2.02 Introduction to Argument

Introduction

Because people do not always agree on issues, argumentative writing can change people's points of view or persuade them to consider new ideas. Effectively constructed arguments can settle disputes, discover truths, and propose alternate theories. Through argument, writers can examine their own ideas, evaluate conflicting claims, and judge the validity of evidence. If they carefully seek for truth, the writer can find themselves ultimately aligning with the eternal truths of God's Word and helping others do so as well. As with all types of writing, crafting a persuasive argument requires skill and careful thought. Understanding what goes into creating an effective argument will help you in several ways: You will be able to construct stronger arguments. You will be able to analyze other arguments for effectiveness. You will be able to critique your own thoughts and the ideas of others against the eternal truths of God. Even though there are 3 main styles of argument, there is no rule that says you have to use just one. In fact, depending on the subject, the audience, and your purpose, it is most effective to combine elements in order to tailor your argument to best achieve your goal. As you practice persuasive writing, you should seek to stand on the authority of God's unchanging Truth as He has revealed it in His world and His Word. That is, you should desire that your ideas and conclusions be in agreement with God's to the extent that humans are able to do that (see Isaiah 55:8-9). This does not mean you will use Scripture to win an argument. Rather, it means that you have allowed truth to form your own thinking in order to lead others to the same, biblically aligned conclusions that you hold. It means that you ultimate purpose in presenting an argument, no matter the topic or audience, is to help others see the world and make decisions that God would desire. In this way, you may be able to introduce others to God's thoughts even if they are resistant to Him. Paul did this with Roman philosophers in Athens. He actually used one of their poems to introduce them to the right concept of God and then invited them to learn more. Some of them accepted that invitation!

The Aristotelian Argument:

Here are the basic components of the Aristotelian Argument: -Also known as the Classic Argument -Refers to Greek philosopher Aristotle -Considered one of the original structures for an argument -Purpose is to confirm a position and refute the opposition -Uses logic and empirical evidence -Has 4 main parts: claim, confirmation, concession and refutation, and conclusion How do you do it? 1) Begin by giving any necessary background for understanding the issues and state your central thesis. 2) Present claim and evidence to confirm your position. 3) Acknowledge the counterargument and refute it by using evidence and pointing out faulty reasoning. 4) Conclude your argument by solving the problem in the introduction and showing the significance of your position.

How do I S.M.E.L.L.?

As you read and annotate an argument, use the S.M.E.L.L. process to facilitate your analysis. Remember to also ask and answer "So what?" after each question below: S—Sender/Receiver. Ask these questions: -Who is the writer? -Who is the audience? -What knowledge does the audience need coming into the argument? -What are the audience's expectations? -What is the writer's purpose? M—Message. Ask these questions: -What is the overall issue, problem, and/or subject? -What is the claim? -What is the counterclaim? -What is the historical context surrounding the issue? -How is the counterclaim addressed? -Where is the counterclaim addressed? E—Evidence. Ask these questions: -What evidence is used to support the writer's claim? -What evidence is used to refute the opposition's position? -Can the evidence be verified? -Are the sources credible? -Has ample evidence been provided? -Does the writer use more facts, quotes, examples, or anecdotes? -Which audience would find the evidence persuasive? L—Logic. Ask these questions: -Is the writer's claim reasonable? -Are the writer's reasons logical? -How is the argument structured? Which argument styles does the writer employ? -What is the effect of syntax (sentence structure)? -How has the writer connected the evidence and his or her claim? -Has the writer used qualifiers like "some," "many," "most," etc.? -Do you see any logical fallacies? -What types of appeals are being made? -Where are the holes in the writer's argument? L—Language. Ask these questions: -What type of diction (formal, informal, scientific, etc.) is used? -Which words have denotative or connotative significance? -What is the writer's tone? -Which stylistic elements are employed? -Which rhetorical strategies are used?

The Rogerian Argument:

The following are the usual elements of the Rogerian approach: -Refers to psychologist Carl Rogers -Uses a style that is more compromising and consensus-building -Writer strives to find a common ground with the opposing side -Effective for emotionally charged issues, since it relies more on logical evidence rather than emotional reasons -Has 4 basic parts: general problem, reader's perspective and contexts for validity, writer's perspective and contexts for validity, and compromise How do you do it? 1) Begin by grabbing the reader's attention, explaining the issue, and showing how it impacts both sides in a neutral, non-biased tone. 2) Describe the opposing side and situations in which the opponent's position may be valid. 3) Provide reasons for differing with the opposing view in certain situations. 4) Conclude by showing how the opponent's position would be stronger if elements of the writer's position were adopted in order to reinforce common ground.

The Toulmin Argument:

These are the basic elements of the Toulmin Argument: -Refers to twentieth-century philosopher Stephen Toulmin -Especially effective for controversial issues that do not have an absolute truth -Seeks to establish a realistic and reasonable solution rather than "win" the argument -Works backward: presents an idea first and then works to justify it -Has 6 basic parts: claim, qualifier, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal How do you do it? 1) Begin with a claim and qualifiers. 2) Offer data to support the thesis. 3) Present a warrant to connect the claim and the data. 4) Offer factual backing to support the warrant. 5) Discuss a counterclaim to establish common ground and credibility. 6) Rebut the opposition by providing evidence that negates the counterclaim.