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. Ulrimately, 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 credibile, 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.

The Principles of Argumentation

by Johnie H. Scott, Assistant Professor
Pan African Studies Department - California State University, Northridge

One of the major modes of discourse, argumentation can be applied to virtually all
assignments involving critical reasoning no matter the subject or discipline. As it
involves a higher level of reasoning than associated with descriptive writing, or
narrative writing, or expository writing per se, it is crucial for the successful
university-level student to understand and master the principles, indeed the concepts
that drive the critical thinking skills associated with argumentative writing.

The argumentative essay shares many characteristics with the expository essay. The
argument also consists of an introduction, body and conclusion. It also is built around
a major premise (in this instance, called the Proposition rather than the Thesis
Statement). Additionally, there is a definite pattern of organization used in developing
the argument. But before delving more deeply into this, let us go to the fundamentals.

What Is An "Argument?"

First, one must be familiar with the terminology. In this instance, the term argument
refers to "a reasoned attempt to convince the audience to accept a particular point of
view about a debatable topic." Looking more closely at this definition, we observe
that the argument is not irrational; it does not depend strictly on passion or emotion.
Rather, argumentation represents a "reasoned attempt," that is, an effort based on
careful thinking and planning where the appeal is to the mind, the intellect of the
audience at hand. Why? The answer to this is that one wants to "convince the
audience to accept a particular point of view."

The key concept here is "to convince the audience," that is, you must make them
believe your position, accept your logic and evidence. Not only do you want them to
accept the evidence, but you want that audience to accept "a particular point of view"
-- that point of view, or perspective, is yours. It is your position, your proposition.
Understand that all too often the audience may be intrigued by the evidence presented,
but that intrigue alone is not enough to convince them of the validity or authority of
your position in the matter.

You want the audience to accept your point of view about the topic whether it is gun
control, safe sex, or stiffer prison sentences for criminal offenders no matter what age.
Finally, there must be "a debatable topic" present for a true argument to develop.

What is debatable? One cannot, for example, debate whether or not the Los Angeles
Dodgers won the 1988 World Series or that Dodger pitcher Orel Hershiser won the
Most Valuable Player Award for that particular World Series. One cannot debate the
fact that the Chicago Bulls won three consecutive National Basketball Association
(NBA) championships from 1991-1993 or that Evander Holyfield, while losing his
heavyweight champion of the world title to Riddick Bowe in 1992 was able to regain
the title 11 months later in 1993 at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.

Those are indisputable facts. One cannot debate the fact that Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson
lost the 1988 bid for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination to Michael
Dukakis. That also is fact.

One can debate, however, what the concept of "Freedom" means to those Black South
Africans living under apartheid. One can certainly debate whether or not high school
administrators should ban the wearing of baseball caps by students to school as was
the case in the San Fernando Valley during the 1988 school year in an effort to nip
gang violence in the bud as being effective or over-reaching boundaries. Again, the
key principle here is that the topic must be one which has at least two sides -- Pro
(those in favor of the proposition under discussion) and Con (those who are against
the Proposition as stated).

The Proposition

Now that we understand what the term argument refers to, we move to the fact that
every argument must have a Proposition -- this is the major premise of the argument
and classically will have at least three (3) major claims on which it is to be built.

Example

The negative image of the African American male can be directly traced to the
historic stereotyping of a racist white mentality evidenced in motion pictures, in
literature and in popular American folklore.
Note here that the major premise is that the negative image of the African American
male can be directly traced to the historic stereotyping of a racist white mentality. But
to develop this proposition, the person must show through evidence (1) negative
images in motion pictures, (2) negative images in American literature, and (3)
negative images of African American males in popular American folklore. What you
want to keep in mind, irrespective of the position you might be advancing, is to
formulate a clearly stated proposition. There must be no ambiguity about your
proposition. You also want to indicate within that proposition how you intend to
support or develop it. And finally, you want to do so within one complete sentence
that carries a subject and a verb.

