Basic of Arguments

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 15

Argument: The Basics

What is Argument?
Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported
by evidence. There are five highly relevant characteristics
of argument:
Argumentation is a social process. Having an argument
involves two or more individuals responding to one
another's claim and support for such a claim. Argument is
not simply restating the same claims and reasons, rather it
is supporting, modifying or defending positions
accordingly. As a process, arguments unfold based on the
contributions of the dialogue participants.
Argumentation aims to gain adherence from an audience.
People argue to gain assent for their positions. The world is
filled with ambiguous situations that argument attempts to
render more certain. Argumentation is a listener and
audience-oriented activity—even if the audience is just one
person. Ultimately, one wishes to persuade to audience the
act on the advanced claim, whether it is to encourage action
or gain support.
Argument is an art. As an art, argument has techniques and
general principles, therefore is a learned craft. Although
there are suggested guidelines and argumentative tools,
there is no science of argument.
Argument involves contested issues. As a mode of
influence, argument has persuasion as a central goal.
Argument does not occur where there is consensus.
Argument fills much of our lives. Whether we recognize so
or not, argument dominates our lives. We spend time
arguing about what to eat, who to invite, when to do things,
and where to go.
Why Argue?
That people argue seems obvious. People argue for four
main reasons:
To clarify thinking as individuals or groups. Oftentimes,
individuals and groups do not know what they believe but
are still faced with information that requires interpretation.
Argument can help individuals and groups learn about
issues.
To explain or defend actions or beliefs. People have
reasons for doing what they do, though oftentimes the
reasons are not made clear. Argument seeks to shed light
on those reasons and make them explicit and open to
scrutiny.
To solve problems or make judgments. The world is filled
with controversies about how best to act, all with
competing interests and evidence that prescribe a particular
direction. Argument helps facilitate decision-making about
what actors should and should not do.
To have fun. Participating in the clash of ideas can be an
intellectually stimulating process that is primarily
pleasurable. Argument is not always serious and
deliberative; in fact, most arguments that people have are
over relatively unimportant issues.
What's the difference between argument and logic?
Argument is fundamentatlly a communicative exercise,
whereas logic is a more philosophical endeavor that does
not champion persuasion as a primary goal. Therefore,
argument, unlike logic, is an audience oriented process. For
an actor to be persuaded of a belief or action, they must
find the arguer’s arguments compelling. This requires
audience adaptation and development of credibility in
addition to developing good, reasonable claims and
supporting reasons.
Argument requires audience adaptation. Arguers must keep
in mind that not all arguments are persuasive to all
audiences. Additionally, some techniques might be more
successful than others for specific audiences: professionals
are more likely to want polished, analytical, logical
presentations, whereas protestors are more likely to want
highly charged, emotive argument that rallies moral
indignation for their cause.
Argument requires establishing credibility. Credibility, as
classical rhetoricians recognize, involves intelligence,
character, and goodwill. Intelligence means having
knowledge of your subject and arguing in a clear, logical
fashion. Character means displaying traits your audience
admires—like honesty, sincerity, integrity, and moral
commitment. Goodwill means treating your audience with
respect, putting your case in terms they can understand, and
acknowledging their points of view. Aristotle notes that
credibility is often the controlling factor in persuasion; if
the audience does not perceive the speaker as credible, then
the audience will not be as attentive to the message itself.
How Does Oral Argument Differs From Written
Argument?
Memory. Written argument can be referenced again and
again. Titles and subtitles give readers a preview of what is
to come, aiding comprehension of their reading. The exact
phrasing of oral argument disappears as soon as it is
spoken. Consequently, listeners often understand oral
arguments only in fragments rather in their totality. As a
result, very complex arguments are difficult to develop
orally.
Physicality. Oral argument intimately involves the human
body. Pitch, rate, gesture, and tone of voice, are all forms of
nonverbal communication that introduce the potential for
misunderstandings. Written argument generally is clearer.
Consequently, the friction that is possible from verbal
interaction plays a large role in (mis)understanding.
What are Basic Components of an Argument?
Argument, while based in logic, is ultimately an exercise in
language. Thus, argument is not exclusively the study of
deductive or inductive reasoning—these are tasks reserved
for philosophical inquiry. Instead, argument investigates
the communicative aspects of reasoning. Arguments can be
divided into four general components: claim, reason,
support, and warrant.
Claims are statements about what is true or good or about
what should be done or believed. Claims are potentially
arguable. "A liberal arts education prepares students better
than other forms of education" is a claim, while "I didn't
like the book" is not. No one can really dispute whether I
liked the book or not, but one can argue about the benefits
of liberal arts. "I thought the movie was cool" is not an
arguable statement, however,"that movie was an actor’s
best" does present possibilities for argumentation, for
people can disagree and offer support for why such an
acting job was the actor's best based on criteria of what
constitutes an outstanding performance.
Reasons are statements that support a given claim, making
a claim more than a mere assertion. Reasons are statements
in an argument that pass two tests. First, reasons are
answers to the hypothetical challenge: “Why do you say
that?” or “What justifications can you give me to believe
that?” If a claim about liberal arts education is challenged,
a reasoned response could be: “It teaches students to think
independently.” Reasons can be linked—most often, not
explicitly—to claims with the word "because."
Support substantiates the reasons offered and helps compel
audiences to accept an advanced claim. This usually comes
in the form of evidence. Evidence comes in different sorts,
and tends to vary from one academic field or argument
topic to another. Scientific arguments about global
warming require different kinds of evidence than mealtime
arguments about the latest movie. Evidence offers
challenges and support to the reasons given. Evidence
comes in various forms, including specific examples,
statistics, data, testimonies and narratives, to name only a
few.
Warrants are the inferences or assumptions that connect the
support to the claim. Warrants often answer the question
“what do you have to believe in order to believe that the
support justifies the claim or reason being made?” If a
reason given to justify a liberal education is the
improvement of critical thinking, then the implicit
assumption, or warrant, is that critical thinking is good.
Warrants are often just assumed and rarely articulated,
which can make them difficult to detect.
For Example:
Claim: Recent tax cuts should be abandoned.
Reason: …because they only benefit the rich.
Support: Statistics show that the majority of the tax cuts are
targeted at upper middle class and upper class families, not
poor families and individuals.
Warrant: Tax cuts that only benefit the rich are unfair.
Or,
Claim: The Civil War was caused by slavery.
Reason: …because the Northern states rejected the
Southern states reliance on slavery.
Support: The recorded debates in newspapers and state
legislatures in the North focused on the South’s reliance on
slavery, not economics.
Warrant: The record of debates in newspapers and
legislatures is an accurate guide to determining the cause of
conflict.
Most argumentative controversies, as can be seen in the
examples, center on the truth or validity of the support and
warrants. Thus, the interpretation of data and inferences
provides the richest source for students of argument to
learn.

You might also like