CHAPTER 3

Chapter 3 - Argument

KIRSTEN DEVRIES

At school, at work, and in everyday life, argument is one of main ways we exchange ideas with one
another. Academics, business people, scientists, and other professionals all make arguments to deter-
mine what to do or think, or to solve a problem by enlisting others to do or believe something they oth-
erwise would not. Not surprisingly, then, argument dominates writing, and training in argument writing
is essential for all college students.

This chapter will explore how to define argument, how to talk about argument, how logic works in argu-
ment, the main argument types, and a list of logical fallacies.

1. What Is Argument?

2. What Are the Components and Vocabulary of Argument?

3. What Is Logic?

4. What Are the Different Types of Argument in Writing?

5. A Repository of Logical Fallacies

1. WHAT IS ARGUMENT?

All people, including you, make arguments on a regular basis. When you make a claim and then support
the claim with reasons, you are making an argument. Consider the following:

• If, as a teenager, you ever made a case for borrowing your parents’ car using reasonable support—a
track record of responsibility in other areas of your life, a good rating from your driving instructor,
and promises to follow rules of driving conduct laid out by your parents—you have made an
argument.
38 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

• If, as an employee, you ever persuaded your boss to give you a raise using concrete
evidence—records of sales increases in your sector, a work calendar with no missed days, and
personal testimonials from satisfied customers—you have made an argument.

• If, as a gardener, you ever shared your crops at a farmer’s market, declaring that your produce is
better than others using relevant support—because you used the most appropriate soil, water level,
and growing time for each crop—you’ve made an argument.

• If, as a literature student, you ever wrote an essay on your interpretation of a poem—defending
your ideas with examples from the text and logical explanations for how those examples
demonstrate your interpretation—you have made an argument.

The two main models of argument desired in college courses as part of the training for academic or pro-
fessional life are rhetorical argument and academic argument. If rhetoric is the study of the craft of
writing and speaking, particularly writing or speaking designed to convince and persuade, the student
studying rhetorical argument focuses on how to create an argument that convinces and persuades
effectively. To that end, the student must understand how to think broadly about argument, the par-
ticular vocabulary of argument, and the logic of argument. The close sibling of rhetorical argument is
academic argument, argument used to discuss and evaluate ideas, usually within a professional field of
study, and to convince others of those ideas. In academic argument, interpretation and research play
the central roles.

However, it would be incorrect to say that academic argument and rhetorical argument do not overlap.
Indeed, they do, and often. A psychologist not only wishes to prove an important idea with research,
but she will also wish to do so in the most effective way possible. A politician will want to make the
most persuasive case for his side, but he should also be mindful of data that may support his points.
Thus, throughout this chapter, when you see the term argument, it refers to a broad category including both
rhetorical and academic argument.

Before moving to the specific parts and vocabulary of argument, it will be helpful to consider some fur-
ther ideas about what argument is and what it is not.

Argument vs. Controversy or Fight

Consumers of written texts are often tempted to divide writing into two categories: argumentative and
non-argumentative. According to this view, to be argumentative, writing must have the following quali-
ties: It has to defend a position in a debate between two or more opposing sides, it must be on a con-
troversial topic, and the goal of such writing must be to prove the correctness of one point of view over
another.

A related definition of argument implies a confrontation, a clash of opinions and personalities, or just a
plain verbal fight. It implies a winner and a loser, a right side and a wrong one. Because of this under-
standing of the word “argument,” many students think the only type of argument writing is the debate-
ARGUMENT 39

like position paper, in which the author defends his or her point of view against other, usually opposing,
points of view.

For a fun illustration of the reductive nature of a mere fight, see “The Argument Clinic” ([Link]
XNkjDuSVXiE, transcript here) skit from Monty Python.

These two characteristics of argument—as controversial and as a fight—limit the definition because
arguments come in different disguises, from hidden to subtle to commanding. It is useful to look at
the term “argument” in a new way. What if we think of argument as an opportunity for conversation,
for sharing with others our point of view on an issue, for showing others our perspective of the world?
What if we think of argument as an opportunity to connect with the points of view of others rather than
defeating those points of view?

One community that values argument as a type of communication and exchange is the community of
scholars. They advance their arguments to share research and new ways of thinking about topics. Biol-
ogists, for example, do not gather data and write up analyses of the results because they wish to fight
with other biologists, even if they disagree with the ideas of other biologists. They wish to share their
discoveries and get feedback on their ideas. When historians put forth an argument, they do so often
while building on the arguments of other historians who came before them. Literature scholars publish
their interpretations of different works of literature to enhance understanding and share new views,
not necessarily to have one interpretation replace all others. There may be debates within any field
of study, but those debates can be healthy and constructive if they mean even more scholars come
together to explore the ideas involved in those debates. Thus, be prepared for your college professors
to have a much broader view of argument than a mere fight over a controversial topic or two.

Argument vs. Opinion

Argument is often confused with opinion. Indeed, arguments and opinions sound alike. Someone with
an opinion asserts a claim that he thinks is true. Someone with an argument asserts a claim that she
thinks is true. Although arguments and opinions do sound the same, there are two important differ-
ences:

1. Arguments have rules; opinions do not. In other words, to form an argument, you must
consider whether the argument is reasonable. Is it worth making? Is it valid? Is it sound? Do all
of its parts fit together logically? Opinions, on the other hand, have no rules, and anyone
asserting an opinion need not think it through for it to count as one; however, it will not count as
an argument.
2. Arguments have support; opinions do not. If you make a claim and then stop, as if the claim
itself were enough to demonstrate its truthfulness, you have asserted an opinion only. An
argument must be supported, and the support of an argument has its own rules. The support
must also be reasonable, relevant, and sufficient.
40 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Figure 3.1 “Opinion vs Argument”

ARGUMENT 41

Argument vs. Thesis

Another point of confusion is the difference between an argument and an essay’s thesis. For college
essays, there is no essential difference between an argument and a thesis; most professors use these
terms interchangeably. An argument is a claim that you must then support. The main claim of an essay
is the point of the essay and provides the purpose for the essay. Thus, the main claim of an essay is
also the thesis. For more on the thesis, see Chapter 4, “The Writing Process.”

Consider this as well: Most formal essays center upon one main claim (the thesis) but then support
that main claim with supporting evidence and arguments. The topic sentence of a body paragraph
can be another type of argument, though a supporting one, and, hence, a narrower one. Try not to
be confused when professors call both the thesis and topic sentences arguments. They are not wrong
because arguments come in different forms; some claims are broad enough to be broken down into a
number of supporting arguments. Many longer essays are structured by the smaller arguments that
are a part of and support the main argument. Sometimes professors, when they say supporting points
or supporting arguments, mean the reasons (premises) for the main claim (conclusion) you make in
an essay. If a claim has a number of reasons, those reasons will form the support structure for the
essay, and each reason will be the basis for the topic sentence of its body paragraph.

Argument vs. Fact

Arguments are also commonly mistaken for statements of fact. This comes about because often people
privilege facts over opinions, even as they defend the right to have opinions. In other words, facts
are “good,” and opinions are “bad,” or if not exactly bad, then fuzzy and thus easy to reject. However,
remember the important distinction between an argument and an opinion stated above: While argu-
ment may sound like an opinion, the two are not the same. An opinion is an assertion, but it is left to
stand alone with little to no reasoning or support. An argument is much stronger because it includes
and demonstrates reasons and support for its claim.

As for mistaking a fact for an argument, keep this important distinction in mind: An argument must
be arguable. In everyday life, arguable is often a synonym for doubtful. For an argument, though,
arguable means that it is worth arguing, that it has a range of possible answers, angles, or perspectives:
It is an answer, angle, or perspective with which a reasonable person might disagree. Facts, by virtue of
being facts, are not arguable. Facts are statements that can be definitely proven using objective data.
The statement that is a fact is absolutely valid. In other words, the statement can be pronounced as
definitively true or definitively false. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. This expression identifies a verifiably true
statement, or a fact, because it can be proved with objective data. When a fact is established, there is
no other side, and there should be no disagreement.

The misunderstanding about facts (being inherently good) and argument (being inherently problematic
because it is not a fact) leads to the mistaken belief that facts have no place in an argument. This could
not be farther from the truth. First of all, most arguments are formed by analyzing facts. Second, facts
provide one type of support for an argument. Thus, do not think of facts and arguments as enemies;
rather, they work closely together.

Explicit vs. Implicit Arguments

Arguments can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit arguments contain prominent and definable the-
42 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

sis statements and multiple specific proofs to support them. This is common in academic writing from
scholars of all fields. Implicit arguments, on the other hand, work by weaving together facts and nar-
ratives, logic and emotion, personal experiences and statistics. Unlike explicit arguments, implicit ones
do not have a one-sentence thesis statement. Implicit arguments involve evidence of many different
kinds to build and convey their point of view to their audience. Both types use rhetoric, logic, and sup-
port to create effective arguments.

Exercise 1

Go on a hunt for an implicit argument in the essay, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police” ([Link]
by Martin Gansberg.

1. Read the article, and take notes on it–either using a notebook or by annotating a printed copy of the text itself (for help with
note-taking on reading material, seeChapter 1, “Critical Reading.” Mark or write down all the important details you find.

2. After you are finished reading, look over your notes or annotations. What do all the details add up to? Use the details you
have read about to figure out what Gansberg’s implicit argument is in his essay. Write it in your own words.

3. Discuss your results with a partner or a group. Did you come up with the same argument? Have everyone explain the rea-
soning for his or her results.

Argument and Rhetoric

An argument in written form involves making choices, and knowing the principles of rhetoric allows a
writer to make informed choices about various aspects of the writing process. Every act of writing takes
place in a specific rhetorical situation. The most basic and important components of a rhetorical situa-
tion are

• Author of the text.

• Purpose of the text.
• Intended audience (i.e., those the author imagines will be reading the text).
• Form or type of text.

These components give readers a way to analyze a text on first encounter. These factors also help writ-
ers select their topics, arrange their material, and make other important decisions about the argument
they will make and the support they will need. For more on rhetoric, see Chapter 2, “Rhetorical Analy-
sis.”

Key Takeaways: What is an Argument?

With this brief introduction, you can see what rhetorical or academic argument is not:

• An argument need not be controversial or about a controversy.

ARGUMENT 43

• An argument is not a mere fight.

• An argument does not have a single winner or loser.

• An argument is not a mere opinion.

• An argument is not a statement of fact.

Furthermore, you can see what rhetorical argument is:

• An argument is a claim asserted as true.

• An argument is arguable.

• An argument must be reasonable.

• An argument must be supported.

• An argument in a formal essay is called a thesis. Supporting arguments can be called topic sentences.

• An argument can be explicit or implicit.

• An argument must be adapted to its rhetorical situation.

2. WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS AND VOCABULARY OF ARGUMENT?

Questions are at the core of arguments. What matters is not just that you believe that what you have to
say is true, but that you give others viable reasons to believe it as well—and also show them that you
have considered the issue from multiple angles. To do that, build your argument out of the answers to
the five questions a rational reader will expect answers to. In academic and professional writing, we
tend to build arguments from the answers to these main questions:

1. What do you want me to do or think?

2. Why should I do or think that?
3. How do I know that what you say is true?
4. Why should I accept the reasons that support your claim?
5. What about this other idea, fact, or consideration?
6. How should you present your argument?

When you ask people to do or think something they otherwise would not, they quite naturally want to
know why they should do so. In fact, people tend to ask the same questions. As you make a reasonable
argument, you anticipate and respond to readers’ questions with a particular part of argument:

1. The answer to What do you want me to do or think? is your conclusion: “I conclude that you
should do or think X.”

2. The answer to Why should I do or think that? states your premise: “You should do or think X
because . . .”
44 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

3. The answer to How do I know that what you say is true? presents your support: “You can believe
my reasons because they are supported by these facts . . .”

4. The answer to Why should I accept that your reasons support your claim? states your general prin-
ciple of reasoning, called a warrant: “My specific reason supports my specific claim because when-
ever this general condition is true, we can generally draw a conclusion like mine.”

5. The answer to What about this other idea, fact, or conclusion?acknowledges that your readers
might see things differently and then responds to their counterarguments.

6. The answer to How should you present your argument? leads to the point of view, organization,
and tone that you should use when making your arguments.

As you have noticed, the answers to these questions involve knowing the particular vocabulary about
argument because these terms refer to specific parts of an argument. The remainder of this section
will cover the terms referred to in the questions listed above as well as others that will help you better
understand the building blocks of argument.

What Is a Conclusion, and What Is a Premise?

The root notion of an argument is that it convinces us that something is true. What we are being con-
vinced of is the conclusion. An example would be this claim:

Littering is harmful.

A reason for this conclusion is called the premise. Typically, a conclusion will be supported by two or
more premises. Both premises and conclusions are statements. Some premises for our littering con-
clusion might be these:

Littering is dangerous to animals.

Littering is dangerous to humans.

Thus, to be clear, understand that an argument asserts that the writer’s claim is true in two main parts:
the premises of the argument exist to show that the conclusion is true.

Tip

Be aware of the other words to indicate a conclusion–claim, assertion, point–and other ways to talk about the premise–reason,
factor, the why. Also, do not confuse this use of the word conclusion with a conclusion paragraph for an essay.

What Is a Statement?
ARGUMENT 45

A statement is a type of sentence that can be true or false and corresponds to the grammatical cate-
gory of a declarative sentence. For example, the sentence,

The Nile is a river in northeastern Africa,

is a statement because it makes sense to inquire whether it is true or false. (In this case, it happens to
be true.) However, a sentence is still a statement, even if it is false. For example, the sentence,

The Yangtze is a river in Japan,

is still a statement; it is just a false statement (the Yangtze River is in China). In contrast, none of the
following sentences are statements:

Please help yourself to more casserole.

Don’t tell your mother about the surprise.

Do you like Vietnamese pho?

