In writing, argument stands as a paper; grounded on logical, structured evidence, that attempts to convince the reader to accept an opinion, take some action, or do both. It is also a process during which you explore an issue fully, considering different perspectives, assumptions, reasons, and evidence to reach your own informed position.
Arguments don’t always involve conflicts. Some simply support a previously established decision or course of action. Others try to establish some common ground.
When you write an argument, you don’t simply sit down and dash off your views as though they came prefabricated. Instead, argument represents an opportunity to think things through, to gradually, and often tentatively, come to some conclusions, and then, in stages, begin to draft your position with the support you have discovered.
You rarely start from scratch. Instead, you join a conversation where ideas and evidence have already been exchanged.
The most successful arguments rest on a firm foundation of solid, logical support. In addition, many arguments include emotion because it can play an important part in swaying reader opinion.
7.1 The Rational Appeal: Logos
Reasons are the key points or general ideas you’ll use to defend your conclusions. To convince readers, your reasons must be substantiated by evidence.
When you appeal to reason in argument, then, you present your reasons and evidence in such a way that if your readers are also reasonable they will likely agree with you, or at least see your position as plausible. That assumes, of course that you and your readers start from some common ground about the principles you share and what you count as evidence.
Evidence falls into several categories: established truths, opinions of authorities, primary source information, statistical findings, and personal experience. The strongest arguments usually combine several kinds of evidence.
7.1.1 Established truths
These are facts that no one can seriously dispute, such as historical, scientific, geo/demographics, etc. These aren’t arguable themselves but do provide strong backup for argumentative propositions.
A. Opinions of authorities
An authority is a recognized expert in some field. Authoritative opinions —the only kind to use— play a powerful role in winning readers over to your side. Whatever your argument, don’t settle for less that heavyweight authorities, and, when possible, indicate their credentials to your reader. This information makes their statements more persuasive. You should, of course, also cite the source of your information.
Beware of biased opinions. Unless the opinion can stand especially close scrutiny, don’t put it in your paper; it will waken your case with perceptive readers.
B. Primary source information
You’ll need to support certain types of argument with primary source information –documents or other materials produced by individuals directly involved with the issue or conclusions you researched by carrying out an investigation yourself. This type of information can help you reach sound conclusions and build strong support for your position. Remember to always document your sources accordingly.
C. Statistical findings
Statistics –data showing how much, how many, or how often –can also buttress your argument. Most come in a printed fashion, but you can use data from our own investigations as well. Because statistics are often misused, many people distrust them, so any you offer must be reliable.
Take care not to push statistical claims too far. There’s simply no carryover. Keep alert for biased statistics; they can cause as serious a credibility gap as biased opinions. Always document your sources.
D. Personal experience
Sometimes personal experience can deliver an argumentative message more forcefully than any other kind of evidence. Often the experiences and observations of others, gathered from books, magazines, or interviews, can support our position.
Despite its use fullness, personal experiences generally reinforce but do not replace other kinds of evidence. Unless it has other support, readers may reject it as atypical or trivial.
7.2 Reasoning Strategies
An argument consists of a conclusion you want to support, your reasons for that conclusion, and the evidence that supports your reasons. Rational appeals include three reasoning strategies: Induction, Deduction, and Analogy.
7.2.1 Induction
An argument from induction occurs when a general claim is supported by specific evidence, whether direct observations, statistical data, or scientific studies.
Induction makes our conclusions probable but rarely proves them. To prove something by induction, we must check every bit of evidence and often that’s just not practical or possible. All inductive evidence only makes supported conclusions likely.
You might begin by posing some direct or indirect question in order to snare our reader’s interest, or you might simply state the position you will argue. The body of the paper provides the supporting evidence. In the conclusion you could reaffirm your position or suggest the consequences of that position.
In addition to presenting the available evidence, there are two other important things you should do.
- Demonstrate the credibility of your evidence
- Show how the evidence fits the conclusion you want to reach.
7.2.2 Deduction
Deduction is a process of argumentation that demonstrates how a specific conclusion follows logically from some initial premises about which people might agree.
You might begin with the position you intend to prove, with a question that will be answered by the argument, or with a synopsis of the argument. The body of the paper works out the implications of your assumption. In the conclusion you could directly state (or restate, in different words) your position, suggest the consequences of adopting or not adopting that position, or pose a question that is easily answered after reading the argument.
A. Reduction ad Absurdum
A common and powerful form of deduction translated to: “to reduce to absurdity”, and used to question a position by showing that its consequences are problematic if carried to their logical end.
B. Syllogism
Sometimes a deductive argument is built around a categorical syllogism, a set of three statements that follow a fixed pattern to ensure sound reasoning. The first statement, called the major premise, names a category of things and says that all or none of them shares a certain characteristic. Make sure it is in fact true. The minor premise notes that a thing or group of things belongs to that category. The conclusion states that the thing or group shares the characteristics f the category. Both major and minor premises are true and the conclusion follows logically.
7.2.3 Analogy in argument
An analogy compares two unlike situations or things. Arguers often use analogies to contend that because two items share one or more likenesses, they are also alike in other ways.
