition: Draws a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
Example: Using anecdotal evidence to argue against established medical research on smoking.
Circular Reasoning:
Definition: Uses the claim itself as the only evidence presented for the claim.
Example: Assertation that one cannot receive a C grade because they are an A student, without providing justification beyond the assertion itself.
Stacking the Deck Fallacy:
Definition: Presents only one side of an argument to bolster support.
Example: Criticism of documentaries that don't consider multiple viewpoints, like “Super Size Me.”
Appeal to False Authority:
Definition: References an authority lacking relevant expertise on the subject.
Example: Using a celebrity to endorse medical products without expertise.
Bandwagon Appeal (Ad Populum Fallacy):
Definition: Argues based on popularity rather than logic.
Example: Using opinion polls to assert a candidate's worthiness of election solely based on popularity.
FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE
Definition: Evidence derived from personal experience, observations, anecdotes, or general knowledge.
Characteristics:
Personal experience adds emotional appeal (pathos).
Introduces relatability, making abstract issues more accessible.
Importance in Argumentation:
While it engages readers, personal experience alone is insufficient to persuade.
Most compelling when the writer conveys insider knowledge.
SECOND-HAND EVIDENCE
Definition: Evidence obtained through research, inquiry, and scholarly investigation.
Components:
Encompasses factual data, expert opinions, statistical information, and literatures.
Implications:
When citing others' knowledge rather than one's own, it primarily appeals to logos (reason and logic).
TYPES OF ARGUMENT
Argument Development Techniques:
Deductive Argument
Inductive Argument
Toulmin Argument
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
Application:
Effective when relating specific issues to widely-accepted general principles.
Structure of Deductive Reasoning:
Major Premise: A general principle or assertion.
Minor Premise: A specific case that falls under the general principle.
Conclusion: A logical outcome derived from the premises.
Example of Syllogism:
Major Premise: "Exercise contributes to better health."
Minor Premise: "Yoga is a type of exercise."
Conclusion: "Yoga contributes to better health."
Critical Note:
If either premise is false or disputable, the conclusion may also be challenged.
Example: Major Premise: "Celebrities are role models for young people."
Minor Premise: "Lindsey Lohan is a celebrity."
Conclusion: "Lindsey Lohan is a role model for young people."
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
Application:
Ideal when numerous specific pieces of evidence support a broader claim.
Definition of Induction:
Arranging arguments from specific instances to general conclusions.
Structure:
Collecting specific examples leading to an overarching conclusion.
Example of Inductive Argument:
"Regular exercise leads to weight loss."
"Exercise reduces stress levels."
"Exercise enhances mood and outlook."
Conclusion: "Exercise contributes to better health."
Real-world Usage:
Daily reasoning often employs induction; e.g., assumptions based on friends' reliable experiences with a brand.
PROBLEMS WITH SYLLOGISMS/ENTHYMEMES
Definition of Enthymeme:
A type of deductive reasoning lacking explicit premises or sufficient backing.
Strength of Enthymemes:
Only robust if the underlying assumptions are shared between the audience and the speaker.
Implications:
May require more qualifications and backing to fortify arguments adequately.