None of these sentences are statements because it does not make sense to ask whether those sen-
tences are true or false; rather, they are a request, a command, and a question, respectively. Make sure
to remember the difference between sentences that are declarative statements and sentences that are
not because arguments depend on declarative statements.

Tip

A question cannot be an argument, yet students will often pose a question at the end of an introduction to an essay, thinking
they have declared their thesis. They have not. If, however, they answer that question (conclusion) and give some reasons for
that answer (premises), they then have the components necessary for both an argument and a declarative statement of that
argument (thesis).

To reiterate: All arguments are composed of premises and conclusions, both of which are types of state-
ments. The premises of the argument provide reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true. Argu-
ments typically involve more than one premise.

What Is Standard Argument Form?

A standard way of capturing the structure of an argument, or diagramming it, is by numbering the
premises and conclusion. For example, the following represents another way to arrange the littering
argument:

1. Littering is harmful
2. Litter is dangerous to animals
46 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

3. Litter is dangerous to humans

This numbered list represents an argument that has been put into standard argument form. A more
precise definition of an argument now emerges, employing the vocabulary that is specific to academic
and rhetorical arguments. An argument is a set of statements, some of which (the premises: state-
ments 2 and 3 above) attempt to provide a reason for thinking that some other statement (the conclu-
sion: statement 1) is true.

Tip

Diagramming an argument can be helpful when trying to figure out your essay’s thesis. Because a thesis is an argument, putting
the parts of an argument into standard form can help sort ideas. You can transform the numbered ideas into a cohesive sen-
tence or two for your thesis once you are more certain what your argument parts are.

Figure 3.2 “Argument Diagram”

ARGUMENT 47

Recognizing arguments is essential to analysis and critical thinking; if you cannot distinguish between
the details (the support) of a piece of writing and what those details are there to support (the argu-
ment), you will likely misunderstand what you are reading. Additionally, studying how others make
arguments can help you learn how to effectively create your own.

What Are Argument Indicators?

While mapping an argument in standard argument form can be a good way to figure out and formulate
a thesis, identifying arguments by other writers is also important. The best way to identify an argument
is to ask whether a claim exists (in statement form) that a writer justifies by reasons (also in statement
form). Other identifying markers of arguments are key words or phrases that are premise indicators or
48 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

conclusion indicators. For example, recall the littering argument, reworded here into a single sentence
(much like a thesis statement):

Littering is harmful because it is dangerous to both animals and humans.

The word “because” here is a premise indicator. That is, “because” indicates that what follows is a rea-
son for thinking that littering is bad. Here is another example:

The student plagiarized since I found the exact same sentences on a website, and the website
was published more than a year before the student wrote the paper.

In this example, the word “since” is a premise indicator because what follows is a statement that is
clearly intended to be a reason for thinking that the student plagiarized (i.e., a premise). Notice that in
these two cases, the premise indicators “because” and “since” are interchangeable: “because” could be
used in place of “since” or “since” in the place of “because,” and the meaning of the sentences would
have been the same.

Figure 3.3 “Common Premise Indicators”

ARGUMENT 49

In addition to premise indicators, there are also conclusion indicators. Conclusion indicators mark that
what follows is the conclusion of an argument. For example,

Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, so Bob-the-arsonist didn’t set the fire at the East
Lansing Starbucks last week.

In this example, the word “so” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that some-
one is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). Here is another example of a conclusion indicator:

A poll administered by Gallup (a respected polling company) showed candidate X to be sub-

stantially behind candidate Y with only a week left before the vote; therefore, candidate Y will
probably not win the election.
50 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

In this example, the word “therefore” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement
that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). As before, in both of these cases, the con-
clusion indicators “so” and “therefore” are interchangeable: “So” could be used in place of “therefore” or
“therefore” in the place of “so,” and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same.

Figure 3.4 “Common Conclusion Indicators”

ARGUMENT 51

Exercise 2

Which of the following are arguments? If it is an argument, identify the conclusion (claim) of the argument. If it is not an argu-
ment, explain why not. Remember to look for the qualifying features of an argument: (1) It is a statement or series of state-
ments, (2) it states a claim (a conclusion), and (3) it has at least one premise (reason for the claim).

1. The woman with the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses, and she doesn’t have a long nose.
2. I have been wrangling cattle since before you were old enough to tie your own shoes.
3. Albert is angry with me, so he probably won’t be willing to help me wash the dishes.
4. First, I washed the dishes, and then I dried them.
5. If the road weren’t icy, the car wouldn’t have slid off the turn.
6. Marvin isn’t a fireman and isn’t a fisherman, either.
7. Are you seeing the rhinoceros over there? It’s huge!
8. Obesity has become a problem in the US because obesity rates have risen over the past four decades.
9. Bob showed me a graph with rising obesity rates, and I was very surprised to see how much they had risen.
10. Marvin isn’t a fireman because Marvin is a Greyhound, which is a type of dog, and dogs can’t be firemen.
11. What Susie told you is not the actual reason she missed her flight to Denver.
12. Carol likely forgot to lock her door this morning because she was distracted by a clown riding a unicycle while
singing Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Simple Man.”
13. No one who has ever gotten frostbite while climbing K2 has survived to tell about it; therefore, no one ever
will.

What Constitutes Support?

To ensure that your argument is sound—that the premises for your conclusion are true—you must
establish support. The burden of proof, to borrow language from law, is on the one making an argu-
ment, not on the recipient of an argument. If you wish to assert a claim, you must then also support it,
and this support must be relevant, logical, and sufficient.

It is important to use the right kind of evidence, to use it effectively, and to have an appropriate amount
of it.

• If, for example, your philosophy professor did not like that you used a survey of public opinion as
your primary evidence in an ethics paper, you most likely used material that was not relevant to
your topic. Rather, you should find out what philosophers count as good evidence. Different fields
of study involve types of evidence based on relevance to those fields.

• If your professor has put question marks by your thesis or has written, “It does not follow,” you likely
have problems with logic. Make sure it is clear how the parts of your argument logically fit together.

• If your instructor has told you that you need more analysis, suggested that you are “just listing”
52 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

points or giving a “laundry list,” you likely have not included enough explanation for how a point
connects to and supports your argument, which is another problem with logic, this time related to
the warrants of your argument. You need to fully incorporate evidence into your argument. (See
more on warrants immediately below.)

• If you see comments like “for example?,” “proof?,” “go deeper,” or “expand,” you may need more
evidence. In other words, the evidence you have is not yet sufficient. One or two pieces of
evidence will not be enough to prove your argument. Similarly, multiple pieces of evidence that
aren’t developed thoroughly would also be flawed, also insufficient. Would a lawyer go to trial with
only one piece of evidence? No, the lawyer would want to have as much evidence as possible from a
variety of sources to make a viable case. Similarly, a lawyer would fully develop evidence for a claim
using explanation, facts, statistics, stories, experiences, research, details, and the like.

You will find more information about the different types of evidence, how to find them, and what makes
them credible in Chapter 6, “Research.” Logic will be covered later on in this chapter.

What Is the Warrant?

Above all, connect the evidence to the argument. This connection is the warrant. Evidence is not self-
evident. In other words, after introducing evidence into your writing, you must demonstrate why and
how this evidence supports your argument. You must explain the significance of the evidence and its
function in your paper. What turns a fact or piece of information into evidence is the connection it has
with a larger claim or argument: Evidence is always evidence for or against something, and you have to
make that link clear.

Tip

Student writers sometimes assume that readers already know the information being written about; students may be wary of
elaborating too much because they think their points are obvious. But remember, readers are not mind readers: Although they
may be familiar with many of the ideas discussed, they don’t know what writers want to do with those ideas unless they indicate
that through explanations, organization, and transitions. Thus, when you write, be sure to explain the connections you made in
your mind when you chose your evidence, decided where to place it in your paper, and drew conclusions based on it.

What Is a Counterargument?

Remember that arguments are multi-sided. As you brainstorm and prepare to present your idea and
your support for it, consider other sides of the issue. These other sides are counterarguments. Make
a list of counterarguments as you work through the writing process, and use them to build your case
– to widen your idea to include a valid counterargument, to explain how a counterargument might be
ARGUMENT 53

defeated, to illustrate how a counterargument may not withstand the scrutiny your research has uncov-
ered, and/or to show that you are aware of and have taken into account other possibilities.

For example, you might choose the issue of declawing cats and set up your search with the question
should I have my indoor cat declawed? Your research, interviews, surveys, personal experiences might
yield several angles on this question: Yes, it will save your furniture and your arms and ankles. No, it
causes psychological issues for the cat. No, if the cat should get outside, he will be without defense. As
a writer, be prepared to address alternate arguments and to include them to the extent that it will illus-
trate your reasoning.

Almost anything claimed in a paper can be refuted or challenged. Opposing points of view and argu-
ments exist in every debate. It is smart to anticipate possible objections to your arguments – and to
do so will make your arguments stronger. Another term for a counterargument is antithesis (i.e., the
opposition to a thesis). To find possible counterarguments (and keep in mind there can be many coun-
terpoints to one claim), ask the following questions:

• Could someone draw a different conclusion from the facts or examples you present?
• Could a reader question any of your assumptions or claims?
• Could a reader offer a different explanation of an issue?
• Is there any evidence out there that could weaken your position?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the next set of questions can help you respond to these
potential objections:

Is it possible to concede the point of the opposition, but then challenge that point’s importance/useful-
ness?

• Can you offer an explanation of why a reader should question a piece of evidence or consider a
different point of view?
• Can you explain how your position responds to any contradicting evidence?
• Can you put forward a different interpretation of evidence?

It may not seem likely at first, but clearly recognizing and addressing different sides of the argument,
the ones that are not your own, can make your argument and paper stronger. By addressing the
antithesis of your argument essay, you are showing your readers that you have carefully considered the
issue and accept that there are often other ways to view the same thing.

You can use signal phrases in your paper to alert readers that you are about to present an objection.
Consider using one of these phrases–or ones like them–at the beginning of a paragraph:

• Researchers have challenged these claims with…

• Critics argue that this view…
• Some readers may point to…

What Are More Complex Argument Structures?

So far you have seen that an argument consists of a conclusion and a premise (typically more than one).
54 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

However, often arguments and explanations have a more complex structure than just a few premises
that directly support the conclusion. For example, consider the following argument:

No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The reason is sim-
ple: The lava was flowing too fast, and there was nowhere to go to escape it in time. There-
fore, this account of the eruption, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness living
in Pompeii, was not actually written by an eyewitness.

The main conclusion of this argument—the statement that depends on other statements as evidence
but doesn’t itself provide any evidence for other statements—is

A. This account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness.

However, the argument’s structure is more complex than simply having a couple of premises that pro-
vide evidence directly for the conclusion. Rather, some statements provide evidence directly for the
main conclusion, but some premise statements support other premise statements which then support
the conclusion.

To determine the structure of an argument, you must determine which statements support which,
using premise and conclusion indicators to help. For example, the passage above contains the phrase,
“the reason is…” which is a premise indicator, and it also contains the conclusion indicator, “therefore.”
That conclusion indicator helps identify the main conclusion, but the more important element to see
is that statement A does not itself provide evidence or support for any of the other statements in the
argument, which is the clearest reason statement A is the main conclusion of the argument. The next
questions to answer are these: Which statement most directly supports A? What most directly supports
A is

B. No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.

However, there is also a reason offered in support of B. That reason is the following:

C. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast, and there was nowhere for someone living
in Pompeii to go to escape it in time.

So the main conclusion (A) is directly supported by B, and B is supported by C. Since B acts as a premise
for the main conclusion but is also itself the conclusion of further premises, B is classified as an inter-
mediate conclusion. What you should recognize here is that one and the same statement can act as both
a premise and a conclusion. Statement B is a premise that supports the main conclusion (A), but it is also
itself a conclusion that follows from C. Here is how to put this complex argument into standard form
(using numbers this time, as is typical for diagramming arguments):

1. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast, and there was nowhere for someone living in
Pompeii to go to escape it in time.
2. Therefore, no one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. (from 1)
3. Therefore, this account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness.
(from 2)

Notice that at the end of statement 2 is a written indicator in parentheses (from 1), and, likewise, at the
end of statement 3 is another indicator (from 2). From 1 is a shorthand way of saying, “this statement
ARGUMENT 55

follows logically from statement 1.” Use this convention as a way to keep track of an argument’s struc-
ture. It may also help to think about the structure of an argument spatially, as the figure below shows:

The main argument here (from 2 to 3) contains a sub-

argument, in this case, the argument from 1 (a
premise) to 2 (the intermediate conclusion). A subargu-
ment, as the term suggests, is a part of an argument
that provides indirect support for the main argument.
The main argument is simply the argument whose con-
clusion is the main conclusion.

Another type of structure that arguments can have is

when two or more premises provide direct but inde-
pendent support for the conclusion. Here is an exam-
ple of an argument with that structure:

Wanda rode her bike to work today because when she

arrived at work she had her right pant leg rolled up,
which cyclists do to keep their pants legs from getting
caught in the chain. Moreover, our co-worker, Bob, who
Figure 3.5 from Introduction to Logic and Critical works in accounting, saw her riding towards work at
Thinking by Matthew Van Cleave 7:45 a.m.

