MAKING GOOD ARGUMENTS 5 Key Ters

The Logic of Everyday Life Conversation A: I hear last semester was difficult. How do you think this term will go? B: Better, I hope. A: Why is that? B: I’ll finally be taking courses in my major. A: Why will that make a difference? B: When I take courses I’m interested in, I work harder Logical Components A poses a problem that interests her, put in the form of a question B makes a claim to answer A asks for a reason to believe B’s claim B offers a reason A doesn’t see how B’s reason is relevant B offers a general principle that relates his reason for claim

Cont Conversation A: What courses? B: History of architecture, Introduction to design. A: But what about the calculus course you have to retake? B: I found a good tutor to help. Logical Components A asks for evidence to back up B’s reason B offers specific instances on which he based his reason A offers a point that contradicts B B acknowledges A’s objection and responds

5 Components of a Good Argument 1. What is my claim? 2. What reasons support my claim? 3. What evidence supports my reasons? 4. Do I acknowledge alternatives/complications/objections and respond? 5. What principle makes my reasons relevant to my claim? (We call this principle a warrant)

Terminology CLAIM: A sentence that asserts something that may be true or false and so needs support (e.g., the world is warming up) The MAIN CLAIM of a report is the sentence that the whole report supports (some call this the THESIS. If you wrote a report to prove that the world is warming up, the sentence stating that would be your main claim A REASON is a sentence supporting a claim, main or not

Reasons and Claims TV can have harmful psychological effects on children (main claim) because when they are constantly exposed to violent images, they come to think violence is natural (claim/reason 1 supporting main claim). Those exposed to lots of such visual entertainment tend to adopt the values of what they see (claim/reason 2 supporting claim 1) Reasons support main claims, but lower reasons can support “higher reasons”

I. Base Claims on Reasons The first kind of support, a reason, is a statement that gives your readers cause to accept your claim. We often join a reason to a claim with “because. You usually need more than one reason to support a contestable claim, and in a detailed argument, each reason will be a separate argument

Examples “The emancipation of Russian peasants was an empty gesture (claim) it did not improve the material quality of their lives” (reason) “TV violence can have harmful psychological effects on children (claim) because their constant exposure to violent images makes them think that violence is natural (reason)

II. Base Reasons on Evidence NOT What reason do you base your evidence on? BUT What evidence do you base your reason on?

The sacred trio Claim/reason The emancipation of Russian peasants was an empty gesture (claim) it did not improve the material quality of their lives” (reason) Evidence According to Katov (1991) five years after the emancipation of the Russian peasants, the average annual income remained the same or gone down

Plato is an not an ethical egoist [claim]. The Republic is filled with time when individuals act not out of self-interest [reason]. For example, in Book 7 the philosophers rule the state even though they would much rather spend their time philosophizing. [evidence]

Claim 1/Claim 2/Reason 2? TV violence can have harmful psychological effects on children (claim1) because those exposed to lots of TV tend to adopt the values of that they see (reason1 supporting claim 1/claim 2) constant exposure to violent images makes them unable to distinguish fantasy from reality (reason 2 supporting reason 1 and claim 2 ) Smith (1997) found that children ages 5- 7 who watched more than three hours of violent television a day were 25 percent more likely to say that what they saw on television was really happening (?????)

Claim 1/Claim 2/Reason 2? TV violence can have harmful psychological effects on children (claim1) because those exposed to lots of TV tend to adopt the values of that they see (reason1 supporting claim 1/claim 2) constant exposure to violent images makes them unable to distinguish fantasy from reality (reason 2 supporting reason 1 and claim 2 ) Smith (1997) found that children ages 5- 7 who watched more than three hours of violent television a day were 25 percent more likely to say that what they saw on television was really happening (evidence supporting reason 2)

CLAIM=======]REASON=======]EVIDENCE because of based on

Exercise: Claims Reasons and Evidence Take either the topic you wrote on last semester or the topic handed out and offer a 1.claim 2.reason 3.evidence

Acknowledging and Responding to Anticipated Objections TV violence can have harmful psychological effects on children (claim1) because those exposed to lots of TV tend to adopt the values of that they see (reason1 supporting claim 1/claim 2) constant exposure to violent images makes them unable to distinguish fantasy from reality (reason 2 supporting reason 1 and claim 2 ) Smith (1997) found that children ages 5-7 who watched more than three hours of violent television a day were 25 percent more likely to say that what they saw on television was really happening (evidence supporting reason 2). Of course some children who watch more violent entertainment might already be attracted to violence (acknowledgement) But Jones (1999) found that children with no predisposition to violence were as attracted to violent images as those with a violent history (response)

I CLAIM=======]REASON=======]EVIDENCE because of based on II [I acknowledge these questions, objections and alternatives and I respond to them with these argments ]

Warranting the Relevance of Your Reasons The Reasons you supply will always have a warrant or logical support. But you do not always have to state that warrant. Abortion is wrong [claim]because it is murder [reason] Warrant/logical support: murder is wrong Probably does not need to be stated

“We are facing higher health care costs in Europe and North America ( claim) because global warming is moving the line of extended hard freezes steadily northward” (reason) Readers might here question the relevance of your reason to your claim. What do higher health care costs have to do with hard freezes

To answer, you must offer a general principle that justifies relating your particular reason to a particular claim “When an area has fewer hard freezes, it must pay more to combat new diseases carried by subtropical insects no longer killed by those freezes”

P1: When an area has fewer hard freezes, it must pay more to combat new diseases carried by subtropical insects no longer killed by those freezes” P2: Europe and North America are having fewer hard freezes C: Europe and North must pay more to combat new diseases [and hence have higher health care costs]

[WARRANT]—(principle connection by reason and claim) I CLAIM=======]REASON=======]EVIDENCE because of based on II [I acknowledge these questions, objections and alternatives and I respond to them with these argments ]

The moral of the story The relation between your claim and your reason will always involve a deductive argument You do not always have to state the missing premise of that argument, only when it is controversial or unclear to the reader

It’s Complicated (1) We almost always support a claim with two or more reasons, each of which must be supported by its own evidence and perhaps justified by its own warrant Since readers think of many alternatives and objections to any complex argument, careful researchers typically have to respond to more than one or two of them

It’s complicated(2) Each response to an objection may need reasons and evidence to support it If your readers doubt the truth of a warrant, you may need to treat it as a subclaim and support it with its own argument, including reasons, evidence and perhaps even itsown warrant with its own acknowledgments and responsies

Thickening an Argument Readers judge your argument not just by the facts you offer, but by how well you support your claims, defend your warrants and anticipate and respond to objections This process is called “thickening” an argument When you acknowledge other views and explain your principles of reasoning in warrants, you give readers good reason to work with you in developing and testing new ideas

Four types of argumnt