Evidence in Argumentation

To support your proposition, one must present evidence. There are two (2) types of
evidence used in argumentation : fact(s) and opinion(s). Facts consist of items that can
be verified or proven. There are at least four (4) categories of facts:

1. By Scientific Measurement -- one measures the extent of an earthquake not by

how "it felt," but rather how it measured on the Richter Scale. In track and
field, one commonly finds the Accutron used to time running events in
thousandths of a second and the more accurate metric system used in field
events such as the long jump or javelin throw;
2. By the Way Nature Works -- we know that the sun rises in the east and sets in
the west; that water flows downhill, not uphill; that cloud formations indicate
specific weather patterns;
3. By Observation -- in courts of law, this would consist of eyewitness testimony.
In research, this might consist of a longitudinal study of a phenomenom carried
out over a period of 3-5 years involving several hundreds or thousands of cases
looking for and recording similarities and differences; and
4. By Statistics -- to note that for the year 1988, crimes of violence in the United
States increased 9.2 percent from 1987 -- from 112,598 reported cases to
122,957 (a gain of 10,359 crimes). While this is a hypothetical example, one
sees the approach used.

The second type of evidence that can be utilized in an argument is opinion. In this
instance, we are not talking about your personal opinion (the audience already knows
your position in the matter!). Nor are we talking about the way you friend might feel
about the issue. That would surely be inadmissable in a court of law. Rather, the type
of opinion we deal with here is expert opinion -- the opinions expressed by an
established authority in the field. If the topic is child abuse patterns, then one may
wish to cite a child psychologist who has published on the subject or the head of a
group like Parents Anonymous that has dedicated itself to reducing and/or eliminating
child abuse. The opinion(s) cited must be credible.

It is in presenting your evidence that you are, in fact, developing the Body of your
argument. Keep in mind that in putting forth your Proposition, you do so in your
introductory paragraphs. In developing that Introduction, you want to get the attention
of the audience -- so again, make effective use of the various opening strategies. That
evidence, be it fact or opinion, must be present in each of the three planks you put
forth to develop and support your proposition. You want to make ample use of
examples and illustrations along the way, bringing your proposition to life before the
audience, painting word-pictures so that they can see, hear and feel what you are
advancing to them. You want to convince, not merely inform!

Fallacious Reasoning

One area often overlooked by those engaged in argumentation, even the more
practised, consists of fallacies. A fallacy is best described as illogical reasoning. There
are many reasons why this can occur, but in this section we will single out some of the
more important fallacies in hopes that you will memorize what they are, avoid them in
your arguments, and be able to spot them in the arguments presented by others.

Hasty generalization occurs when you come to a conclusion based on too few
examples or insufficient data. You might call this "jumping to conclusions." By the
same token, when taken to the extreme we find that the hasty generalization becomes
stereotyping when the actions or traits of a few are generalized to take in an entire
group. Stereotyping can be mean, even vicious. Think of various ethnic stereotypes
associated with African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and Jews.

Begging the Question takes place when you assume as a basic premise something that
needs to be proven, for example:

1. Inner city schools are inferior to suburban schools.

2. Black colleges are inferior to major state-run universities.
3. The Black Athlete is naturally superior to others.

Evading the Question happens when you move from the real issue and begin
discussing something else. Imagine that the District Attorney in a streetgang homicide
case implicates the single parent mother as a defendant as well for failing to know the
whereabouts of her son. Or, asserting that racism in America is no longer a problem
with the gains made by African Americans in electoral politics when the issue is the
chronic, longtime double-digit unemployment of adult African American males. This
type of fallacy will also involve name calling as when you accuse your opponent of
being a wife beater or alcoholic rather than sticking with the issues. Avoid this. It
distracts from your argument and is dishonest.

Finally, there is argumentum ad hominem. This occurs when you direct your
argument to the prejudices and instincts of the crowd, of the mob, rather than dealing
with the real issue(s). For example, in speaking to a group of welfare recipients about
their tenant rights, you base your argument on the indignities they may have suffered
rather than educating them to the problem(s) at hand and what they can do about
these.

As you can see, to properly develop an argument calls for time, it calls for research, it
calls for careful thinking and planning. It also makes certain demands on you relative
to ethics -- that is, you want to always be truthful when addressing the issues, you
want to avoid deceit or the appearance of deception, yours is the burden of
maintaining credibility at all times. This is not easy but as you go along, one gains
experience and confidence.

Anticipating Objections

All too often do we fall in love with our point of view to the extent that we forget our
own humanity -- that is, all humans will err. No one can make a claim to absolute
truth on an issue. One must always contend with the shadow of a doubt. So long as
this is true, then you must be conscious of the fact that your opponent may have very
valid objections to your proposition. You should try to anticipate, to think of the
possible objections that can be made against your argument. Not only that, but those
good practicioners of the art will incorporate those objections into their argument and
answer them along the way. This is very impressive. Not only have you, so to speak,
stolen some of your opponent's thunder, but you have also made a very positive
impression on your audience/your reader. For that audience is now saying to itself,
"Wow, this person has really done his/her homework!"