The conclusion of this argument is “Wanda rode her

bike to work today”; two premises provide independent support for it: the fact that Wanda had her pant
leg cuffed and the fact that Bob saw her riding her bike. Here is the argument in standard form:

1. Wanda arrived at work with her right pant leg rolled up.
2. Cyclists often roll up their right pant leg.
3. Bob saw Wanda riding her bike towards work at 7:45.
4. Therefore, Wanda rode her bike to work today. (from 1-2, 3 independently)

Again, notice that next to statement 4 of the argument is an indicator of how each part of the argument
relates to the main conclusion. In this case, to avoid any ambiguity, you can see that the support for the
conclusion comes independently from statements 1 and 2, on the one hand, and from statement 3, on
the other hand. It is important to point out that an argument or subargument can be supported by one
or more premises, the case in this argument because the main conclusion (4) is supported jointly by 1
and 2, and singly by 3. As before, we can represent the structure of this argument spatially, as the figure
below shows:
56 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

There are endless argument structures that can be

generated from a few simple patterns. At this
point, it is important to understand that argu-
ments can have different structures and that some
arguments will be more complex than others.
Determining the structure of complex arguments
is a skill that takes some time to master, rather like
simplifying equations in math. Even so, it may help
to remember that any argument structure ulti-
mately traces back to some combination of
Figure 3.6 from Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking premises, intermediate arguments, and a main
by Matthew Van Cleave conclusion.

Exercise 3

Write the following arguments in standard form. If any arguments are complex, show how each complex argument is struc-
tured using a diagram like those shown just above.

1. There is nothing wrong with prostitution because there is nothing wrong with consensual sexual and economic interactions
between adults. Moreover, there is no difference between a man who goes on a blind date with a woman, buys her dinner and
then has sex with her and a man who simply pays a woman for sex, which is another reason there is nothing wrong with pros-
titution.

2. Prostitution is wrong because it involves women who have typically been sexually abused as children. Proof that these women
have been abused comes from multiple surveys done with female prostitutes that show a high percentage of self-reported sex-
ual abuse as children.

3. Someone was in this cabin recently because warm water was in the tea kettle and wood was still smoldering in the fireplace.
However, the person couldn’t have been Tim because Tim has been with me the whole time. Therefore, someone else must be
in these woods.

4. Someone can be blind and yet run in the Olympic Games since Marla Runyan did it at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

5. The train was late because it had to take a longer, alternate route seeing as the bridge was out.

6. Israel is not safe if Iran gets nuclear missiles because Iran has threatened multiple times to destroy Israel, and if Iran had
ARGUMENT 57

nuclear missiles, it would be able to carry out this threat. Furthermore, since Iran has been developing enriched uranium, it has
the key component needed for nuclear weapons; every other part of the process of building a nuclear weapon is simple com-
pared to that. Therefore, Israel is not safe.

7. Since all professional hockey players are missing front teeth, and Martin is a professional hockey player, it follows that Martin
is missing front teeth. Because almost all professional athletes who are missing their front teeth have false teeth, it follows that
Martin probably has false teeth.

8. Anyone who eats the crab rangoon at China Food restaurant will probably have stomach troubles afterward. It has happened
to me every time; thus, it will probably happen to other people as well. Since Bob ate the crab rangoon at China Food restaurant,
he will probably have stomach troubles afterward.

9. Lucky and Caroline like to go for runs in the afternoon in Hyde Park. Because Lucky never runs alone, any time Albert is run-
ning, Caroline must also be running. Albert looks like he has just run (since he is panting hard), so it follows that Caroline must
have run, too.

10. Just because Linda’s prints were on the gun that killed Terry and the gun was registered to Linda, it doesn’t mean that Linda
killed Terry since Linda’s prints would certainly be on her own gun, and someone else could have stolen her gun and used it to
kill Terry.

Key Takeaways: Components of Vocabulary and Argument

• Conclusion—a claim that is asserted as true. One part of an argument.

• Premise—a reason behind a conclusion. The other part of an argument. Most conclusions have more than one
premise.

• Statement—a declarative sentence that can be evaluated as true or false. The parts of an argument, premises
and the conclusion, should be statements.

• Standard Argument Form—a numbered breakdown of the parts of an argument (conclusion and all premises).

• Premise Indicators—terms that signal that a premise, or reason, is coming.

• Conclusion Indicator—terms that signal that a conclusion, or claim, is coming.

• Support—anything used as proof or reasoning for an argument. This includes evidence, experience, and logic.

• Warrant—the connection made between the support and the reasons of an argument.

• Counterargument—an opposing argument to the one you make. An argument can have multiple
counterarguments.

• Complex Arguments–these are formed by more than individual premises that point to a conclusion. Complex
58 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

arguments may have layers to them, including an intermediate argument that may act as both a conclusion (with
its own premises) and a premise (for the main conclusion).

3. WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic, in its most basic sense, is the study of how ideas reasonably fit together. In other words, when
you apply logic, you must be concerned with analyzing ideas and arguments by using reason and ratio-
nal thinking, not emotions or mysticism or belief. As a dedicated field of study, logic belongs primarily
to math, philosophy, and computer science; in these fields, one can get professional training in logic.
However, all academic disciplines employ logic: to evaluate evidence, to analyze arguments, to explain
ideas, and to connect evidence to arguments. One of the most important uses of logic is in composing
and evaluating arguments.

The study of logic divides into two main categories: formal and informal. Formal logic is the formal
study of logic. In other words, in math or philosophy or computer science, if you were to take a class on
logic, you would likely be learning formal logic. The purpose of formal logic is to eliminate any impre-
cision or lack of objectivity in evaluating arguments. Logicians, scholars who study and apply logic,
have devised a number of formal techniques that accomplish this goal for certain classes of arguments.
These techniques can include truth tables, Venn diagrams, proofs, syllogisms, and formulae. The dif-
ferent branches of formal logic include, but are not limited to, propositional logic, categorical logic, and
first order logic.

Informal logic is logic applied outside of formal study and is most often used in college, business, and
life. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

For centuries, the study of logic has inspired the idea that its methods might be harnessed
in efforts to understand and improve thinking, reasoning, and argument as they occur in real
life contexts: in public discussion and debate; in education and intellectual exchange; in inter-
personal relations; and in law, medicine, and other professions. Informal logic is the attempt
to build a logic suited to this purpose. It combines the study of argument, evidence, proof and
justification with an instrumental outlook which emphasizes its usefulness in the analysis of
real life arguing.

When people apply the principles of logic to employ and evaluate arguments in real life situations and
studies, they are using informal logic.

Why Is Logic Important?

Logic is one of the most respected elements of scholarly and professional thinking and writing. Con-
sider that logic teaches us how to recognize good and bad arguments—not just arguments about logic,
any argument. Nearly every undertaking in life will ultimately require that you evaluate an argument,
perhaps several. You are confronted with a question: “Should I buy this car or that car?” “Should I go
to this college or that college?” “Did that scientific experiment show what the scientist claims it did?”
ARGUMENT 59

“Should I vote for the candidate who promises to lower taxes, or for the one who says she might raise
them?” Your life is a long parade of choices.

When answering such questions, to make the best choices, you often have only one tool: an argument.
You listen to the reasons for and against various options and must choose among them. Thus, the abil-
ity to evaluate arguments is an ability useful in everything that you will do—in your work, your personal
life, and your deepest reflections. This is the job of logic.

If you are a student, note that nearly every discipline–be it a science, one of the humanities, or a study
like business–relies upon arguments. Evaluating arguments is the most fundamental skill common to
math, physics, psychology, history, literary studies, and any other intellectual endeavor. Logic alone tells
you how to evaluate the arguments of any discipline.

The alternative to developing logic skills is to be always at the mercy of bad reasoning and, as a result,
bad choices. Worse, you can be manipulated by deceivers. Speaking in Canandaigua, New York, on
August 3, 1857, the escaped slave and abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass observed,

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what
any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and
wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with
either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress.

Add this to Frederick Douglass’s words: If you find out just how much a person can be deceived, that
is just how far she will be deceived. The limits of tyrants are also prescribed by the reasoning abilities
of those they aim to oppress. What logic teaches you is how to demand and recognize good reasoning,
and, hence, avoid deceit. You are only as free as your powers of reasoning enable.

The remaining part of this logic section will concern two types of logical arguments—inductive and
deductive—and the tests of those arguments, including validity, soundness, reliability, and
strength, so that you can check your own arguments and evaluate the arguments of others, no matter
if those arguments come from the various academic disciplines, politics, the business world, or just dis-
cussions with friends and family.

What Is Deductive Argument?

A deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow from its premises with
absolute certainty, thus leaving no possibility that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If a
deductive argument fails to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, then the deductive argument can no
longer be called a deductive argument.

The Tests of Deductive Arguments: Validity and Soundness

So far in this chapter, you have learned what arguments are and how to determine their structure,
including how to reconstruct arguments in standard form. But what makes an argument good or bad?
There are four main ways to test arguments, two of which are for deductive arguments. The first test
for deductive arguments is validity, a concept that is central to logical thinking. Validity relates to how
well the premises support the conclusion and is the golden standard that every deductive argument
should aim for. A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion cannot possibly be false, assuming
that the premises are true. Another way to put this is as a conditional statement: A valid argument is
60 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

an argument in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Here is an example of a
valid argument:

1. Violet is a dog.
2. Therefore, Violet is a mammal. (from 1)

You might wonder whether it is true that Violet is a dog (maybe she’s a lizard or a buffalo—you have no
way of knowing from the information given). But, for the purposes of validity, it doesn’t matter whether
premise 1 is actually true or false. All that matters for validity is whether the conclusion follows from
the premise. You can see that the conclusion—that Violet is a mammal—does seem to follow from the
premise—that Violet is a dog. That is, given the truth of the premise, the conclusion has to be true. This
argument is clearly valid because if you assume that “Violet is a dog” is true, then, since all dogs are
mammals, it follows that “Violet is a mammal” must also be true. Thus, whether an argument is valid has
nothing to do with whether the premises of the argument are actually true. Here is an example where
the premises are clearly false, yet the argument is valid:

1. Everyone born in France can speak French.

2. Barack Obama was born in France.
3. Therefore, Barack Obama can speak French. (from 1-2)

This is a valid argument. Why? Because when you assume the truth of the premises (everyone born in
France can speak French, and Barack Obama was born in France) the conclusion (Barack Obama can
speak French) must be true. Notice that this is so even though none of these statements is actually
true. Not everyone born in France can speak French (think about people who were born there but then
moved somewhere else where they didn’t speak French and never learned it), and Barack Obama was
not born in France, but it is also false that Obama can speak French. However, the argument is still valid
even though neither the premises nor the conclusion is actually true. That may sound strange, but if
you understand the concept of validity, it is not strange at all. Remember: validity describes the relation-
ship between the premises and conclusion, and it means that the premises imply the conclusion, whether or
not that conclusion is true.

To better understand the concept of validity, examine this example of an invalid argument:

1. George was President of the United States.

2. Therefore, George was elected President of the United States. (from 1)

This argument is invalid because it is possible for the premise to be true and yet the conclusion false.
Here is a counterexample to the argument. Gerald Ford was President of the United States, but he was
never elected president because Ford replaced Richard Nixon when Nixon resigned in the wake of the
Watergate scandal. Therefore, it does not follow that just because someone is President of the United
States that he was elected President of the United States. In other words, it is possible for the premise
of the argument to be true and yet the conclusion false. This means that the argument is invalid. If an
argument is invalid, it will always be possible to construct a counterexample to show that it is invalid (as
demonstrated in the Gerald Ford scenario). A counterexample is simply a description of a scenario in
which the premises of the argument are all true while the conclusion of the argument is false.
ARGUMENT 61

Exercise 4

Determine whether the following arguments are valid by using an informal test of validity. In other words, ask whether you can
imagine a scenario in which the premises are both true and yet the conclusion is false. For each argument do the following: (1)
If the argument is valid, explain your reasoning, and (2) if the argument is invalid, provide a counterexample. Remember, this is
a test of validity, so you may assume all premises are true (even if you know or suspect they are not in real life) for the purposes
of this assignment.

1. Katie is a human being. Therefore, Katie is smarter than a chimpanzee.

2. Bob is a fireman. Therefore, Bob has put out fires.

3. Gerald is a mathematics professor. Therefore, Gerald knows how to teach mathematics.

4. Monica is a French teacher. Therefore, Monica knows how to teach French.

5. Bob is taller than Susan. Susan is taller than Frankie. Therefore, Bob is taller than Frankie.

6. Craig loves Linda. Linda loves Monique. Therefore, Craig loves Monique.

7. Orel Hershizer is a Christian. Therefore, Orel Hershizer communicates with God.

8. All Muslims pray to Allah. Muhammad is a Muslim. Therefore, Muhammad prays to Allah.

9. Some protozoa are predators. No protozoa are animals. Therefore, some predators are not animals.

10. Charlie only barks when he hears a burglar outside. Charlie is barking. Therefore, there must be a burglar outside.

A good deductive argument is not only valid but also sound. A sound argument is a valid argument
that has all true premises. That means that the conclusion, or claim, of a sound argument will always
be true because if an argument is valid, the premises transmit truth to the conclusion on the assump-
tion of the truth of the premises. If the premises are actually true, as they are in a sound argument,
and since all sound arguments are valid, we know that the conclusion of a sound argument is true. The
relationship between soundness and validity is easy to specify: all sound arguments are valid arguments,
but not all valid arguments are sound arguments.

Professors will expect sound arguments in college writing. Philosophy professors, for the sake of pur-
suing arguments based on logic alone, may allow students to pursue unsound arguments, but nearly
all other professors will want sound arguments. How do you make sure that all the premises of your
argument are true? How can we know that Violet is a dog or that littering is harmful to animals and
people? Answers to these questions come from evidence, often in the form of research.
62 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Tip

One way to counter another’s argument is to question his premises and test them for soundness. If you find that one or more
premise is unsound, you can add that information–and your explanations–to the support of your own argument.

One way to test the accuracy of a premise is to apply the following questions:

• Is there a sufficient amount of data?

• What is the quality of the data?
• Has additional data been missed?
• Is the data relevant?
• Are there additional possible explanations?

Determine whether the starting claim is based upon a sample that is both representative and suffi-
ciently large, and ask yourself whether all relevant factors have been taken into account in the analysis
of data that leads to a generalization.

Another way to evaluate a premise is to determine whether its source is credible. Ask yourself,

• Are the authors identified?

