Argument

That which results when a claim or a series of claims is advanced as evidence for the truth or acceptability of another claim, the conclusion. Accordingly, an argument consists of claims introduced as evidence together with the claim these are intended to support.

Thinking critically about an argument involves deciding whether or not there are good grounds to accept it. One should be clear about what is at issue, the conclusion being proferred, specifically what reasons have been offered, in what way these reasons sustain the conclusion – including an understanding of the quality and comprehensiveness of the evidence, and crucially whether there is a more applicable or more reasonable conclusion this evidence would support.

Language and the meaning people take from it – including its persuasive connotations – matters in argument. Actors can be coy or devious about what they claim constitutes acceptable evidence as illustrated in the satirical ‘Yes Minister’ exclamation: “…your statistics are ‘facts’, whereas my facts are merely statistics!”

Effective thinking about arguments is likely to depend upon endeavouring to be fair, to be willing to entertain other points-of-view on issues (together with the potentiality for acceptance of an alternative on the basis of evidence), to be sceptical as well as openminded, and to act self-reflectively.

In natural settings such as everyday conversations, discussions do not always contain clear, complete, and coherent arguments – things may be implied rather than explicitly stated and important elements may be left out entirely, people may be interrupted and side-tracked, points and evidence about related questions may be weaved into or confused with, and sometimes get in the way of, the matter being argued.

A central goal of studying argument is to learn to decide when the evidence presented in an argument is sufficient to warrant acceptance of the argument’s conclusion. (see also: reasoning)

Argument should not be confused with explanation – the idea in argument is to offer (good) reason(s) that some particular claim is true or acceptable, i.e., seeks to rationally convince us of the claim’s truth or acceptability, while an explanation seeks to tell us why this is so.

An example of an argument:

Whenever the country experiences hard economic times, sickness rates rise – a look at hospital admissions and the federal treasury statistics on the economic indicators will show this connexion. People’s worries and anxieties and the prolonged nature of these concerns increases people’s stress levels and makes it more difficult for anyone with illnesses such as heart disease or high blood pressure, etc., to manage their conditions and means it is more likely patients with such risk factors will have a crisis or serious episode.

Is this a sound argument? Does the evidence offered provide weak support? What other evidence might give us a better indication of whether the conclusion is justified? What other conclusion(s) might better fit the evidence advanced? (see also: questioning)

Among the hazards and pitfalls involved with engaging in argument are things such as the:

Straw Man

Ignoring the actual position to which one is opposed or holds serious reservations about, and in its place presenting a distorted and not surprisingly weakened version of that position to criticize or show in an unfavourable light – in an effort to aid in the acceptance of one’s own position.

Poisoning the Well

An attempt, in advance, to undermine or discredit the credibility of an opponent by relating something unfavourable about the opponent or suggesting that he or she cannot be relied upon to tell the truth so that the statements of that individual will not be seen as believable. If successful, any insistence by the opponent that he or she is providing trustworthy information will be taken as a ruse.

Begging the Question (also known as 'Assuming the Answer')

An argument in which either the conclusion is a restatement of a reason given as rationally supporting the conclusion – the conclusion is simply assumed to be true – or that the ground would be doubted for the same reasons that the conclusion should be doubted. For example:

The Christian bible is the divine word of 'god' because it says so in the bible.

Appeal to Ignorance

An unreasonable attempt to shift the burden of proof such that an opponent’s current inability to disprove a conclusion is taken as affirmation of this conclusion’s correctness. The user of this device promotes the belief that the favoured conclusion must be true merely because it hasn’t been demonstrated to be otherwise – seeking to count a supposed or actual absence of evidence against a claim as evidence for that claim – whereas it is the obligation of those proposing a conclusion to offer a properly persuasive argument in favour of it.

False Dilemma

Arguing that there are only two alternatives and one is unacceptable, so that the other alternative should be chosen – whereas there are more (plausible) alternatives available than the two advanced.

Red Herring (also known as a ‘Smokescreen’ or ‘Confusing the issue’)

An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced to a discussion which sidetracks or diverts attention away from the claim at issue, not necessarily introduced with the intention of doing so.

Appeal to Authority

Appealing to someone whose expertise is not relevant to the issue or is outside his or her area of expertise – legitimate appeals to authority may be made in which those cited really have expertise in the appropriate area(s).

Two Wrongs make a Right

An argument of the kind that it is alright to do something wrong, inappropriate, neglectful, or harmful because someone else has or is believed to have committed some other (not directly related) wrongful act, for example, “Those large corporations either don’t pay their rightful amount of taxes or don’t pay taxes at all, so I won’t pay my personal fines and taxes” – one’s own obligations are not erased by this sort of possible or probable impropriety of others.

Slippery Slope

An argument in which it assumed that some undesirable, unacceptable, or adverse consequence or event inevitably follows from some other act or event (which may seem innocuous), but where no adequate case is made for this inevitability or it is not demonstrated that the unpleasant result is either certain or very likely. There can be, not surprisingly, valid chains of causal claims.

Special Pleading

An attempt to apply a double standard: one standard for the claimant or proponent making a claim – for they or their claim are ‘special’  – and a stricter or more demanding one for critics or opponents, or everyone else. Special pleading is an expression of partiality and inconsistency, when protagonists or arguers engage in special pleading they are endeavouring to favour one view, their own or a particular position they perceive as worthy of support, at the expense of and indulging in prejudice against others. more...

Nominal error

A mistaken belief that naming or labelling something, for example, a phenomenon, somehow ‘explains’ it (see: Rumpelstiltskin phenomenon) – frequently involving tautological reasoning, that is, a kind of circular reasoning in which one conclusion rests upon another which itself refers back to the first, for example, “She’s so sociable because she’s an extravert” “Why does little Bill have failing grades? Oh, he’s an ‘underachiever’ – yeah, that explains it!”

Van Gogh fallacy...

suppressed evidence...

(see also: soundness, critical thinking, openminded scepticism, problem of adequacy, persuasion/persuasiveness, fallacy, reasoning, conclusion, claim, evidence, (hidden) assumptions, establish, support, ground, justification, controversies)

» Return to belief, judgement, and clear thinking »