The incorporation of these possible objections can occur all along the de- velopment
of your argument. They can appear in each and every one of your support planks to
your proposition and can then be reiterated at the summary. And it is in the Summary,
which is the term used to refer to the conclusion of the argumentative essay, that one
wraps everything up in convincing the reader(s) of your point of view.

The Closing Strategies

Nowhere is it more true than with the argumentative essay that you want to close
strongly! The fact is that you not only want the audience to hear you; you also want
them to believe you and, where needed, take action on what they have heard. To that
end, the argumentative essay will certainly draw from the eight different strategies
that exist to conclude. You may wish to use a combination of these strategies as you
make your presentation of proof. With the thought in mind that this paper carries
ample evidence, make certain to observe the guidelines for documentation. For those
in the social sciences, there are both APA and ASA guidelines that do exist and can be
studied. The same applies for those in the humanities with the Modern Language
Association.

Discussion

In this presentation, we have examined some of the basic principles that surround the
argumentative mode of discourse. For those concerned with arguing as a social
process, then concern must certainly be paid to certain communication rules as you
are not verbally assaulting someone but rather, as noted earlier, making a rational
appeal to the audience to accept a particular point of view based upon a claim
supported by evidence. Those Speech Communication scholars will point out that
there are four social conventions which govern any argument. As Douglas Ehninger
points out, "That is, when you decide to argue with another person, you are making,
generally, commitments to four standards of judgment:"

1. Convention of Bilaterality: Argument is explicitly bilateral: it requires at least

two people or two competing messages. The arguer, implicitly or explicitly, is
saying that he or she is presenting a message that can be examined by others. A
spokesperson for the National Urban League, for example, assumes that
designation and puts forth that organization's proposed solution(s) to certain
social problems that America is faced with in oppostion to solutions offered by
others. In doing so, the National Urban League specifically calls for
counterargument so that a middle ground may be reached.
2. Convention of Self-Risk: In argument, there is always the risk of being proven
wrong. For example, when you argue that a federal public school system is
preferable to a state- or local-based public school system, you invite the
possibility that your opponent will convince you that local or neighborhood-
controlled schools present fewer bureaucratic problems and more benefits than
does federal control. Keep in mind that the public has been invited to carefully
evaluate both arguments, that the public eye can and will expose your
weakenesses as well as those of your opponent.
3. The Fairness Doctrine: Our system of government, from the community level
up to the Congress itself, is based upon the "fairness doctrine." This, in itself,
 presents the following concept: the idea that debate (argument) ought to be as
extended and as complete as possible in order to guaranteee that all viewpoints
are aired, considered, and defended. In my classroom when students debate,
equal time is given to both sides even if one side chooses not to use all the time
allotted, or fails to use all the available time. This is different, however, from
how that time is used -- that is, the effectiveness with which a party is able to
utilize the time it is given.
4. Commitment to Rationality: When you argue or debate, a commitment is made
to proceed with logic. When you make an assertion, you are saying, "This is
what I believe and these are my reasons for that belief." As a debater, your
commitment is to giving evidence, examples, data in support of your assertion
-- reasons that you believe fully support your claim and should be accepted by
the audience or the doubtful. For example, when you argue that handguns
should be banned by law, someone else has the right to say "No" (the
convention of bilaterality) and the right to put forth a contrary (i.e., "Con")
proposition (the fairness doctrine). Furthermore, all parties to the argument --
the doubtful, the audience, the person or parties you are debating with -- have
the right to ask, "Why do you believe that?" (the convention of rationality).
Argument, accordingly, is a rational form of communication in the sense that
all debaters believe they have good reasons for the acceptance of their
assertions. They are, in fact, obligated to provide those reasons; they cannot get
away with saying,"Oh, I don't know -- I just feel that it's true. That's the way it
is. You know what I mean." If the evidence presented is relevant to the
assertion being made and if they are acceptable to the audience hearing the
assertion put forth, then the debater will have met that commitment to
rationality.