• What are their backgrounds?
• Was the claim something you found on an undocumented website?
• Did you find it in a popular publication or a scholarly one?
• How complete, how recent, and how relevant are the studies or statistics discussed in the source?

What Is Inductive Argument?

In contrast to a deductive argument, an inductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is sup-

posed to follow from its premises with a high level of probability, which means that although it is pos-
sible that the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises, it is unlikely that this is the case. Here is an
example of an inductive argument:

Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird and since most healthy, normally functioning
birds fly, Tweets most likely flies.

Notice that the conclusion, “Tweets probably flies,” contains the words “most likely.” This is a clear indi-
cator that the argument is supposed to be inductive, not deductive. Here is the argument in standard
form:
ARGUMENT 63

1. Tweets is a healthy, normally functioning bird. (premise)

2. Most healthy, normally functioning birds fly. (premise)
3. Therefore, Tweets probably flies. (conclusion)

Given the information provided by the premises, the conclusion does seem to be well supported. That
is, the premises provide strong reasons for accepting the conclusion. The inductive argument’s conclu-
sion is a strong one, even though we can imagine a scenario in which the premises are true and yet the
conclusion is false.

Remember, inductive arguments cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion, which means they will
look like invalid deductive arguments. Indeed, they are. There will be counterexamples for inductive
arguments because an inductive argument never promises absolute truth. We measure inductive argu-
ments by degrees of probability and plausibility, not absolute categories like validity and soundness.
Validity and soundness do not allow for a sliding scale of degrees. They are absolute conditions: There
is no such thing as being partially valid or somewhat sound.

Do not let this difference between deductive and inductive arguments cause you to privilege deductive
and revile inductive because inductive arguments cannot guarantee truth. That is an unfair measure,
and it is not practical. The truth is that most arguments we create and evaluate in life are inductive argu-
ments. It might be helpful to think of deductive arguments as those created in perfect lab conditions,
where all the ideal parameters can be met. Life is much messier than that, and we rarely get ideal con-
ditions. One main reason is that we rarely ever have all the information we need to form an absolutely
true conclusion. When new information is discovered, a scientist or historian or psychologist or busi-
ness executive or a college student should investigate how it affects previous ideas and arguments,
knowing that those previous ideas may need to be adjusted based on new information. For example,
suppose that we added the following premise to our earlier argument:

Tweets is 6 feet tall and can run 30 mph. (premise)

When we add this premise, the conclusion that Tweets can fly would no longer be likely because any
bird that is 6 feet tall and can run 30 mph, is not a kind of bird that can fly. That information leads us to
believe that Tweets is an ostrich or emu, which are not kinds of birds that can fly.

The Tests of Inductive Arguments: Reliability and Strength

Inductive arguments can never lead to absolute certainty, which is one reason scholars keep studying
and trying to add to knowledge. This does not mean, however, that any inductive argument will be a
good one. Inductive arguments must still be evaluated and tested, and the two main tests are reliabil-
ity and strength.

Test of reliability, much like that of validity for deductive arguments, tests an inductive argument’s
reason, its internal logic. In other words, just because an inductive argument cannot guarantee a true
conclusion doesn’t mean that it should not be logically constructed. One cannot make just any sort of
claim, particularly one that does not have a reliable basis. Reliability, unlike validity, can be measured by
degree. More reliable arguments are ones that have a more solid basis in reason. Consider this exam-
ple:
TM
Ninety-seven percent of Banana computers work without any glitches. (premise)
TM
Max has a Banana computer. (premise)
64 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Therefore, Max’s computer works without any glitches. (conclusion)

This argument has a high degree of reliability. While it may well be true that Max has one of the three
percent of computers that have glitches, it is much more likely, given the initial premise that he does
not. If the initial premise changes, however, so does the reliability of the argument:
TM
Thirty-three percent of Banana computers work without any glitches.
TM
Max has a Banana computer.

Therefore, Max’s computer works without any glitches.

Note how the degree of reliability has gone done dramatically. The argument can now be considered
unreliable since the conclusion that Max’s computer will work without glitches is improbable given the
premises provided. The conclusion still could be true, but it has tipped toward unlikely.

The second test of inductive arguments is strength. Strength, like reliability, can be measured by
degree. Strong arguments must have the following conditions: (1) They must be reliable arguments; (2)
they draw upon multiple lines of reasoning as support and/or a collection of data. Indeed, the more
the data and the more the reasons for a conclusion, the stronger the argument. Consider the following
argument:

Susie has walked by Mack the dog every day for ten days. (premise)

Mack the dog has never bitten Susie. (premise)

Thus, when Susie walks by Mack the dog today, he will not bite her. (conclusion)

This argument is reasonable; we can see that the premises may logically lead to the conclusion. How-
ever, the argument is not very strong as Susie has only walked by the dog for ten days. Is that enough
data to make the conclusion a likely one? What if we had more data, like so—

Susie has walked by Mack the dog every day for five years.

Mack the dog has never bitten Susie.

Thus, when Susie walks by Mack the dog today, he will not bite her.

This argument, with more data to consider (five years of information instead of just ten days), is much
stronger. An argument also gets stronger when reasons are added:

Susie has walked by Mack the dog every day for five years.

Mack the dog has never bitten Susie.

Mack’s owners trained him to be friendly to people. (additional premise)

Mack the dog’s breed is not known for aggression. (additional premise)

Thus, when Susie walks by Mack the dog today, he will not bite her.

This argument is even stronger. Not only does it have more data, but it also has additional reasons for
Mack’s gentle nature.
ARGUMENT 65

Remember these tests when writing your own essays. You are most likely going to be using inductive
arguments, and you should make them as reliable and strong as you can because you can bet your pro-
fessors will be evaluating your arguments by those criteria as well.

What Are Logical Fallacies, and Why Should You Avoid Them?

Fallacies are errors or tricks of reasoning. A fallacy is an error of reasoning if it occurs accidentally; it is
a trick of reasoning if a speaker or writer uses it to deceive or manipulate his audience. Fallacies can be
either formal or informal.

Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it is formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity
and soundness of any argument. At the same time, fallacious reasoning can damage the credibility of
the speaker or writer and improperly manipulate the emotions of the audience or reader. This is a con-
sideration you must keep in mind as a writer who is trying to maintain credibility (ethos) with the reader.
Moreover, being able to recognize logical fallacies in the speech and writing of others can greatly ben-
efit you as both a college student and a participant in civic life. Not only does this awareness increase
your ability to think and read critically—and thus not be manipulated or fooled—but it also provides
you with a strong basis for counter arguments.

Even more important, using faulty reasoning is unethical and irresponsible. Using logical fallacies can
be incredibly tempting. The unfortunate fact is they work. Every day—particularly in politics and adver-
tising—we can see how using faults and tricks of logic effectively persuade people to support certain
individuals, groups, and ideas and, conversely, turn them away from others. Furthermore, logical fallac-
ies are easy to use. Instead of doing the often difficult work of carefully supporting an argument with
facts, logic, and researched evidence, the lazy debater turns routinely to the easy path of tricky reason-
ing. Human beings too often favor what is easy and effective, even if morally questionable, over what
is ethical, particularly if difficult. However, your college professors’ task is not to teach you how to join
the Dark Side. Their job is to teach you how to write, speak, and argue effectively and ethically. To do
so, you must recognize and avoid the logical fallacies.

What Are Formal Fallacies?

Most formal fallacies are errors of logic: The conclusion does not really “follow from” (is not supported
by) the premises. Either the premises are untrue, or the argument is invalid. Below is an example of an
invalid deductive argument:

Premise: All black bears are omnivores.

Premise: All raccoons are omnivores.

Conclusion: All raccoons are black bears.

Bears are a subset of omnivores. Raccoons also are a subset of omnivores. But these two subsets do
not overlap, and that fact makes the conclusion illogical. The argument is invalid—that is, the relation-
ship between the two premises does not support the conclusion.

“Raccoons are black bears” is instantaneously recognizable as fallacious and may seem too silly to be
worth bothering about. However, that and other forms of poor logic play out on a daily basis, and they
have real world consequences. Below is an example of a common fallacious argument:
66 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Premise: All Arabs are Muslims.

Premise: All Iranians are Muslims.

Conclusion: All Iranians are Arabs.

This argument fails on two levels. First, the premises are untrue because, although many Arabs and
Iranians are Muslim, not all are. Second, the two ethnic groups (Iranians and Arabs) are sets that do
not overlap; nevertheless, the two groups are confounded because they (largely) share one quality in
common (being Muslim). One only has to look at comments on the web to realize that the confusion is
widespread and that it influences attitudes and opinions about US foreign policy. The logical problems
make this both an invalid and an unsound argument.

What Are Informal Fallacies?

Informal fallacies take many forms and are widespread in everyday discourse. Very often they involve
bringing irrelevant information into an argument, or they are based on assumptions that, when exam-
ined, prove to be incorrect. Formal fallacies are created when the relationship between premises and
conclusion does not hold up or when premises are unsound; informal fallacies are more dependent on
misuse of language and of evidence.

It is easy to find lists of informal fallacies, but that does not mean that it is always easy to spot them.

How Can You Check for Logical Fallacies?

One way to go about evaluating an argument for fallacies is to return to the concept of the three fun-
damental appeals: ethos, logos, and pathos. As a quick reminder,

• Ethos is an appeal to ethics, authority, and/or credibility.

• Logos is an appeal to logic.
• Pathos is an appeal to emotion.

Once you have refreshed your memory of the basics, you may begin to understand how ethos, logos,
and pathos can be used appropriately to strengthen your argument or inappropriately to manipulate
an audience through the use of fallacies. Classifying fallacies as fallacies of ethos, logos, or pathos will
help you to understand their nature and to recognize them. Please keep in mind, however, that some
fallacies may fit into multiple categories. For more details and examples on errors in the rhetorical
appeals, see Chapter 2, “Rhetorical Analysis.”

Fallacies of ethos relate to credibility. These fallacies may unfairly build up the credibility of the author
(or his allies) or unfairly attack the credibility of the author’s opponent (or her allies). Some fallacies give
an unfair advantage to the claims of the speaker or writer or an unfair disadvantage to his opponent’s
claims. These are fallacies of logos. Fallacies of pathos rely excessively upon emotional appeals,
attaching positive associations to the author’s argument and negative ones to his opponent’s position.
ARGUMENT 67

Key Takeaways: Logic

• Logic—shows how ideas fit together by using reason.

• Formal Logic—a formal and rigorous study of logic, such as in math and philosophy.

• Informal Logic—the application of logic to arguments of all types: in scholarship, in business, and in life.
Informal logic is what this part of the chapter covers.

• Deductive Argument—guarantees a true conclusion based on the premises. The tests for deductive arguments
are validity and soundness.

• Validity—a way to evaluate a deductive argument; a valid argument is one which, if the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.

• Soundness—the second way to evaluate a deductive argument; a sound argument is one where the argument
is valid AND the premises have been shown to be true (via support).

• Inductive Argument—cannot guarantee a true conclusion but can only assert what is most likely to be true
based on the premises and the support. The tests for inductive arguments are reliability and strength.

• Reliability—a test of reason for inductive arguments. Inductive arguments must still be reasonable, must still
have a reliable basis in logic.

• Strength—another test for inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are stronger when they have more
reasons and more data to support them.

• Logical Fallacy—a flaw or trick of logic to be avoided at all costs. Fallacies can be formal or informal. See the
Repository of Logical Fallacies below for individual examples.

4. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARGUMENTS IN WRITING?

Throughout this chapter, you have studied the definition of argument, parts of argument, and how to
use logic in argument. This section brings all of the previous material together and tackles arguments
in writing. Foremost on most students’ minds when taking college composition courses is this question:
“How do I write an argument paper?” The answer is not a simple one because, as mentioned previ-
ously, arguments come in a variety of packages. This means that written arguments–whether in essay
or some other form–also come in many different types.

Arguments of the Rhetorical Modes

Most arguments involve one or more of the rhetorical modes. Once again, rhetoric is the study and
application of effective writing techniques. There are a number of standard rhetorical modes of writ-
ing—structural and analytical models that can be used effectively to suit different writing situations.
The rhetorical modes include, but are not limited to, narrative, description, process analysis, illustra-
tion and exemplification, cause and effect, comparison, definition, persuasion, and classification. These
modes will be covered in detail in Chapter 5, “Rhetorical Modes.” They are mentioned here, however,
to make clear that any and all rhetorical modes can be used to pursue an argument. In fact, most pro-
fessors will insist upon it.
68 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Tip

Remember that when writing arguments, always be mindful of the point of view you should use. Most academic arguments
should be pursued using third person. For more on this issue, see Chapter 4, “The Writing Process.”

Arguments of Persuasion

One of the most common forms of argument is that of persuasion, and often standardized tests, like
the SOL, will provide writing prompts for persuasive arguments. On some level, all arguments have a
persuasive element because the goal of the argument is to persuade the reader to take the writer’s
claim seriously. Many arguments, however, exist primarily to introduce new research and interpreta-
tion whereas persuasive arguments expressly operate to change someone’s mind about an issue or a
person.

A common type of persuasive essay is an Op-Ed article. Included in the opinion section of a news-
paper, these articles are more appropriately called argument essays because most authors strive not
only to make explicit claims but also to support their claims, sometimes even with researched evidence.
These articles are often well-designed persuasive essays, written to convince readers of the writer’s
way of thinking.

In addition to essays, other forms of persuasive writing exist. One common and important example is
the job letter, where you must persuade others to believe in your merits as a worker and performer so
that you might be hired.

In a persuasive essay, you should be sure to do the following:

• Clearly articulate your claim and the main reasons for it. Avoid forming a thesis based on a
negative claim. For example, “The hourly minimum wage is not high enough for the average
worker to live on.” This is probably a true statement, but persuasive arguments should make a
positive case because a negative is hard to prove. That is, the thesis statement should focus on
how the hourly minimum wage is too low or insufficient.

