What is an Argument? First of all, what it is not. It is not a fight. Although you may, and probably should, feel passionate about your topic, arguments are supposed to be intellectual activities not dog fights. However, an argument does involve two opposing points of view. This means that you must include the opposing side, even if only briefly.

Elements of an Argument According to Toulmin, arguments are composed of three main elements: Claims Data/Evidence Warrants

Claims Definition: A claim states your position on the issue you have chosen to write about. It answers the questions: What point will your paper try to make? and What belief or opinion will you be defending? A good claim is not obvious.  Why bother proving a point nobody could disagree with? A good claim is engaging.  Consider your audience's attention span and make interesting claims which point out new ideas: teach the reader something new. A good claim is not overly vague.  Attacking enormous issues whole leads only to generalizations and vague assertions; refrain from making a book-size claim.

Claims A good claim is logical; it emerges from a reasonable consideration of evidence. (Note: this does not mean that evidence has only one logical interpretation.  Reasonable people often disagree.) A good claim is debatable.  Claims that are purely factual and claims that are only opinion fail this requirement. You cannot argue matters of taste: e.g. Coca-Cola tastes better than Pepsi-Cola. A good claim is typically hypotactic (i.e., it uses subordinate clauses).  Simple sentences rarely comprehend enough complexity to do justice to a well-conceived opinion.

Data/Evidence Definition: the evidence which you cite to support your claim.  Like a lawyer presenting evidence to a jury, you must support your claim with facts; an unsupported claim is merely an assertion. Data can include the following: Facts or statistics: objectively determined data about your topic. (Note: just what constitutes "objective" may be open to debate.) Expert opinion: the media and our essays are full of learned opinions which you should cite frequently, both to support your argument and to disagree with.  Authors must be quoted and properly cited in your paper.

Warrant Definition: the warrant interprets the data and shows how it supports your claim.  The warrant, in other words, explains why the data proves the claim. In trials, lawyers for opposing sides often agree on the data but hotly dispute the warrants. (And a defense attorney's failure to offer strong warrants may result in a warrant for the defendant's arrest.) A philosopher would say that the warrant helps to answer the question, "What else must be true for this proposition to hold?"

Deduction and Induction are characteristics of inferences. In a good deductive argument, the conclusion follows with certainty. There is no information in the conclusion that is not already in the premises. In a good inductive argument, the conclusion follows with probability. There is information in the conclusion that is not already in the premises.

Two Common Confusions about Deduction and Induction 1. “Certainty” and “Probability” are meant logically, not psychologically. Psychological certainty is a state of mind; it expresses something about your attitude toward a statement. Logical certainty is a characteristic of arguments; it arises from a relationship between statements. 2. It is not essential that a deductive inference be drawn from the general to the particular; nor is it essential that an inductive inference be drawn from particular to general.

1. Deduction vs. Induction In deductive reasoning (or for deductive arguments), it is supposed to be that: the premises logically entail the conclusion the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

1. Deduction vs. Induction EXAMPLES of deductive arguments: EXAMPLE 1: 1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man --------------------------------- 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

1. Deduction vs. Induction In inductive reasoning (or for inductive arguments), it is supposed to be that: the premises support (without logically entailing) the conclusion the truth of the premises makes likely the truth of the conclusion it is improbable for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false

1. Deduction vs. Induction EXAMPLES of inductive arguments: EXAMPLE 1: 1. Every emerald that has ever been observed is green. --------------------------------- 2. Therefore, all emeralds are green.

1. Deduction vs. Induction EXAMPLES of inductive arguments: EXAMPLE 2: 1. The sun has risen every day in the past. --------------------------------- 2. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

Inductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning, involves going from a series of specific cases to a general statement. The conclusion in an inductive argument is never guaranteed. Example: What is the next number in the sequence 6, 13, 20, 27,… There is more than one correct answer.

Inductive Reasoning Here’s the sequence again 6, 13, 20, 27,… Look at the difference of each term. 13 – 6 = 7, 20 – 13 = 7, 27 – 20 = 7 Thus the next term is 34, because 34 – 27 = 7. However what if the sequence represents the dates. Then the next number could be 3 (31 days in a month). The next number could be 4 (30 day month) Or it could be 5 (29 day month – Feb. Leap year) Or even 6 (28 day month – Feb.)

FALLACIES IN

Logical Fallacies Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed If spotted one can essentially render an entire line of reasoning invalid.

Usage Fallacies in Society However, fallacies are very common and can be persuasive You can find dozens of fallacies in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources.

Purpose Purpose of Recognizing Fallacies Shows that the opposition has made an error in reasoning Shows you understand the opposition's argument Is a way of removing an argument  rather than just weakening it

Using Fallacies Using Fallacies State the logical fallacy, and put the proof back on your opponent Tell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong. Give a really obvious example of why the fallacy is incorrect.

Types of Fallacies Ad Hominem argument directed at the person. Attacking the character or motives of a person, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another

Types of Fallacies False Dichotomy / Either-Or When someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available Complex questions are subtle forms of false dilemma. Questions such as “Are you going to admit that you’re wrong?”

Types of Fallacies Straw man Giving the extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made

Straw man

Types of Fallacies Straw man, continued A straw man can entice an opponent into defending a silly argument This strategy only works if the straw man is a subtle exaggeration and not too different from the arguments your opponent has made

Types of Fallacies False Premise In this fallacy, the conclusion is invalidated by an incorrect or assumptive premise.  Since the premise is not correct, the conclusion may also be incorrect

Types of Fallacies Ad Antiquitatem the argument to tradition The argument that something is acceptable because "it's always been done that way.“ Ad Antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, and in general it should be avoided.

Types of Fallacies A reply that has no relevance to what preceded it. A disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. Stating, as a conclusion, something that does not follow from the premises. Non Sequitur is often stated a connection without explanation Non Sequitur/Red Herring It does not follow

Types of Fallacies Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance).  This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not.

Types of Fallacies Begging the Question  This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something Often related to coming to a conclusion based on a point that others may look at differently A question has been begged if the question has been asked in discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered Why assume anyone wants to sit in your stupid old chair?

Types of Fallacies Slippery Slope The argument that taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken A slippery slope occurs when there is no causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.

Types of Fallacies Argumentum ad nauseam argument to the point of disgust  This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. Repetition alone doesn’t substitute for real arguments.

Types of Fallacies Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. Whether supported by numbers or not supported, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity.

Logic Locator

Logic Locator Responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" 

Logic Locator George W Bush launched the war on terror, insisting that other nations were either for or against America in her campaign

Logic Locator Stan argued that “He had to throw the cake in his wife’s face because it was a family tradition.”

Logic Locator

Logic Locator Regal cinemas recently has been showing up to six adverts for the new Audi in the time leading up to when the movie trailers start.

Logic Locator Sara said, “It is a woman’s right to choose whether or not they seek an abortion.” Mitchell responded by saying, "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions."

Logic Locator