With this in mind, the person about to engage in debate will always take care to assess
not only the assertion being made, but the audience to whom that claim is being
presented. You may have done exhaustive research on a proposition. You may have
thought your argument out, have written a good opening and closed with a logical
conclusion. But if you have failed to take into account the nature of the audience
listening to your assertion, then there is a great likelihood that your argument will fall
upon deaf ears.

Take, for instance, the person whose argument is that predominantly black inner-city
schools are inferior to predominantly white suburban schools. That individual has
built this argument by pointing out the problems of high absenteeism rates, high drop-
out rates, problems with drug trafficking on and near the campus, little or no parental
involvement in the parent-teacher associations, lax discipline in the classrooms, and
poor student performance on standardized tests. At the same time, this arguer has
failed to take into account that those listening to this argument live in the inner city,
have brothers and sisters, perhaps older relatives who attended the very schools being
disparaged or, in their eyes, "put down" yet one more time. It is on factors such as this
that arguments are won and lost, where the arguer has failed to take into account the
human dimension of the problem -- the people you are addressing without taking into
account their own emotions about the issue under discussion.

The same holds true for writing an argumentative essay. One becomes impressed not
only by the breadth of the research or the writer's command of the facts involved, but
even moreso by the logic combined with compassion and insight that the arguer
demonstrates. Those who would frame an argument without taking into account the
human element, who would plunge headlong into the debate without taking time to
stop and ask the question, "Who is my audience and how do they feel about this? How
have or will they be affected by what I have to say?" run the great risk not only of
falling short in their argument, but alienating the audience at the same time. Where
there is alienation, communication cannot take place. Always keep this in mind as you
develop assertions and present reasons for your beliefs: that people and not walls are
taking in your message.

Summary

There are four modes of discourse: narration, description, exposition, and

argumentation. Of the four, argumentation is unquestionably the primal form of
communication as it involves the fine art of persuasion as well. The argumentative
essay may also be referred to as the Assertion-with- Evidence essay. The person is
making an assertion, a statement that says, "This is so," which he or she then begins to
prove through evidence. That assertion is also known as the proposition (i.e., the main
idea of an argu- mentative essay). This proposition should have at least three patterns
evident within it by which the arguer will develop the argument. Argument itself may
be simply defined as "a reasoned attempt to convince the audience to accept a
particular point of view about a debateable subject or topic."

The evidence one uses in any argument may be divided into fact and expert opinion.
The evidence can and should take the forms of examples, details, illustrations,
statistics. When developing an argumentative essay, one has to always beware of
fallacies or "illogical reasoning." While there are many types of fallacies that can and
do exist in rhetoric, six (6) basic ones have been presented here for your review and
thinking -- hasty generalizations, stereotyping, begging the question, name calling,
evading the question, and argumentum ad hominem. In addition, the good
argumentative essay will always try to take into account what the opposition or
contrary position might have to say and include or address that within the paper.
Equally important to remember is that argument is a social process and for those who
engage in it, there is a commitment ot specific communica- tion rules: (1) convention
of bilaterality; (2) convention of self-risk; (3) the fairness doctrine; and (4) the
commitment to rationality. In realizing that argumentation is a social process, the
arguer is reminded to never forget the human factor -- that the audience listening does
have an emotional stake in the subject under debate or dispute. Those who fail to take
this into account, who treat the audience (i.e., the reader or readers, listeners) like
walls rather than human beings will fail in the effort to convince that group to accept
your assertion no matter how ell-organized, no matter how well-developed or
articulated.

Discussion Questions

1. Before reading this presentation, how would you have defined an argument?
Differentiate between your earlier definition of an argument and the one that
emerges from this article.
2. Develop an argumentative paragraph (either pro or con) on the subject, "Should
Students Be Responsible for Their Learning?" In a separate paragraph, explain
why you chose the particular evidence you did. What would be the primary
objection that someone taking an oppostion position to you might make, and
why? Be specific.
3. In identifying the six types of fallacies that most often occur in argumentative
writing, provide your own definition and example or illustration for each.
4. With respect to the social conventions implicit to argumentation -- bilaterality,
self-risk, fairness, and rationality -- apply these to yourself in a self-
examination of the way you have attempted argumentation and argumentative
writing prior to now. What do you learn from this self- assessment?

Key Concepts

1. Proposition
2. Fact(s)
3. Opinion
4. Fallacy
5. Argument
6. Rationality
7. Social Convention(s)
8. Premise
9. Breadth
10. Credible