Argumentation

Argumentation Techniques

Traditionally, argumentative techniques are put into two categories: inductive and deductive. You’ve probably heard of deductive reasoning, but it’s important to understand both ways of presenting an argument.

Fig. 1 - Inductive reasoning in argumentation uses clues to come to a conclusion.

Inductive Reasoning in Arguments

Inductive arguments consider several factors and form a generalization based on those premises. These factors, or "clues" if you're Sherlock Holmes, provide a sufficient reason to believe the generalization is accurate. Inductive reasoning moves from specific details to a broad, generalized conclusion.

Deductive Reasoning in Arguments

On the other hand, deductive arguments start with a general principle and use that to draw a specific logical conclusion. The premises of deductive reasoning guarantee by necessity that the conclusion is true. Deductive reasoning moves from generalizations to specific conclusions.

Deductive reasoning looks like:

A = B (general principal)

B = C (general principal)

So A should = C (specific conclusion)

People use deductive reasoning all the time; they just don’t know to call it that because it is one of the most natural ways to present an argument.

Rhetorical Argument Structure

Understanding the structure of an argument is important not only to craft a good one yourself but also to analyze others’ arguments.

A solid argument contains two basic parts: conclusion (or main claim) and premise.

In this example, a single conclusion is drawn from a single claim. Most arguments, especially those in academic literature, are much more complex than this, with several premises supporting a conclusion that may not be as obviously connected.

Consider the following example:

• The United States should close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

  • Keeping the detention camp open hurts America’s standing in the international community

    • America is violating principles of international law by keeping the camp open

    • Violating international law makes America disregard the law, ultimately undermining America’s reputation and making it difficult to be a leader in international affairs.

  • The United States of America should not participate in anything that would seriously compromise its reputation in the international community.

    • America should not do anything that would make it difficult to be a leader in international affairs.

    • If America’s reputation were diminished, it would be more difficult to influence international human rights policies.

    • America should not make it more difficult to influence international human rights policies.

Conclusion

The conclusion is the main claim being offered by the argument. There may be many smaller claims you’re asked to accept in an argument, but the conclusion is the central claim of the entire argument.

Think about the Guantanamo Bay argument: which piece is the conclusion? It’s the main claim, which is that America should close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. The main claim is not always positioned at the beginning, as in this example, though. Because it’s not always easy to tell which claim is the conclusion, here are some keywords and phrases that indicate a conclusion:

• Therefore

• So

• As a result

• Consequently

• Thus

Premises

A premise is not the main claim but a reason offered so the audience might believe the main claim. Consider the example about Guantanamo Bay again; several claims were being made (for example, keeping the camp open hurts America’s international standing) as reasons to believe the main claim.

Some keywords and phrases that indicate it’s a premise include:

• Since

• If

• Because

• For these reasons

The most important part of analyzing an argument—whether it’s someone else’s or your own—is making sure the premises truly support the main argument. It would be much easier to do this if people clearly identified their premises and conclusions, but that’s unlikely to be the case all the time.

People don’t typically talk or write this way, so you need to be able to follow the line of argument to determine the validity of its points. One tip for doing this is to know what types of arguments you're likely to see.

Types of Argumentation

There are three basic types of arguments a person can use. Each has a specific approach to persuading the audience of the claim, and they’re based on what that audience needs to be convinced.

Classical Argumentation

The classical argument model is the most commonly used and widely understood in Western culture. It was developed by Greek philosopher and rhetorician Aristotle—which is why it’s sometimes referred to as the Aristotelian method—and it supposes that there are three ways to appeal to an audience.

In the classical model of argumentation, you can appeal to the audience’s emotions, logic, or the author's credibility. Aristotle called these pathos, logos, and ethos, respectively.

Ethos

Ethos is where the speaker or writer uses their authority or standing to convince the audience to do or think something.

By invoking the names of experts—or anyone respected as an authority on a subject—the speaker is able to build a powerful argument in their favor. The average person doesn't dare to argue with an expert in their field. Including quotes from experts or notable figures in favor of your argument is always a great way to harness the power of ethos.

Logos

Logos is a style of argumentation that appeals to the logical side of the audience. This is the most commonly used academic writing and speaking method, where logic is held in the highest regard.

Using statistics and data is an excellent way to appeal to the audience's logical side. This information helps prove your point without you having to provide much of an explanation. The facts speak for themselves, as they say.

Pathos

Pathos appeals to the audience’s emotional connection to the topic. Emotions are a powerful force, and when used properly, they can be used to persuade people to act or think a certain way.

Here, the speaker uses the audience's emotions to try and persuade them to activity. By appealing to the audience's feelings toward innocent animals, the speaker will be more likely to motivate someone to do something.

Rogerian Argumentation

The next style of argumentation is the Rogerian method. This style was introduced by psychologist Carl Rogers, and its goal is to find the middle ground between the two extremes of an argument.

This is an especially effective way to present an argument when two poles of opposition are extremely far apart. As the person presenting the argument, you know if you lean to one side of the argument, you’ll lose the interest of 50 percent of the audience, and if you swing to the other side, you lose the other 50 percent.

Simply put, to use the Rogerian method, you must acknowledge the validity and pitfalls of both sides of an argument. Bridge the gap between the two by looking for a way to compromise. You can do this by looking at what they do agree on.

The last statement is what bridges the gap between anti-homeschoolers and pro-homeschoolers; everyone can agree that a child’s safety and education should be the top priority.

Toulmin Argumentation

The last method of argumentation is the Toulmin technique, developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin. This method focuses on gathering the strongest evidence for the conclusion. The Toulmin method is constructed around the following three fundamental pieces of an argument: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.

The Claim - the main argument (conclusion)

The Grounds - the evidence and data that support the claim (premise)

The Warrant - the connection that can be drawn between the claim and the grounds

Sometimes the warrant is not specifically stated. This is called an implicit warrant. In the above example, the last statement could have been left off because many people understand that soda contains a lot of sugar which will have negative health implications. Other times, it is helpful to explicitly state the warrant because it strengthens the argument.

Fig. 3 - Argumentation is an important skill in the workplace and school.

What Is the Importance of Argumentation?

The art of argumentation is important for all students to learn; it teaches how to reason systematically in support (or critique) of an idea. Many academic essay assignments are structured around argumentation as a rhetorical mode and will ask you to choose a stance on a topic and argue for it.

By practicing argumentation, you’ll also learn to evaluate conflicting claims which is key to rhetorical analysis. Rhetorical analysis is an essential skill as placement exams often ask students to thoroughly analyze pieces of text, many of which present a particular argument.

Learning the art of argumentation also gives you a better understanding of making your claims more persuasive, earning you higher marks on essays and other academic assignments.

1. Frances Seymour and Nancy Harris, 'WRI Experts Offer Perspective on Tropical Deforestation in Science Journal,' World Resources Institute, 2021.