The Structure of an Argument

The Structure of an Argument Every argument consists of three parts….

1. The CLAIM • The CLAIM is the statement being offered as true. • Synonyms: • assertion, statement, argument • The Death Penalty deters crime.

2. The DATA • The DATA is the information being offered in support of the claim.. • Synonym: Evidence • Examples: Statistics, Quotes from experts, factual examples • States that use the death penalty have lower crime rates.

3. The WARRANT • The WARRANT is the link in thought between the evidence and the claim. It is your REASON for WHY you argument stands. • TYPES: There are five types of reasoning: • Example • Causal • Authority • Sign • Analogy • My reasoning is Causal. I claim that lower crime rates were directly CAUSED BY the use of the death penalty.

All 3 parts together… DATA: Many states that use the death penalty have lower crime rates. CLAIM: The Death Penalty deters crime. WARRANT: My reasoning is Causal. I claim that lower crime rates were directly CAUSED BY the use of the death penalty.

All 3 parts together… DATA: Unemployment is dropping. Housing starts are rising. Interest rates are stable. CLAIM: Our economy is not heading toward a recession. WARRANT: My reasoning is Sign. I claim that these are the factors which show that we are not in a recession.

All 3 parts together… DATA: My brother plays games constantly and is never violent. CLAIM: Excessive video game playing does not cause violent behavior.. WARRANT: My reasoning is Example. I claim that because the claim is true for my brother, it is true for everyone.

All 3 parts together… DATA: Rockwood disallows cell phones and often has good test scores. CLAIM: Allowing cell phones in class is bad for education. WARRANT: My reasoning is Analogy. I claim that because it was good for Rockwood, it will be good for Parkway.

Our debatable questions… • Should we have year round schooling? • CLAIM: Yes, because students are more likely to retain the information. • DATA: The more often we are exposed to something, the more likely we are to remember it. • WARRANT: Since it is proven that repetition and exposure increase retention, the fewer breaks we have from schools will increase our retention rates.

FIVE TYPES OF REASONING

Reasoning by EXAMPLE Inferring general conclusions from specific cases. • Claim: Wal-Mart stores benefit the community. • Evidence: • Little Rock, Arkansas • Stamford, Mass. • Reasoning: Since it benefited in those places, it will likely benefit elsewhere.

Reasoning by EXAMPLE Inferring general conclusions from specific cases. “My claim was true in A, B, C, and D, therefore it is always true.”

Reasoning by EXAMPLE CHALLENGES to use against this type of reasoning: • Is the example relevant? • Are there enough examples? • Are the examples typical or representative? • Do the examples cover a critical period of time? • Can negative examples be explained?

Reasoning by ANALOGY Inferring that because a claim is true in one situation, it will be true in this other similar situation. • Claim: “Open campus” would work at West • Evidence: It would at West because it works at Clayton HS. • Reasoning: West and Clayton are similar enough that the comparison works.

Reasoning by ANALOGY Inferring that because a claim is true in one situation, it will be true in this other similar situation. • “Situation A is enough like situation B, that we are able to say that what happened in A will also happen in B.”

Reasoning by ANALOGY CHALLENGES to use against this type of reasoning: • Are there significant points of similarity? • Are the points of similarity critical to the comparison? • Are there any relevant differences? • Are only literal analogies used as logical proof?

CAUSAL reasoning Inferring that a certain factor directly resulted in another factor. • Claim: Listening to sexually explicit lyrics in music results in higher rates of sexual activity among teens. • Evidence: Teen sexual activity has increased. • Reasoning: The cause of increased sexual activity is explicit lyrics.

CAUSAL reasoning Inferring that a certain factor directly resulted in another factor. • A = B

CAUSAL reasoning CHALLENGES to use against this type of reasoning: • Is the cause-effect relationship relevant? • Do other causes also produce the effect? • Is the cause capable of producing the effect? • Is the cause being mistaken for the effect? • Is the relationship correlation rather than causal? • Can the effect exist without the cause?

Reasoning by SIGN Inferring that the presence of signs indicate the presence of another factor. • Claim: West is an excellent school. • Evidence: • High # of National Merit Winners • High % of grads go to college • Excellent faculty • Wide range of activities for students • Reasoning: These mean West is Best!

Reasoning by SIGN Inferring that the presence of certain signs indicate the presence of another factor. • “A, B, C, and D are signs that overall we are seeing X.”

Reasoning by SIGN CHALLENGES to use against this type of reasoning: • Is the relationship between factors just incidental? • Do counter-signs exist? • Are there enough signs to draw a conclusion?

Reasoning by AUTHORITY Inferring that a claim because an expert says it is true. • Claim: Smoking is hazardous to your health. • Evidence: The Surgeon General warns that cigarettes are bad for you. • Reasoning: The Surgeon General is the highest authority on the subject making it true.

Reasoning by AUTHORITY Inferring that a claim because an expert says it is true. • This source says “A.” • Therefore A must be true.

Reasoning by AUTHORITY CHALLENGES to use against this type of reasoning: • Is the authority qualified on the issue? • Is the authority trustworthy? • Is the authority unbiased?

“AUTHORITY=PLUS” In debate, we are ALWAYS giving SOURCES for all of our evidence. So, we are ALWAYS using reasoning by authority in combination with other forms of reasoning. External refutation--attacks the source. Internal refutation--attacks the source’s reasoning.

Trying it out • Get into groups of three. • You will act out your given scenario. • You will have time to prepare the scene. • Make sure all people have their arguments heard. • Make sure that you can identify the claims, the evidence, and the reasoning for each argument.

Scenario #1 John, Paul, George, and Ringo sit down to talk about which cities should be included in their next band tour. They each seem to have their own agenda about where they should go.

Scenario #2 Spongebob, Patrick, and Squidward are bored. Bob wants to go to the Crusty Crab. Patrick is distracted and wants to play in Jellyfish fields. Squidward wants to be left alone to play his clarinet. They must try to convince the others to do their activity.

Scenario #3 Tony LaRussa can’t decide who should be the starting pitcher for the first playoff game, Adam Wainwright or Chris Carpenter. He decides to let each player have time to make their case on why they should be the starter, and then he will use that to make up his mind.

Scenario #4 • Steven Tyler, JLo, and Randy want America to pick the BEST American Idol: Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood. Each will each have equal time to argue in favor of their choice for the winner. Based solely upon these arguments, the viewing audience will vote online or by toll-free call, and their vote will determine the winner.

Scenario #2 The format for American Idol has been altered slightly. Simon, Kara, and Randy will each have ten minutes to argue in favor of their choice for the winner. Based solely upon these arguments, the viewing audience will vote online or by toll-free call, and their vote will determine the winner.

Scenario #4 Dwight loves Angela. Andy loves Angela. Angela cannot decide which office romance she prefers. Each man must make their case before she makes a decision.

Scenario # 5 You need next Friday off of work so you can go to a debate tournament, but your co-worker needs off for a family vacation. Your boss listens to both sides before making a decision.

The Structure of an Argument