• Anticipate and address counterarguments. Think about your audience and the
counterarguments they would mostly likely have. Acknowledging points of view different from
your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They
know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give
them space.
ARGUMENT 69

• Make sure your support comes in many different forms. Use logical reasoning and the
rhetorical appeals, but also strive for concrete examples from your own experience and from
society.

• Keep your tone courteous, but avoid being obsequious. In other words, shamelessly appealing
to your readers’ vanity will likely ring false. Aim for respectful honesty.

• Avoid the urge to win the argument. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others
to see the error of their ways. More times than not, however, arguments in which both sides try
to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your
audience to consider your claim as a sound one, not simply the right one.

Tip

Because argument writing is designed to convince readers of an idea they may not have known before or a side of an issue they
may not agree with, you must think carefully about the attitude you wish to convey as you advance your argument. The overall
attitude of a piece of writing is its tone, and it comes from the words you choose (for more on the importance of word choice,
see Chapter 10, “Working with Words”) In argument writing, strive for the following:

• Confidence—The reader needs to know that you believe in what you say, so be confident. Avoid hedgy and
apologetic language. However, be careful not to cross the line from confidence to overconfidence. Arrogance
can rebuff your readers, even if they agree with you.

• Neutrality—While you may advocate for one side or way of thinking, you still must demonstrate that you are
being as objective as you can in your analysis and assessment. Avoid loaded terms, buzzwords, and overly
emotional language.

• Courtesy and fairness—Particularly when dealing with any counterarguments, you want your tone to reveal
that you have given other points of view due consideration. Avoid being smug, snide, or harshly dismissive of
other ideas.

Sample Writing Assignment 1

Find an Op-Ed article from one of the major US newspapers: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The
Boston Globe, or the LA Times. Then, do the following:
70 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

1. Prewriting Work: Read the article carefully, taking notes or annotating it. Be sure to find the main argument and map the
support used by the author, i.e., how the author is trying to persuade you. Note any use of rhetorical appeals, expert testimony,
and research. (For tips about note-taking and annotating reading material, see Chapter 1, “Critical Reading”; for a review of
the rhetorical appeals, see Chapter 2, “Rhetorical Analysis.”)

2. Write a paragraph summary of the article. Include the main argument and its support. Explain the different types of support
used by the author (rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research).

3. In a paragraph, devise and explain your own counterargument(s) to the author’s thesis.

4. In a paragraph, explain what kind of support you would use for your counterargument. What rhetorical appeals would you
use? What experts might you call on? Do you think you would need to do research and if so, on what?

Sample Writing Assignment 2

Write a job letter. As you design it, be sure to do the following:

1. Use formal letter format. Be sure to include these elements: your address, the address of the job you’re applying to (or the
department you are applying to), the date you send the letter, a greeting, the letter content in coherent paragraphs (single-
spaced paragraphs with a double space in between paragraphs), a sign off, any additional information (your phone and/or email
address). For some visual examples of what this would look like, do a Google image search for “job letter format.”

2. Prewriting Work 1: Imagine a job you would like to apply for. Ask yourself the following questions and brainstorm answers to
them: “What skills would I need to have for this job, and which of those skills do I have?” “What educational background would
be required, and can I show that I fulfill the requirements?” “What experience might the hiring committee want to me to have,
and do I have any experience that would be relevant?”

3. Prewriting Work 2: Take the notes you have come up with and add as many specific details as you can. If you believe you do
have relevant skills, what are they, specifically? Where did you get those skills, specifically? How long have you had those skills,
specifically? Do you have examples where you have shown excellence with those skills, specifically?

4. Drafting: Shape your details into three paragraphs organized by issue: skills, education, and experience. Be specific, include
a couple examples per paragraph, and be succinct in your delivery.

5. Proofread carefully. First of all, excellent sentence composition, punctuation, and spelling communicate your seriousness
to those who might hire you. Mistakes make you look sloppy and make it easy for them to toss your letter on the rejection
pile. Second, watch word choice. Choose specific over general words as much as possible (you say you are a hard worker, but
what does that mean, practically speaking?). Make sure you avoid clichés and overly gushy sentiment (“I’m passionate about
people!”). Finally, proofread for tone. Strive for courteousness and objectivity. Make it seem like you are being objective about
your own abilities.

Arguments of Evaluation

If you have ever answered a question about your personal take on a book or movie or television show
or piece of music, you have given a review. Most times, these reviews are somewhat hasty and based
on initial or shallow impressions. However, if you give thought to your review, if you explain more care-
ARGUMENT 71

fully what you liked or didn’t like and why, if you bring in specific examples to back up your points,
then you have moved on to an argument of evaluation. Reviews of film, books, music, food, and other
aspects of taste and culture represent the most familiar type of argument of evaluation. The main
objective of an argument of evaluation is to render a critical judgment on the merits of something.

Another common argument of evaluation is the performance review. If you have ever held a job, you
know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such a review; your timeliness and productivity and
attitude are scrutinized to determine if you have been a good worker or need to worry about looking
for another job. If you are in any sort of supervisory position, you will be the one writing and delivering
those reviews, and your own supervisor will want to know that you have logical justification and evi-
dence for your judgements.

For all types of reviews or evaluation arguments, make sure to plan for the following:

• Declare your overall judgment of the subject under review—good, bad, or somewhere in
between. This is your conclusion or thesis.

• Lay out the criteria for your judgment. In other words, your review must be based on logical
criteria—i.e., the standards by which you evaluate something. For example, if you are
reviewing a film, reasonable criteria would include acting, writing, storytelling, directing,
cinematography, music, and special effects. If you are evaluating an employee, that criteria will
change and more likely involve punctuality, aspects of job performance, and overall attitude on
the job.

• Make sure to evaluate each criteria and provide evidence. Draw your evidence from what you
are reviewing, and use as many specific examples as you can. In a movie review in which you
think the acting quality was top notch, give examples of a particular style that worked well or
lines delivered effectively or emotions realistically conveyed.

• Use concrete language. A review is only an argument if we can reasonably see—from examples
and your explanations—how you arrived at your judgment. Vague or circular language (“I liked
it because it was just really good!”) will keep your evaluation at the opinion level only,
preventing it from being taken seriously as an argument.

• Keep the tone respectful—even if you ultimately did not like the subject of your review. Be as
objective as you can when giving your reasons. Insulting language detracts from the
seriousness of your analysis and makes your points look like personal attacks.
72 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Roger Ebert (1942-2013), a movie reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times, was once one
of the most famous movie critics in America. His reviews provide excellent exam-
ples of the argument of evaluation.

Consider his review ([Link] the 2009 film Avatar and note
how clearly he declares his judgements, how he makes his reader aware of just
what standards he uses for judgement (his criteria), and how he uses a wealth of
examples and reasons to back his critiques (although he is careful to avoid spoil-
ers, the review went to print as the movie was coming out).

Figure 3.7 “Roger Ebert”

Sample Writing Assignment 3

Write a brief review of your first job. How would you rate that experience, and what would your rating be based on?

1. Declare your overall judgment of your job experience. This is your main claim.
2. Come up with at least four criteria for evaluation. Give your judgment for each criteria. Include at least two
specific examples to support each evaluation, and explain the logic of your support.
3. Proofread for tone, making sure to look for any words that would cause a reader to think your critique was
unfair or hostile. For example, even if you loathed your first job, treat it dispassionately, like you are a social
scientist putting that work experience under a microscope. (This might allow you to say, for example, that
although the job was dull and repetitive, it gave you some useful experience.)

Sample Writing Assignment 4

Evaluate a source that you plan to use for a research project. Explain what type of source you have (website? journal article?
book? newspaper article?), and declare your source to be credible or not, using the following criteria:
ARGUMENT 73

1. Author’s credentials. First of all, are the authors named? Can you find out anything about them, like degrees
and professional information? If you cannot find anything, how does that affect credibility? If you can find
information, how does that information show credibility or lack of it?
2. Publication information and process. Was the article or book peer reviewed? Was it online or in print? Did
you find it through a database or a Google search? Who funded publication? Explain what the results of these
questions tell you about the source’s credibility.
3. The use of support. Does the source have footnotes or endnotes? A bibliography? Links to different articles?
In other words, how carefully is the author trying to back up his or her claims?

Arguments of Fact and Explanation

In the beginning of this chapter, arguments were shown to be distinct from facts. Facts are not
arguable, they do not have “two sides,” and they are not up for debate. However, as we well know, peo-
ple disagree with facts all the time. We wouldn’t have a nonsense term like “alternative facts” otherwise.
We do, however, have arguments that deal with this scenario: arguments of fact and explanation.
Arguments of fact seek to establish, often in the face of doubters, that a fact is indeed true. Arguments
of explanation establish why that fact is true. Not surprisingly, these arguments often go hand in hand,
and they lie primarily in the domain of the research paper. For more detail on the research process,
refer to Chapter 6, “Research”; this section will clarify these two types of argument.

Arguments of Fact: Many times, the goal of giving an argument is simply to establish that the conclu-
sion is true. For example, to convince someone that obesity rates are rising in the US, the writer should
cite evidence such as studies from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). The studies cited would function as premises for the conclusion that obesity rates are ris-
ing:

Obesity is on the rise in the US because multiple studies carried out by the CDC and NIH have
consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades.

Putting this simple argument into standard form would look like this:

1. Multiple studies by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the
last four decades. (premises)
2. Therefore, obesity is on the rise in the US. (conclusion)

The standard form argument clearly distinguishes the premise from the conclusion and shows how the
conclusion is supposed to be supported by the evidence offered in the premise. Again, the goal of this
simple argument would be to convince someone that the conclusion is true. However, sometimes we
already know that a statement or claim is true, and we are trying to establish why it is true rather than
that it is true.

Arguments of Explanation: An argument that attempts to show why its conclusion is true is an expla-
nation. Contrast the previous example with the following:

The reason that the rate of obesity is on the rise in the US is that the foods we most often
74 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

consume over the past four decades have increasingly contained high levels of sugar and low
levels of dietary fiber. Because eating foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the insulin
system to start storing those calories as fat, it follows that people who consume foods high in
sugar and low in fiber will tend to store more of the calories consumed as fat.

This passage gives an explanation for why obesity is on the rise in the US. Unlike the earlier example,
here it is taken for granted that obesity is on the rise in the US. That is the claim whose truth the author
must explain. The obesity explanation can also be put into standard form just like any other argument:

1. Over the past four decades, Americans have increasingly consumed foods high in sugar and low in
fiber. (premise)
2. Consuming foods high in sugar and low in fat triggers the insulin system to start storing those
calories as fat. (premise)
3. When people store more calories as fat, they tend to become obese. (premise)
4. Therefore, the rate of obesity is on the rise in the US. (conclusion)

Notice that in this explanation, the premises (1-3) attempt to explain why the conclusion is true, rather
than a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true. That is, in an argument of explanation, we assume
that what we are trying to explain (i.e., the conclusion) is true. In this case, the premises are supposed
to show why we should expect or predict that the conclusion is true. Explanations often give us an under-
standing of why the conclusion is true.

Arguments of Interpretation

Arguments of interpretation come mainly in the form of critical analysis writing. Scholars and stu-
dents use critical analysis to understand a text more deeply; therefore, it is common in disciplines in
which texts are the main objects of study—literature, philosophy, and history. However, we can also
think of critical analysis as any analysis where someone takes raw data—from texts, from objects and
images, from laboratory experiments, from surveys of people—and analyzes that data to come up with
what they mean. The “what it all means” is an interpretation. The argument in critical analysis writing
is the interpretation of the data. This must be a logical interpretation with the data also used to support
the interpretation through reasoning and examples.

The guidelines for analyzing data are determined by the experts in those areas. Scholars of the life,
earth, and physical sciences; the social sciences; and the humanities gather all sorts of different data.
When writing up an interpretation of that data, writers and researchers should follow the models and
standards provided by experts in those fields of study. In college, professors are important sources of
these models and standards.

In the humanities, particularly in literature, there are generally four ways (or perspectives) for analyzing
a text: writing from the perspective of a reader, writing as if the text were an object of study, writing
about or from the perspective of an author, and writing about where a text fits into a particular con-
text.

• Writing from the perspective of a reader: You seek to understand a text through your own
experience, yet you also try to understand how others who may be different from you
understand the same writing through their experience. This is characterized by noting down
first impressions and lines or words that strike you in profound ways. This sort of analysis is
ARGUMENT 75

common in journal or response paper assignments and can be a simple way to begin a
discussion of a text.

• Writing about the text as an object of study: This is a perspective that highlights what makes up
that text and what meaning we can find in it. Finding meaning relies on identifying the patterns,
segments, and strategies (devices) in the writing you choose to analyze. This is one of the most
common types of essay assignments in a literature class.

• Writing about the text’s author: Sometimes this provides another perspective with which to
deepen an understanding of a piece of writing. Examining his or her life, thought processes,
behaviors, and beliefs can help you to further understand an author’s work. This type of
analysis can be the basis of a research paper on a work of history or literature.

• Writing about the text’s context: This approach usually has to do with how a text compares to
other texts as well as how the text interacts with history and society. When historians analyze
texts, studying context is crucial, but contextual analysis can also be the focus of a literature
essay.

The process of critical analysis is dependent on close reading of the data or text and is an analytical
process in which the writer moves from analyzing the details of the text to a broader conclusion that
is logically based on those details. What can confuse a lot of students is that formal essay structure
is must be framed by the conclusion, not the details: They must establish the main claim immediately,
and then use the reasons for the claim to organize the details in each body paragraph. For more on
close reading, see Chapter 1, “Critical Reading.”

Figure 3.8 “From Analysis to Argument”

76 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON
ARGUMENT 77

Rogerian Argument

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise
or common ground about an issue. If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical
argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument
model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset. Indeed, the Rogerian model
can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two oppos-
ing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common
understanding with those who might disagree.