Analogy is the weakest form of rational appeal. Analogies never prove anything. But they often help explain and show probability and therefore are quite persuasive. They must feature significant similarities that bear directly on the issue. In addition, they must account for any significant differences between the two items.
7.3 The Emotional Appeal: Pathos
Although effective argument relies mainly on reason, an emotional appeal can lend powerful reinforcement. Indeed, emotion can win the hearts and help of people who would otherwise passively accept a logical argument but take no action.
In evaluating or writing an argument, ask yourself whether the facts warrant the emotion.
7.4 The Ethical Appeal: Ethos
Before logic can do its work, the audience must be willing to consider the argument. The image that the writer projects is called the ethical appeal. If you write with a genuine concern for your topic, a commitment to the truth, and a sincere respect for others, you will probably come across reasonably well.
7.5 Ferreting Out Fallacies
Fallacies are lapses in logic that reflect upon your ability to think clearly, and therefore they weaken your argument.
Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization results when someone bases a conclusion on too little evidence.
Non Sequitur
From the Latin “it does not follow,” the non sequitur fallacy drawa unwarranted conclusions from seemingly ample evidence.
Stereotyping
A person who commits this fallacy attaches one or more supposed characteristics to a group or one of its members.
Card Stacking
In card stacking, the writer presents only part of the available evidence on a topic, deliberately omitting essential information that would alter the picture considerably.
Either/Or Fallacy
The either/or fallacy asserts that only two choices exist when, in fact, several options are possible. Not all either/or statements are fallacies.
Begging the Question
A person who begs the question asserts the truth of some unproved statement. No evidence is offered. People lacking principles often use this fallacy to hit opponents below the belt.
Circular Argument
Circular argument, a first cousin to begging the question, supports a position merely by restating it.
Arguing off the Point
The writer who argues off the point, sometimes called “ignoring the question” or “red herring,” sidetracks an issue by introducing irrelevant information.
The Argument ad Hominem
The Latin term “to the man” designates an argument that attacks an individual rather than that individual’s opinions or qualifications. This attack completely skirts the real issue.
Appeal to the Crowd
An appeal of this sort arouses an emotional response by playing on the irrational fears and prejudices of the audience (communists, fascists, law and order). Terms are tossed about freely to sway the audience for or against something. Tapping the emotions of the crowd can sway large groups and win acceptance for positions that rational thinking would reject.
Guilt by Association
This fallacy points out some similarity or connection between one person or group and another. It tag the first with the sins, real or imagined, of the second.
Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc
The Latin meaning, “after this, therefore because of this,” refers to the fallacy of assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the second.
Faulty Analogy
This is the error of assuming that two circumstances or things are similar in all important respects, when in fact they are not.
7.6 Writing an Argument
7.6.1 Planning and Drafting the Argument
Examine whether you should support or oppose
Before you enter an argument, it helps to be informed.
7.7 Arguments for Different Purposes
Consider the purpose of your argument and how that might affect the strategies you choose to employ. Some arguments try to establish that something is a fact. Other arguments defend or oppose some policy or support or oppose some action or project. Still other arguments assert the greater value of someone or something.
7.8 Directing Arguments to Readers
Imagine that your audience is a group of readers who are neutral or opposed to your position; there’s no point in preaching to the converted. It is best to adopt the attitude that most readers are willing to be convinced if your approach is appealing and your evidence is sound.
7.9 Rogerian Argument
If you’re arguing an emotionally charged issue you may want to use Rogerian argument. This type of argument attempts to reduce the antagonism that people with opposing views might feet toward your position. To succeed, you must show that you understand and respect the opposing position as ell as acknowledge its good points. You try to establish some common point of agreement. Then show how the conclusion you want really follows from the reader’s own values and assumptions without compromising our own.
7.10 Drafting the Argument
The introduction arouses the reader’s interest and may also present the proposition—a special thesis statement that manes the issue and indicates which position the writer will take. It can declare that something is a fact, support a policy, call for a certain action, or assert that something has greater value than something else.
The body is where you present evidence to defend your position. If one of your points is likely to arouse resistance, hold it back and begin by making points your reader can more easily accept. You might open with a brief description. Next, you could offer a brief definition so that the writer and the reader are on common ground, and, to show the dimensions of the problem, classify it. Then, after detailing the negative effects, you might end by comparing it with something similar. Make sure that substantiating evidence is embedded in them. Strategies by themselves won’t convince.
Besides presenting evidence, use this part of your paper to refute, that is, to point out weaknesses or errors in the opposing position. You can place refutations throughout the body of the paper or group then together just ahead of the conclusion. Don’t adopt a gloating or sarcastic tone that will alienate a fair-minded reader. Resist the urge to engage in straw man tactics—calling attention to imaginary or trivial weaknesses of the opposing side so that you can demolish them.
Finally, don’t be afraid to concede secondary or insignificant points to the opposition. Arguments have two or more sides; you can’t have all the ammunition on your side.
Conclude in a manner that will sway the reader to your side. You might restate your position, summarize your main points, predict the consequences if your position dies or doesn’t prevail, or make an emotional appeal for support or action.
