|
Inquiring
into an Argument
| 1. |
Ask if you have understood the arguer's
position on the issue. |
| |
The
best way to do this is to restate, paraphrase, or summarized the thesis.
(Face to face you might say, "I believe that you are saying…
am I understanding you?") Be sure to note how strongly the claim
is made. Has the arguer qualified it by suggesting conditions or exceptions?
If you are inquiring into your own argument, ask if you have stated
your own position clearly. Do you need to qualify in any way? |
| 2. |
Ask about the meaning of any words that
seem central to the argument. |
| |
You
can do this at any point in a conversation and as often as it seems
necessary. When dealing with a written text, try to discern the meaning
from context. For instance, if an author's case depends on the "fairness"
of a proposed solution, you'll need to ask what "fair" means,
since the word has quite a range of possible applications. You might
ask, "Fair to whom?" |
| 3. |
Ask what reasons support the thesis. |
| |
Paraphrasing
reasons is a good way to open up a conversation to further questions
about assumptions, values, and definitions. |
| 4. |
Ask about the assumptions on which the
thesis and reasons are based. |
| |
Most
arguments are based on one or more unstated assumptions. For example,
if a college recruiter argues that the school is superior to most
others (thesis) because its ratio of students to teachers is low (reason),
the unstated assumptions are (1) that the students there will get
more attention, and (2) that more attention results in a better education.
As you inquire into an argument, note the assumptions and ask if they
are reasonable. |
| 5. |
Ask about the values expressed or implied
by the argument. |
| |
For
example, if you argue that closing a forest to logging operations
is essential even at the cost of dozens of jobs, you are valuing environmental
preservation over the livelihoods of the workers who must search for
other jobs. |
| 6. |
Ask about how well the reasons are supported. |
| |
Are
they offered as opinions only, or are they supported with evidence?
Is the evidence recent? Sufficient? What kind of testimony is offered?
Who are the authorities cited? What are there credentials and biases?
Are there other facts or authoritative statements that might weaken
the argument? |
| 7. |
Consider analogies and comparisons. |
| |
If
the author makes an argument by analogy, does the comparison hold
up? For example, advocates of animal rights draw an analogy with civil
rights when they claim that just as we have come to recognize the
immorality of exploiting human beings, so we should recognize the
immorality of exploiting other species. Do you think this analogy
is sound? |
| 8. |
Ask about the arguer's biases and background. |
| |
What
past experiences might have led the arguer to take this position?
What does the holder of this position stand to gain? What might someone
gain by challenging it? |
| 9. |
Ask about implications. |
| |
Where
would the argument ultimately lead should we accept what the speaker
advocates? For example, if someone contends that abortion is murder,
asking about implications would result in the questions, "Are
you willing to put women who get abortions on trial for murder and,
if they are convicted, to punish them as murderers are usually punished?" |
| 10. |
Ask whether the argument takes opposing
views into account. |
| |
If
it does, are they presented fairly and clearly or with mockery and
distortion? Does the author take them seriously or dismiss them? Are
they effectively refuted? |
THE AIMS
OF ARGUMENT: A BRIEF RHETORIC · Timothy W. Crusius / Carolyn E.
Channel · Mayfield Publishing Co. · © 1995
The Toulmin Model of
Argumentation
Stephen Toulmin,
an English philosopher, developed a practical approach to analyzing the
logic of everyday arguments. His approach involves identifying and separating
the various components of an argument into a specific order so that they
may be appraised. More recently, Harley Dickinson has used this model
of argumentation to illustrate the role of external evidence, individual
clinical expertise and data from the individual patient in the clinical
decision making process.
More
about the Toulmin Model of Argumentation
The Scriven Model of
Argumentation
Michael
Scriven, currently a professor of psychology at Claremont Graduate University,
has an impressive track record as a researcher in several areas including
technology, evaluation sciences and critical thinking. In 1976, he outlined
his seven-step approach to argument analysis in the book Reasoning (New
York : McGraw-Hill, 1976).
More
about the Scriven Model of Argumentation
The Dialectical Method
of Evaluating Argument (The Walton Model)
Douglas
Walton, a professor of philosophy at the University of Winnipeg has researched
extensively the concept of argumentation and its application to real world
reasoning. In 1998, he published a book called The New Dialectic: Conversational
Contexts of Argument (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998). In
this book he proposes a dialectical method of argument analysis. Unlike
the Toulmin and Scriven methods, Walton relies less on a structural approach
and more on an analytical framework. We have modified Walton’s approach
by deleting some questions and adding others, particularly question 4
in Section III, Burden of Proof.
More
about the Dialectical Model of Evaluating Argument
|