Figure 3.9 “Carl Ransom Rogers”

78 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1. Introduction: Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-

confrontational way. Be sure to outline the main sides in the
debate. Though there are always more than two sides to a
debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one
another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the
essay: to come to a compromise about the issue at hand. If this
intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or
even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the
writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight. Be advised
that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure,
so do not include your thesis in your introduction. You will build
toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion. Once
again, state the intent to compromise, but do not yet state what
the compromise is.

2. Side A: Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the opposing side of the argument first.
The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers
called empathetic listening, which guides the overall approach to this type of argument. By allowing
the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respect-
fully consider another’s view on the issue. Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same
respect and consideration when presenting your own view. Finally, presenting the opposition first can
help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the pro-
ject. If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would
then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay. You can lis-
ten to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on YouTube ([Link]
pHw5x0, transcript here).

3. Side B: Carefully go over your side of the argument. When mapping out this side’s claim and sup-
port, be sure that it parallels that of Side A. In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new
categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise. Make sure to maintain a non-
confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.

4. The Bridge: A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accom-
modate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find common ground between
the two sides. There should be at least one point of agreement. This can be an acknowledgement of
the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of
values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values. This phase of the
essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not
necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to
come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section builds a bridge from the two initial
isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.

5. The Compromise: Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis. The
compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demon-
strate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might
ARGUMENT 79

be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society. That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one
that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes. For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better
solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less
problematic way.

Figure 3.10 “Rogerian Argument”

80 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Sample Writing Assignment 5

Find a controversial topic, and begin building a Rogerian argument. Write up your responses to the following:

1. The topic or dilemma I will write about is…

2. My opposing audience is…
3. My audience’s view on the topic is…
4. My view on the topic is…
5. Our common ground–shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic–is…
6. My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is…

The Toulmin Argument Model

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toul-
min devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate
ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interre-
lated components, was considered Toulmin’s most influential work, particularly in the fields of rhetoric,
communication, and computer science. His components continue to provide useful means for analyz-
ing arguments, and the terms involved can be added to those defined in earlier sections of this chapter.

Figure 3.11 “Toulmin Argument”

ARGUMENT 81

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:

1. Claim: The claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept as true (i.e., a con-
clusion) and forms the nexus of the Toulmin argument because all the other parts relate back to the
claim. The claim can include information and ideas you are asking readers to accept as true or actions
you want them to accept and enact. One example of a claim:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

This claim both asks the reader to believe an idea and suggests an action to enact. However, like all
claims, it can be challenged. Thus, a Toulmin argument does not end with a claim but also includes
grounds and warrant to give support and reasoning to the claim.

2. Grounds: The grounds form the basis of real persuasion and includes the reasoning behind the
claim, data, and proof of expertise. Think of grounds as a combination of premises and support. The
truth of the claim rests upon the grounds, so those grounds should be tested for strength, credibility,
relevance, and reliability. The following are examples of grounds:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

Information is usually a powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently.
82 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Those who are dogmatic, logical, or rational will more likely be persuaded by factual data. Those who
argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to
ignore it. Thus, grounds can also include appeals to emotion, provided they aren’t misused. The best
arguments, however, use a variety of support and rhetorical appeals.

3. Warrant: A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the
grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be carefully explained and explicit or unspoken and implicit.
The warrant answers the question, “Why does that data mean your claim is true?” For example,

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements includ-
ing those described below. Warrants may be based on logos, ethos or pathos, or values that are
assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence,
unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it
is weak or unfounded.

4. Backing: The backing for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. Backing can be con-
fused with grounds, but the main difference is this: Grounds should directly support the premises of
the main argument itself, while backing exists to help the warrants make more sense. For example,

Hearing aids are available locally.

This statement works as backing because it gives credence to the warrant stated above, that a hearing
aid will help most people hear better. The fact that hearing aids are readily available makes the warrant
even more reasonable.

5. Qualifier: The qualifier indicates how the data justifies the warrant and may limit how universally the
claim applies. The necessity of qualifying words comes from the plain fact that most absolute claims are
ultimately false (all women want to be mothers, e.g.) because one counterexample sinks them imme-
diately. Thus, most arguments need some sort of qualifier, words that temper an absolute claim and
make it more reasonable. Common qualifiers include “most,” “usually,” “always,” or “sometimes.” For
example,

Hearing aids help most people.

The qualifier “most” here allows for the reasonable understanding that rarely does one thing (a hearing
aid) universally benefit all people. Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of
the claim being incorrect:

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations can be used to bolster weak arguments, so it is important to recognize
them. They are often used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus, they slip “usually,” “vir-
tually,” “unless,” and so on into their claims to protect against liability. While this may seem like sneaky
practice, and it can be for some advertisers, it is important to note that the use of qualifiers and reser-
vations can be a useful and legitimate part of an argument.

6. Rebuttal: Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counterarguments
that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the
ARGUMENT 83

counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. For example,
if you anticipated a counterargument that hearing aids, as a technology, may be fraught with technical
difficulties, you would include a rebuttal to deal with that counterargument:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts
of the Toulmin structure.

Even if you do not wish to write an essay using strict Toulmin structure, using the Toulmin checklist
can make an argument stronger. When first proposed, Toulmin based his layout on legal arguments,
intending it to be used analyzing arguments typically found in the courtroom; in fact, Toulmin did not
realize that this layout would be applicable to other fields until later. The first three elements–“claim,”
“grounds,” and “warrant”–are considered the essential components of practical arguments, while the
last three—“qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”—may not be necessary for all arguments.

Exercise 5

Find an argument in essay form and diagram it using the Toulmin model. The argument can come from an Op-Ed article in a
newspaper or a magazine think piece or a scholarly journal. See if you can find all six elements of the Toulmin argument. Use
the structure above to diagram your article’s argument.

Key Takeaways: Types of Argument

• Arguments in the Rhetorical Modes—models of writing that can be used for an argument, including the
rhetorical modes: narration, comparison, causal analysis, process, description, definition, classification, and
exemplification.

• Arguments of Persuasion—used to change someone’s thinking on a topic or person.

• Arguments of Evaluation—critical reviews based on logical evaluation of criteria and evidence for that
evaluation.

• Arguments of Fact and Explanation—establishes that a fact is true (the former) or why it is true (the latter).

• Arguments of Interpretation—critical analysis writing in which one makes an argument about what data mean.
Data can come from texts, objects, surveys, and scientific experiments.

• The Rogerian Argument Model—an argument model designed to bring about consensus and mutual
understanding rather than conflict.

• Toulmin’s Argument Model—six interrelated components used to diagram an argument, drawn from both
rhetorical and academic argument.
84 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

5. A REPOSITORY OF LOGICAL FALLACIES

Below is a list of informal fallacies, divided into four main categories: fallacies of irrelevance, presump-
tion, ambiguity, and inconsistency. While this list is by no means exhaustive, it will include some of the
most common fallacies used by writers and speakers, both in the world and in the classroom.

Fallacies of Irrelevance

One of the most common ways to go off track in an argument is to bring up irrelevant information or
ideas. They are grouped here into two main categories: the red herring fallacies and the irrelevant
appeals.

• Red Herring Fallacies—These aim to distract the reader by introducing irrelevant ideas or
information. They divert attention away from the validity, soundness, and support of an argument.
Think of red herrings as squirrels to a dog—almost impossible to resist chasing once spotted.

Figure 3.12 “Reagan’s Red Herring”

• Weak/False Analogy—An analogy is a brief comparison, usually to make writing more interesting
and to connect with the reader. While writers often use analogies effectively to illustrate ideas, a
bad analogy can be misleading and even inflammatory.
ARGUMENT 85

Example: “Taxes are like theft.” This statement makes a false analogy because taxes are legal
and thus cannot logically be defined as, or even compared to, something illegal.

• Tu Quoque—Also known as an appeal to hypocrisy, this fallacy translates from the Latin as “you,
too.” Known on grade school playgrounds around the world, this false argument distracts by
turning around any critique on the one making the critique with the implication that the accuser
should not have made the accusation in the first place because it reveals him as a hypocrite—even if
the accusation or critique has validity.

Example 1: “Mom, Joey pushed me!” “Yeah, but Sally pushed me first!” Any sister who has
ratted out a brother before knows she will have to deal with an immediate counter attack,
claiming that she has perpetrated the same crime she has accused the brother of doing (and
more than likely, she has done so). The brother hopes that the sister’s blatant hypocrisy will
absolve him of his crime. Any veteran parent of siblings will know not to fall for this trick.

Example 2: Joe the Politician has been legitimately caught in a lie. Joe and his supporters try
to deflect the damage by pointing out the times his opponents have been caught lying, too;
this counter accusation implies that Joe’s lie should be excused because of the hypocrisy of
those who found it and who dare to even talk about it. However, this counter accusation does
not actually do anything logically to disprove or challenge the fact of Joe’s lie.

• Ad Hominem Attacks—The argumentum ad hominem is one of the most recognizable and

irresistible of the red herring fallacies. Ad hominem attacks distract from an argument by focusing
on the one making the argument, trying to damage his or her credibility. There are two main types
of ad hominem attack: abuse and circumstance:

Ad hominem attacks of abuse are personal (often ruthlessly so), meant to insult and demean.
Attacks of abuse distract the audience as well as the speaker or writer because he will believe it
necessary to defend himself from the abuse rather than strengthen his argument.

Examples: These can include attacks on the body, intelligence, voice, dress, family, and per-
sonal choices and tastes.

Figure 3.13 “Student vs. Freud Ad Hominem”

86 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

In ad hominem attacks of circumstance, the debater implies that his opponent only makes an argu-
ment because of a personal connection to it instead of the quality and support of the argument
itself, which should be considered independent of any personal connection.

Example: “You only support the Latino for this job because you’re a Latino.”

This statement fails the logic test because it only takes a personal characteristic into
account–race–when making this claim. This claim does not consider two important issues: (1) Peo-
ple do not base every decision they make on their race, and (2) there may have been other per-
fectly logical reasons to support the Latino job applicant that had nothing to do with race.

• Poisoning the Well—This is a type of ad hominem attack that attempts to damage the character of
an opponent before that person even introduces an argument. Thus, by the time the argument is
made, it often sounds weak and defensive, and the person making the argument may already be
suspect in the minds of the audience.

Example: If a speaker calls out a woman for being overly emotional or hysterical, any height-
ened feeling—even a raised voice—may be attributed to her inability to control emotion.
Furthermore, if that woman makes an argument, she can be ignored and her argument
weakened because of the perception that it is rooted in emotion, not reason.

Figure 3.14 “Poisoning the Well”

ARGUMENT 87

• Guilt by Association—This red herring fallacy works by associating the author of an argument with
a group or belief so abhorrent and inflammatory in the minds of the audience that everyone, author
and audience alike, is chasing squirrels up trees—that is, they are occupied by the tainted
association to the reviled group—instead of dealing with the merits of the original argument.

Example: the argumentum ad Nazium, or playing the Hitler card. To counter an argument,
either the arguer or a part of the argument itself is associated with Hitler or the Nazis. (“Veg-
etarianism is a healthy option for dieters.” “Never! You know, Hitler was a vegetarian!”)
Because almost no one wants to be associated with fascists (or other similarly hated groups,
like cannibals or terrorists), the author now faces the task of defending himself against the
negative association instead of pursuing the argument. If, however, there are actual Nazis–or
the equivalent of Nazis, such as white supremacists or other neofascists–making an argument
based on fascist ideology, it is perfectly reasonable to criticize, oppose, and object to their
extreme and hateful views.

Figure 3.15 “Guilt by Association”

88 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Irrelevant Appeals—Unlike the rhetorical appeals, the irrelevant appeals are attempts to persuade the
reader with ideas and information that are irrelevant to the issues or arguments at hand, or the appeals
rest on faulty assumptions in the first place. The irrelevant appeals can look and feel like logical sup-
port, but they are either a mirage or a manipulation.

• Appeal to Emotion—manipulates the audience by playing too much on emotion instead of rational
support. Using scare tactics is one type of appeal to emotion. Using pity to pressure someone into
agreement is another example.

Example: Imagine a prosecuting attorney in a murder case performing closing arguments,

trying to convict the defendant by playing on the emotions of the jury: “Look at that bloody
knife! Look at that poor, battered victim and the cruelty of all those terrible stab wounds!”
The jury may well be swayed by such a blatant appeal to emotion–pity, horror, disgust—but
this appeal doesn’t actually provide any concrete proof for the defendant’s guilt. If the lawyer
ARGUMENT 89

has built a logical case that rests on an abundance of factual data, then this appeal to emotion
may be justified as a way to personalize that data for the jury. If, however, the lawyer only
uses this appeal to emotion, the argument for guilt is flawed because the lawyer has tried to
make up for a weak case by turning the jury members’ emotions into the main evidence for
guilt.

• Appeal to Popularity—Also known as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to popularity implies that
because many people believe or support something, it constitutes evidence for its validity. However,
once we stop to think this idea through, we can easily remember popular ideas that were not at all
good or justifiable: The majority does not always make the best choice.

Example: A good example here would be fashion trends. What is popular from one day to
the next does not necessarily have anything to do with whether something logically is a good
idea or has practical use.

Figure 3.16 “Appeal to Popularity”

• Appeal to Incredulity—suggests that a lack of understanding is a valid excuse for rejecting an idea.
Just because someone does not personally understand how something works does not mean that
thing is false. A person does not need to understand how a car’s engine works to know that it does
90 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

work, for instance. Often, in addition to rejecting the difficult idea, the arguer goes on to suggest
that anyone who believes in the idea is foolish to do so.

