LET US ASSENT OR DISSENT WITH CONVICTION

An Insight into the Principles of Good Argument

Prepared by- Shaswata Sengupta (Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics,

MAKAUT, WB)
 KEY OPPONENTS IN AN ARGUMENT
• The self

• Others
 AIMS OF AN ARGUMENT:
• Negotiation

• Persuasion
 STRUCTURE
A good argument must adhere to the fundamental structural requirements of a well-
formed argument…

(1) (2) (3)

• Should not use self-contradictory or equivocating reasons. (1)
• Should not contradict the conclusion. (2)
• Should not implicitly/explicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. (3)
 RELEVANCE
The reasons provided by the premise to an argument must bear relevance with
respect to the merit of the conclusion.

A premise becomes irrelevant if its acceptance has no connection with the merit of
the conclusion.
 ACCEPTIBILITY
According to Damer, a premise should be acceptable to a mature and rational
adult, if it meets the following standards of premise acceptability:
• A claim that is a matter of undisputed common knowledge/Universal truth.
• A claim that is confirmed by one’s own personal experience or observation.
• An “uncontroverted eyewitness testimony” or an “uncontroverted claim from a
relevant authority”.
• A relatively minor claim that seems to be a reasonable assumption in the context
of the argument.
 A premise can be rejected if…

• The claim contradicts credible evidence, a well-established claim or a legitimate

authority.
• A claim that contradicts one’s own experiences or observations.
• A claim that is based on another unstated but highly questionable assumption.

Unfortunately, Galileo was a victim of misuse of the first point as the Roman Catholic Church was considered the ‘legitimate
authority’ to refer to with respect to any claim.
 SUFFICIENCY
A communicator making an argument should provide reasons that are sufficient to
justify the acceptance of his/her conclusion.

This principle is the most difficult one to apply as judgements/points of view about
the weightage of reasons in an argument may vary from person to person.
In order to evaluate whether an argument violates the principles of Sufficiency,
ask yourself the following questions:

• Are the reasons provided enough to drive the arguer’s conclusion?

• Is the premise based on insufficient evidence or faulty casual analysis?
• Is the argument lacking in some key/crucial evidence?
 REBUTTAL
A good argument includes an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms
of the argument.

Remember its important not just to put forth your own reasons but also to
anticipate and counter the most serious criticisms against them and untangle them
or effectively blunt their forces by locking horns logically.
 DO’S & DON’TS OF AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT
Do’s
• Call out your conclusions and the
supporting reasons clearly
• Explicitly state the key assumptions
being used.
• Whenever possible, substitute less
controversial claims for more controver-
sial ones.
• Soften, if possible, any absolute claims
to make them more acceptable.
• Be as exhaustive as necessary in your
rebuttal.
Don’ts
• Equivocate
• Hide the weaknesses in your reasoning.
• Ignore or deny counter-revidences against
the position defended.
• Try to avoid responding to a criticism by
attacking the critic instead of his/her stance.
Thank you for your kind
attention.