More on Argument

Written arguments have much in common with verbal ones: They attempt to convince readers to agree with a particular point of view, to make a particular decision, or to pursue a particular course of action; they involve the presentation of well-chosen evidence and the artful control of language. However, writers of argument have no one around to dispute their words directly, so they must imagine their probable audience to predict the sorts of objections that may be raised. This requires that written arguments be carefully planned. The writer must settle in advance on a specific thesis or proposition, rather than grope toward one, as in a verbal argument. There is a greater need for organization, for choosing the most effective types of evidence from all that is available, for determining the strategies of rhetoric, language, and style that will best suit the argument’s subject, its purpose, its thesis, and its effect on the intended audience. (Eschholz and Rosa, p. 565+)

No matter what forum it uses and no matter what its structure, an argument has as its chief purpose the detailed setting forth of a particular point of view and the rebuttal of any opposing views. Classical [ancient Greek and Roman] thinkers believed that there are three key components in all rhetorical situations or attempts to communicate:

the speaker (and for us the writer) who comments about a subject to an audience…..

In general, writers of argument are interested in explaining aspects of a subject as well as in advocating a particular point of view. Consequently, they frequently use the other rhetorical strategies. In your efforts to argue convincingly, you may find it necessary to define, to compare and contrast, to analyze causes and effects, to classify, to describe, to narrate. Nevertheless, it is the writer’s attempt to convince, not explain, that is of primary importance in an argumentative essay.

In this respect, it is helpful to know that there are two basic patterns of thinking and presenting our thoughts that are followed in argumentation: induction and deduction.

Inductive reasoning moves from a set of specific examples to a general statement or principle. As long as the evidence is accurate, pertinent, complete, and sufficient to represent the assertion, the conclusion of an inductive argument can be regarded as valid; if, however, you can spot inaccuracies in the evidence or can point to contrary evidence, you have good reason to doubt the assertion as it stands. Inductive reasoning is the most common of argumentative structures.

Deductive reasoning, more formal and complex than inductive reasoning, moves from an overall premise, rule, or generalization to a more specific conclusion. Deductive logic follows the pattern of the syllogism, a simple three-part argument consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For example, notice how the following syllogism works.

1. All humans are mortal. (Major premise)
2. Catalina is a human. (Minor premise)
3. Catalina is mortal. (Conclusion)

1. All living creatures are mammals. (Major premise)
2. A lobster is a living creature. (Minor premise)
3. A lobster is a mammal. (Conclusion)

The problem is immediately apparent. The major premise is obviously false: There are many living creatures that are not mammals, and a lobster happens to be one of them. Consequently, the conclusion is invalid. Syllogisms, however, can fail in other ways, even if both premises are objectively true. Such failure occur most often when the arguer jumps to a conclusion without taking obvious exceptions into account.

1. All college students read books. (Major premise)
2. Larry reads books. (Minor premise)
3. Larry is a college student. (Conclusion)

              Both the premises on this syllogism are true, but the syllogism is still invalid…If the minor premise were instead "Larry is a college student," then the valid conclusion "Larry reads books" would logically follow. It is fairly easy to see the problems in a deductive argument when its premises and conclusion are rendered in the form of a syllogism. It is often more difficult to see errors in logic when the argument is presented ... within the context of a long essay. If you can reduce the argument to its syllogistic form, however, you will have much less difficulty testing its validity. Similarly, if you can isolate and examine out of context the evidence provided to support an inductive assertion, you can more readily evaluate the written inductive argument. (Eschholz and Rosa, p. 570+)

Reconciliation Argument

Increasingly popular today is a form of argument in which the writer attempts to explore all facets of an issue to find common ground or areas of agreement. Of course, one way of viewing that common ground is to see it as a new argumentative thrust, a new assertion, about which there may yet be more debate. The object, nevertheless, is to lessen stridency and the hardening of positions and to mediate opposing views into a rational and, where appropriate, even practical outcome. Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech "I Have a Dream" is perhaps the greatest example of a reconciliation argument of the past century.(Eschholz and Rosa, p. 569+)          

Eschholz, Paul and Alfred Rosa. Subjects/Strategies: A Writer’s Reader, 9^th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin’s, 2002.

(Back to the Home Page.)