Example: “It’s just common sense that the earth is flat because when I look at it, I can’t see
any curve, not even when I’m in an airplane. I don’t need any scientist to tell me what I can
clearly figure out with my own eyes.” This person has casually dismissed any scientific evi-
dence against a flat earth as if it did not matter. Often those making an illogical appeal to
incredulity will substitute what they think of as “common sense” for actual scientific evidence
with the implication that they do not need any other basis for understanding. The problem
is that many of the truths of our universe cannot be understood by common sense alone.
Science provides the answers, often through complex mathematical and theoretical frame-
works, but ignorance of the science is not a justifiable reason for dismissing it.

• Appeal to Nature—the assumption that what is natural is (1) inherently good and therefore (2)
constitutes sufficient reason for its use or support. This is flawed because (1) how we determine
what is natural can and does change, and (2) not everything that is natural is beneficial.

Example: “Vaccines are unnatural; thus, being vaccinated is more harmful than not being vac-
cinated.” A person making this statement has made an illogical appeal to nature. The fact that
vaccines are a product of human engineering does not automatically mean they are harmful.
If this person applied that logic to other cases, she would then have to reject, for instance, all
medicines created in the lab rather than plucked from the earth.

• Appeal to Tradition/Antiquity—assumes that what is old or what “has always been done” is
automatically good and beneficial. The objection, “But, we’ve always done it this way!” is fairly
common, used when someone tries to justify or legitimize whatever “it” is by calling on tradition. The
problems are these: (1) Most rudimentary history investigations usually prove that, in fact, “it” has
not always been done that way; (2) tradition is not by itself a justification for the goodness or benefit
of anything. Foot binding was a tradition at one point, but a logical argument for its benefit would
strain credulity.

Example: “We should bar women from our club because that is how it has always been
done.” The person making this argument needs to provide logical reasons women should not
be included, not just rely on tradition.

• Appeal to Novelty—the mirror of the appeal to antiquity, suggesting that what is new is necessarily
better.

Example: “Buy our new and improved product, and your life will forever be changed for the
better!” Advertisers love employing the appeal to novelty to sell the public on the idea that
because their product is new, it is better. Newness is no guarantee that something is good or
of high quality.

• Appeal to Authority—Appealing to the ideas of someone who is a credentialed expert—or

authority—on a subject can be a completely reasonable type of evidence. When one writes a
research paper about chemistry, it is reasonable to use the works of credentialed chemists.
However, the appeal to authority becomes a fallacy when misapplied. That same credentialed
chemist would not be a logical authority to consult for information about medieval knights because
authority in one area does not necessarily transfer to other areas. Another mistaken appeal to
ARGUMENT 91

authority is to assume that because someone is powerful in some way that that power accords that
person special knowledge or wisdom.

Example: Many societies throughout history have had hierarchical social and political struc-
tures, and those who happened to be in the top tier, like aristocrats and rulers, had authority
over those below them. In fact, the term “nobility” in the west had embedded within it the
notion that the aristocracy really were better—more ethical, more intelligent, more deserving
of reward—than those lower on the social ladder. Careful study of the nobility shows, how-
ever, that some members were just as capable of immorality and stupidity as lower social
groups.

• Appeal to Consequences/Force—the attempt to manipulate someone into agreement by either

implicit or explicit threats of consequences or force (violence!).

Example: “Agree with me or you’ll be fired!” Holding something over another person’s head
is not a reasonable way to support an argument. The arguer avoids giving any sort of logic or
evidence in favor of a threat.

• Appeal to Wealth—the assumption that wealthy people have special knowledge or wisdom that
derives from their economic position and that can then be applied to any area of knowledge.

Example: “Hi, I’m a famous actress, and while I’m not a qualified psychologist, read my new
self-help book for how you, too, can avoid depression!” Fame and fortune alone do not turn
someone into a qualified expert. Appealing to a person’s expertise solely based on wealth
and position is thus logically flawed.

Figure 3.17 “Appeal to Wealth”

92 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

• Appeal to Poverty—the mirror of the above irrelevant appeal, that poor people have special
knowledge or wisdom because of their adverse economic circumstances. This can work in another
way: that poor people are particularly deficient in knowledge or wisdom because they are poor.
However, neither assumption constitutes sound reasoning. The conditions of poverty are far too
complex.

Example: “That man lives on unemployment benefits, so why would I care about his opinion
on anything?” The arguer in this scenario unreasonably uses another’s poverty against him,
by implying that a poor person would have worthless ideas. This implication has embedded
within it the idea that someone is only poor because of some sort of personal lack–intelli-
gence, morality, good sense, and so on. However, it is quite reasonable for a poor person to
be intelligent, ethical, and wise. To assume otherwise is to risk making logical mistakes.

Fallacies of Presumption

To call someone presumptuous is to accuse that person of overreaching—making bold assertions with-
out adequate reason or failing to follow the rules of behavior (but presuming it is okay to do so). The
ARGUMENT 93

logical fallacy version of this involves making a case with inadequate or tainted evidence, or even no
evidence whatsoever, or by having unjustified reasons for making the case in the first place.

Working with Flawed Evidence—These fallacies occur when an author uses evidence that has been
compromised.

• Hasty Generalization—A hasty generalization derives its conclusion from too little information,
evidence, or reason.

One type of hasty generalization is jumping to a conclusion from a small amount of evidence.

Example: Having one bad meal at a restaurant and then immediately concluding that all
meals from that restaurant will be just as bad.

Figure 3.18 “Hasty Generalization”

Another type of hasty generalization involves relying on anecdotal evidence for support. As human
beings, we overestimate the power of personal experience and connections, so they can drown out sci-
entific data that contradict an individual—or anecdotal—experience. Additionally, anecdotal evidence
is persuasive because of the human desire for perfection. Perfection is a lofty—and mostly unreach-
able—goal, and when a product or a person or a program fails to live up to perfection, it becomes easier
94 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

to dismiss—particularly when a personal story or two of imperfection is involved. Accurate informa-

tion, however, comes from a much larger amount of data—analysis of hundreds or thousands or even
millions of examples. Unfortunately, data can feel impersonal and, therefore, less convincing.
tm
Example: “I love my new Banana laptop. The product ratings for it are very high.” “Oh, no
one should ever buy one of their computers! My brother had one, and it was full of glitches.”
Basing a judgement or an argument on a personal story or two, as in this case, is not logical
tm
but can be incredibly persuasive. However, if 98% of Banana computers run perfectly well,
and only 2% have glitches, it is illogical to use that 2% to write this product off as universally
terrible.

In scholarship, hasty generalizations can happen when conclusions derive from an unrepresentative
sample. Data coming from a group that fail to represent the group’s full complexity is unrepresenta-
tive, and any results drawn from that data will be flawed.

Example: If advances in cancer research were only, or mostly, tested on men, that would be
unrepresentative of humanity because half of the human population—women—would not be
represented. What if the cancer treatments affect women differently?

Another type of hasty generalization derived from poor research is the biased sample. This comes
from a group that has a predisposed bias to the concepts being studied.

Example: If a psychologist were to study how high school students handled challenges to
their religious views, it would be flawed to only study students at schools with a religious affili-
ation since most of those students may be predisposed toward a single type of religious view.

• Sweeping Generalization—the inverse of the hasty generalization. Instead of making a conclusion

from little evidence, the sweeping generalization applies a general rule to a specific situation without
providing proper evidence, without demonstrating that the rule even applies, or without providing
for exceptions. Stereotyping is one prominent type of sweeping generalization; a stereotype derives
from general ideas about a group of people without accounting for exceptions or accuracy or that
there is any sound reasoning behind the stereotype.
• Confirmation Bias—a pernicious fallacy that can trip even careful scholars. It occurs when the
writer or researcher is so convinced by her point of view that she only seeks to confirm it and, thus,
ignores any evidence that would challenge it. Choosing only data that support a preformed
conclusion is called cherry picking and is a one-way ticket to skewed results. Related to this fallacy is
another—disconfirmation bias—when the writer or researcher puts so much stock in her side of the
argument that she does not apply equal critical evaluation to the arguments and evidence that
support the other side. In other words, while too easily and uncritically accepting what supports her
side, she is unreasonably critical of opposing arguments and evidence.

Example: In the later nineteenth century, when archaeology was a new and thrilling field of
study, Heinrich Schliemann excavated the ancient city of Troy, made famous in Homer’s epic
poem, The Iliad. In fact, Schliemann used The Iliad as a guide, so when he excavated, he looked
to find structures (like walls) and situations (proof of battles) in the archaeological remains.
While Schliemann’s work is still considered groundbreaking in many ways, his method was
flawed. It allowed him to cherry pick his results and fit them to his expectations–i.e., that his
results would fit the myth. When Schliemann sought to confirm story elements from The Iliad
in the archaeological record, he risked misinterpreting his data. What if the data was telling
ARGUMENT 95

a different story than that in The Iliad? How could he know for sure until he put the book
down and analyzed the archaeological evidence on its own merits? For more on Schliemann
and his famous early excavations, see his Encyclopedia Britannica entry ([Link]
y9tk4vou), or look up “Heinrich Schliemann” in the Gale Virtual Reference Library database.

• No True Scotsman—a false claim to purity for something that is too complex for purity, like a
group, an identity, or an organization. Those making claims to purity usually attempt to declare that
anyone who does not fit their “pure” definition does not belong. For example, national identity is
complicated and can mean something different to each person who claims that identity; therefore, it
is too complex for a one-size-fits-all definition and for any one litmus test to prove that identity.

Examples: “No real Scot would put ice in his scotch!” “No real man would drink lite beer!” “No
real feminist would vote Republican!” Each of these statements assumes that everyone has
the same definition for the identities or groups discussed: Scots, men, and feminists. How-
ever, the members of each group are themselves diverse, so it is illogical to make such blanket
declarations about them. It is actually quite reasonable for a Scottish person to like ice in her
scotch and still claim a Scottish identity or for a man to drink lite beer without relinquishing
his manhood or for a feminist to vote Republican while still working toward women’s rights.

Figure 3.19 “No True Southerner, No True Scotsman”

96 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Working with No Evidence—These fallacies occur when the evidence asserted turns out to be no evi-
dence whatsoever.

• Burden of Proof—This logical fallacy, quite similar to the appeal to ignorance, occurs when the
author forgets that she is the one responsible for supporting her arguments and, instead, shifts the
burden of proof to the audience.

Example: “Larry stole my painting,” Edith cried. “Prove to me he didn’t!” No: The one making
the claim must give reasons and evidence for that claim before anyone else is obligated to
refute it. If Edith cannot give sound proof of Larry’s guilt, the argument should be rejected.

• Arguing from Silence or Ignorance—Like the burden of proof fallacy, this one occurs when the
author, either implicitly or explicitly, uses a lack of evidence as a type of proof. This is the basis for
most conspiracy theory nonsense, as if the lack of evidence is so hard to believe, the only reason to
explain why it is missing is a cover up. Remember, it is the writer’s job to present positive proof
ARGUMENT 97

(evidence that actually exists and can be literally seen) to support any argument made. If a writer
cannot find evidence, he must admit that he may be wrong and then, find a new argument!

Example: “There is no proof that Joe the Politician conspired with the Canadians to rig the
elections.” “A-ha! That there is nothing to find is proof that he did! He must have paid off
everyone involved to bury the evidence.” Lack of proof cannot be–in and of itself–a type of
proof because it has no substance; it is a nothing. Is it possible that proof may arise in the
future? Yes, but until it does, the argument that Joe and the Canadians rigged an election
is illegitimate. Is it possible that Joe both rigged the election and paid people off to hide it?
Again, yes, but there are two problems with this reasoning: (1) Possibility, like absence of evi-
dence, is not in itself a type of evidence, and (2) possibility does not equal probability. Just
because something is possible does not mean it is probable, let alone likely or a sure thing.
Those supporting conspiracy theories try to convince others that lack of proof is a type of
proof and that a remote possibility is actually a surety. Both fail the logic test.

Figure 3.20 “Arguing from Ignorance”

• Circular Reasoning—also known as begging the question, occurs when, instead of providing
reasons for a claim, the arguer just restates the claim but in a different way. An author cannot
sidestep reasons and proof for an argument by just repeating the claim over and over again.
98 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Example: “The death penalty is sinful because it is wrong and immoral.” The conclusion (the
death penalty is sinful) looks like it is supported by two premises (that it is wrong, that it is
immoral). The problem is that the words “wrong” and “immoral” are too close in meaning to
“sinful,” so they are not actual reasons; rather, they are just other ways to state the claim.

• Special Pleading—Anyone who makes a case based on special circumstances without actually
providing any reasonable evidence for those circumstances is guilty of special pleading.

Example: “Is there any extra credit I can do to make up for my missing work?” Many students
have asked this of their college professors. Embedded within the question is a logical fallacy,
the insistence that the student asking it should get special treatment and be rewarded with
extra credit even though he missed prior assignments. If the student has logical (and prefer-
ably documented) reasons for missing course work, then the fallacy of special pleading does
not apply. Those expecting to be given special treatment without reasonable justification
have committed the special pleading fallacy.

• Moving the Goalposts—happens when one keeps changing the rules of the game in mid-play
without any reasonable justification.

Example: This fallacy occurs in Congress quite a lot, where the rules for a compromise are
established in good faith, but one side or the other decides to change those rules at the last
minute without good reason or evidence for doing so.

• Wishful Thinking—involves replacing actual evidence and reason with desire, i.e., desire for
something to be true. Wanting an idea to be real or true, no matter how intensely, does not
constitute rational support. This fallacy often occurs when closely-held ideas and beliefs are
challenged, particularly if they are connected to family and identity or if they serve self interest.

Example: People do not like to see their personal heroes tarnished in any way. If a popular
sports hero, e.g., is accused of a crime, many fans will refuse to believe it because they just
don’t want to. This plays right into the wishful thinking fallacy.

Figure 3.21 “Wishful Thinking”

ARGUMENT 99

Working with False Ideas about Evidence or Reasoning—These fallacies either (1) presume some-
thing is a reason for or evidence of something else when that connection has not been adequately or
fairly established or (2) unfairly limit one’s choices of possible reasons.

• False Dilemma/Dichotomy—occurs when one presents only two options in an argument when
there are, in fact, many more options. Arguments have multiple sides, not just two, so when only
two are presented, readers are forced to choose between them when they should be able to draw
from a more complex range of options. Another way to talk about the false dichotomy is to call it
reductionist because the arguer has reduced the options from many to only two.

Example: “So, are you a dog person or a cat person? Are you a Beatles person or a Rolling
Stones person? You can be only one!” Both of these examples provide a false choice between
two options when there are clearly others to choose from. One might also reasonably choose
both or neither. When an arguer only provides two options, she tries to rig the response and
to get the responder to only work within the severely limited framework provided. Life is
more complicated than that, so it is unreasonable to limit choices to only two.
100 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Figure 3.22 “False Dilemma”

• Loaded Question—embeds a hidden premise in the question, so anyone who responds is forced to
accept that premise. This puts the responder at an unfair disadvantage because he has to either
answer the question and, by doing so, accept the premise, or challenge the question, which can look
like he is ducking the issue.

Example: “So, when did you start practicing witchcraft?” The hidden premise here is that the
responder is a witch, and any reply is an admittance to that as a fact. An open question, one
that does not trick the responder into admitting the presumption of witchcraft, would be this:
“Are you a witch?”

False Cause—asserts causes that are more assumptions than actual causes. There are three types of
false cause fallacies:

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc—In Latin, this phrase means “after this, therefore, because of this,”
which asserts that when one thing happens before another thing, the first must have caused the
second. This is a false assumption because, even if the two things are related to each other, they do
not necessarily have a causal relationship.
ARGUMENT 101

Example: Superstitions draw power from this logical fallacy. If a black cat crosses Joe the
Politician’s path, and the next day Joe loses the election, is he justified, logically, in blaming the
cat? No. Just because the cat’s stroll happened before the election results does not mean the
one caused the other.

Figure 3.23 “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc”

• Slippery Slope—the cause/effect version of jumping to a conclusion. A slippery slope argument

claims that the first link in a causal chain will inevitably end in the most disastrous result possible,
thus working to scare the audience away from the initial idea altogether. Keep in mind, legitimate
and logical causal chains can be argued: where one cause leads to a logical effect, which then leads
to the next logical effect, which then leads to the next logical effect, and so on. Those using the
slippery slope fallacy, however, do not bother to carefully establish a logical chain but rather skip
right ahead to the worst possible conclusion.

Example: “Oh no, if I fail this test, my whole life is ruined!” This is a common fear among pan-
icked students but is a prime example of the slippery slope. The student likely imagines this
102 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

sort of logical chain: a failed test → failed class → getting behind in college → flunking out of
college → all future job prospects falling through → total unemployment → abject poverty →
becoming a pariah to family and friends → a thoroughly ruined life. The worry is that failing a
test, should it even happen at all, will automatically result in the worst possible case: a totally
failed life. However, when thought through more calmly and logically, hopefully, the student
will realize that many mitigating factors lie between one failed test and total ruination and
that the total ruination result is actually quite unlikely.

• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc—In Latin, this phrase translates to “with this, therefore, because of this,”
which suggests that because two or more things happen at the same time they must be related.
This, however, doesn’t account for other logical possibilities, including coincidence.

Example: “Gah! Why does the phone always ring as we sit down to dinner?” This question
implies that those two events have something to do with each other when there are likely far
more logical reasons that they do not.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

To be ambiguous is to be unclear; thus, fallacies of ambiguity are those that, intentionally or not, con-
fuse the reader through lack of clarity. They create a fog that makes it difficult to see what the conclu-
sion or the reasonable parts of an argument are, or the fog prevents a reasonable conclusion in the
first place.

• Quoting out of Context—occurs when quoting someone without providing all the necessary
information to understand the author’s meaning. Lack of context means that the original quote’s
meaning can be obscured or manipulated to mean something the original author never intended.
Usually that context comes from the original text the quote came from that the borrower has failed
to include or deliberately excluded.

Example: Original statement: “You may hand write your assignments but only when
instructed to in the assignment schedule.”

Quote used: “You may hand write your assignments.”

Clearly, the quoted part leaves out some crucial information, qualifying information that puts limits on
the initial instruction. The scenario may be this: The original statement came from a professor’s syl-
labus, and the student quoted just the first part to an advisor, for instance, while trying to register a
complaint over a bad grade for an assignment he hand wrote but wasn’t supposed to. When the stu-
dent exclaims, “But my professor told me I could hand write my assignments!” he is guilty of muddying
the truth by quoting out of context. He left out the part that told him to verify the assignment instruc-
tions to see if handwriting were allowable or not.

• Straw Man—Creating a straw man argument involves taking a potentially reasonable argument and
misrepresenting it, usually through scare tactics or oversimplification, i.e., by creating an argument
that sounds similar to the original but in reality is not. The straw man argument is designed to be
outrageous and upsetting, and thus easier to defeat or get others to reject. Why try to dismantle
and rebut a reasonable argument when one can just knock the head off the straw man substitute
instead?
ARGUMENT 103

Example: “I think we need to get rid of standardized testing in junior high and high school, at
least in its current form.” “That’s terrible! I can’t believe you don’t want any standards for stu-
dents. You just want education to get even worse!” In this scenario, the second person has
committed the straw man fallacy. She has distorted the first person’s argument–that stan-
dardized testing in its current form should be eliminated–and replaced it with a much more
objectionable one–that all educational standards should be eliminated. Because there are
more ways than just testing to monitor educational standards, the second person’s argument
is a blatant misrepresentation and an over simplification.

Figure 3.24 “Straw Man”

• Equivocation—happens when an author uses terms that are abstract or complex—and, therefore,
have multiple meanings or many layers to them—in an overly simple or misleading fashion or
without bothering to define the particular use of that term.

Example: “I believe in freedom.” The problem with this statement is it assumes that everyone
understands just exactly what the speaker means by freedom. Freedom from what? Free-
dom to do what? Freedom in a legal sense? In an intellectual sense? In a spiritual sense?
Using a vague sense of a complex concept like freedom leads to the equivocation fallacy.
104 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

Fallacies of Inconsistency

This category of fallacies involves a lack of logical consistency within the parts of the argument itself or
on the part of the speaker.

• Inconsistency Fallacy—is one of the more blatant fallacies because the speaker is usually quite up-
front about his inconsistency. This fallacy involves making contradictory claims but attempting to
offset the contradiction by framing one part as a disclaimer and, thus, implying that the disclaimer
inoculates the one making it from any challenge.

Example 1: “I’m not a racist but….” If what follows is a racist statement, the one saying this
is guilty of the inconsistency fallacy and of making a racist statement. Making a bold claim
against racism is not a shield.

Example 2: “I can’t be sexist because I’m a woman.” The speaker, when making this kind of
statement and others like it, assumes that she cannot logically be called out for making a sex-
ist statement because she happens to be a member of a group (women) who are frequent
victims of sexism. If the statements she makes can objectively be called sexist, then she is
guilty of both sexism and the inconsistency fallacy.

Figure 3.25 “Inconsistency Fallacy”

ARGUMENT 105

• False Equivalence—asserts that two ideas or groups or items or experiences are of equal type,
standing, and quality when they are not.

Example: The belief in intelligent design and the theory of evolution are often falsely equated.
The logical problem lies not with desire to support one or the other idea but with the idea
that these two concepts are the same type of concept. They are not. Intelligent design comes
out of belief, mainly religious belief, while evolution is a scientific theory underpinned by fac-
tual data. Thus, these two concepts should not be blithely equated. Furthermore, because
these two concepts are not the same type, they do not need to be in opposition. In fact, there
are those who may well believe in intelligent design while also subscribing to the theory of
evolution. In other words, their religious beliefs do not restrict an adherence to evolutionary
theory. A religious belief is faith based and, thus, is not evaluated using the same principles
as a scientific theory would be.

• False Balance—applies mainly to journalists who, because they wish to present an appearance of
fairness, falsely claim that two opposing arguments are roughly equal to each other when one
actually has much more weight to it—of both reasoning and evidence.

Example: The majority of scientists accept climate change as established by empirical evi-
dence, while a scant few do not; putting one representative of each on a news program, how-
ever, implies that they represent an equal number of people, which is clearly false.

Key Takeaways: Logical Fallacies

• Both formal and informal fallacies are errors of reasoning, and if writers rely on such fallacies, even
unintentionally, they undercut their arguments, particularly their crucial appeals to logos. For example, if
someone defines a key term in an argument in an ambiguous way or if someone fails to provide credible
evidence, or if someone tries to distract with irrelevant or inflammatory ideas, her arguments will appear logically
weak to a critical audience.

• More than just logos is at stake, however. When listeners or readers spot questionable reasoning or unfair
attempts at audience manipulation, they may conclude that an author’s ethics have become compromised. The
credibility of the author (ethos) and perhaps the readers’ ability to connect with that writer on the level of shared
values (pathos) may well be damaged.

CC Licensed Content, Shared Previously

About Writing: A Guide, Robin Jeffrey, CC-BY.

A Concise Introduction to Logic, Craig DeLancey, CC-BY-NC-SA.

English 112: College Composition II, Lumen Learning, CC-BY-SA.

106 ELIZABETH BROWNING, KIRSTEN DEVRIES, KATHY BOYLAN, JENIFER KURTZ, AND KATELYN BURTON

English Composition 1, Lumen Learning, CC-BY-SA.

Frameworks for Academic Writing, Stephen Poulter, CC-BY-NC-SA.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Matthew J. Van Cleave, CC-BY.

Methods of Discovery, Pavel Zemilanski, CC-BY-NC-SA.

Successful Writing v. 1.0. Scott McLean. CC-BY-NC-SA.

Writing in College: From Competence to Excellence, Amy Guptill, CC-BY-NC-SA.

Image Credits

Figure 3.1 “Opinion vs Argument,” by Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, derivative
image from original by ijmaki, pixabay, CC-0.

Figure 3.2 “Argument Diagram,” Virginia Western Community College, derivative image using “Thin
Brace Down,” by pathoschild, Wikimedia, CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Figure 3.3 “Common Premise Indicators,” by Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, CC-0.

Figure 3.4 “Common Conclusion Indicators,” by Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College,
CC-0.

Figure 3.5 Untitled, by Matthew Van Cleave, from Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, CC-BY.

Figure 3.6 Untitled, by Matthew Van Cleave, from Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking , CC-BY.

Figure 3.7 “Roger Ebert,” by Roger Ebert, Wikimedia, CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Figure 3.8 “From Analysis to Argument,” by Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, CC-0.

Figure 3.9 “Carl Ransom Rogers,” by Didius, Wikimedia, CC-BY 2.5.

Figure 3.10 “Rogerian Argument,” by Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, CC-0.

Figure 3.11 “Toulmin Argument,” Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, CC-0.

Figure 3.12 “Reagan’s Red Herring,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community
College, CC-0, derivative image using “[Link],” by White House/Reagan Presidential Library,
Wikimedia, CC-0.

Figure 3.13 “Student vs. Freud Ad Hominem,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western
Community College, CC-BY-2.0, derivative image using “Students in Class”, by Tulane University Public
Relation, CC-BY-2.0.

Figure 3.14 “Poisoning the Well,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community Col-
lege, CC-0, derivative image from the original by jamesoladujoye , pixabay, CC-0.

Figure 3.15 “Guilt by Association,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community
ARGUMENT 107

College, CC-0, derivative image using “LettuceLadies-Guangzhou-092508,” by Ryan Huling, Wikimedia,

CC-0.

Figure 3.16 “Appeal to Popularity,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community
College, CC-0, derivative image using the original by Max Pixel, CC-0.

Figure 3.17 “Appeal to Wealth,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community Col-
lege, CC-0, derivative image using the original by [Link], flickr, CC-0.

Figure 3.18 “Hasty Generalization,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community
College, CC-BY-2.0, derivative image using “Young People Texting on Smartphones Using Thumbs,” by
Tomwsulcer, Wikimedia, CC-0, and “Old Guy,” by Randen Pederson, flickr, CC-BY 2.0.

Figure 3.19 “No True Southerner, No True Scotsman,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia West-
ern Community College, CC-BY-SA-2.0, derivative image using “Pimento Cheese” by Chip Harlan, Wiki-
media, CC-BY-SA-2.0.

Figure 3.20 “Arguing from Ignorance,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community
College, CC-BY-2.0, derivative image using “Kyrie Irving“, by Erik Drost, Wikimedia, CC-BY 2.0.

Figure 3.21 “Wishful Thinking,” by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community Col-
lege, CC-0, derivative image using “Lance Armstrong – Tour de France 2003,” by Gawain78, Wikimedia,
CC-0.

Figure 3.22 “False Dilemma”, by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College,
CC-0, derivative image using “Bush State of the Union 2006,” by White House, CC-0, and “President Bush
Delivers State of the Union Address,” by Sheelah Craighead, White House, CC-0.

Figure 3.23 “Rally Cat”, by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College., CC-
BY-2.0, derivative image using “David Ortiz Batters Box,” by SecondPrintProductions, Wikimedia, CC-
BY-2.0, and “Bengal Cat,” by Roberto Shabs, Wikimedia, CC-By-2.0.

Figure 3.24 “Gaming”, by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community College, CC-
BY-2.0, derivative image using “Dataspel,” by Magnus Froderberg, Wikimedia, CC-BY-2.0.

Figure 3.25 “Inconsistency Fallacy”, by Dale Dulaney and Kalyca Schultz, Virginia Western Community
College, CC-0, derivative image using “Tea Party Where is the Cake Grandma,” by Assy , pixabay, CC-0.

Chapter 3 - Argument by Kirsten DeVries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License, except where otherwise noted.