TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

Typically when we hear the word "argument" we think of a verbal fight, such as an argument with your parents over curfew. Unfortunately, this negative meaning of the term has become the dominant understanding of what an argument is. This skill guide will use a different meaning of argument, however. Humans argue to attempt to arrive at the best possible decisions about some sort of problem. Thus, an argument will be defined as "a debate or discussion in which reasons are offered for or against a particular proposal."

In order for arguments to proceed in a fair, reasoned, and calm manner, certain rules or common practices should be followed. To be able to follow these rules, we must first understand how arguments work. Different forms of argument work in different ways. What follows are four basic types of reasoning that we use in arguments.

Deductive arguments

A deductive argument is when specific claims are drawn from a generally agreed upon truth, or anything that has been "proven" to be true.

The classic example of deductive argument is as follows:

All humans are mortal.

Aristotle is human.

(therefore) __________________

Aristotle is mortal

We all agree that humans will not live forever. And, we can assume that we know what a human is. Thus, it is logically deduced from the information that a given example of a person (our specific claim in this example&Mac247;Aristotle) will also be mortal.

Another example would work like this:

Soda is a liquid

Pepsi is a type of soda

(therefore) ___________________ Pepsi is a liquid Deductive arguments ought to be rare, because there are very few universal truths upon which we all agree. Yet, many people attempt to make deductive arguments from universal

claims that are not agreed upon. Think of this example, which to many people at first seems to be true (at least, we could probably "trick" someone into accepting it).

All fish have scales.

A shark does not have scales.

(therefore)

___________________

A shark is not a fish.

The statement "all fish have scales" seems a reasonable claim to make because we often associate fish with having scales. We could easily substitute any other animal with its typical features, such as "all dogs have fur." This is actually false, too, because some species of canine actually have hair like humans (poodles, for instance).

Take, as another example, the debate over abortion. Both sides of this debate hold different universal claims to be true. Most arguments arise because we do not all agree on the question of "when life begins." One person may believe life begins at conception, while another defines life as beginning at birth. Each side holds a different universal truth to be true, and, thus, deductive arguments do not function in an agreeable manner because disagreement exists over the universal claims being used.

Inductive arguments

An inductive argument is when a universal claim is made after a set of specifics are identified or discovered. Our scientific method is based upon inductive reasoning. Experiments are conducted and repeated until we have enough instances to prove a point. I dropped the apple 100 times, and it fell to the ground 100 times. It's likely it will do the same on attempt 101 too.

Yet, not all inductive arguments are based upon the well-established laws of science. Social issues, too, can be argued about with inductive reasoning. For example, if I studied the ten largest cities in America (Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Miami, and so on) and discovered that in all ten cases crime was on the rise, what universal claim would I make? I could claim, "Crime in America is increasing."

What is wrong, however, with the above argument? I only examined ten places, and I only examined large cities. Thus, I created a hasty generalization. I could qualify my universal claim: "Crime in America's ten largest cities is increasing." This is a more accurate argument. As you can see, a mistake we sometimes make with inductive argument is that we jump to conclusions much too quickly before understanding and finding more specific instances.

Causal arguments

Causal arguments are based on clearly identifiable cause and effect relationships. The sun causes the earth to heat up. Water causes erosion on mountainsides and riverbeds. Hitting a nail with a hammer causes the nail to be driven into the wood. And so on. Again, though, not all causal arguments are based upon the physical and biological world. What, for example, causes crime? Why do people commit crimes? Many possible answers exist to this question and it is in those answers that debate occurs.

Here are some possible answers to this question:

--poverty --lack of morals --greed --peer pressure

Depending on what we believe causes crime, our solutions will vary. If we believe that greed and a lack of morals cause crime, then we believe that individuals have the ability to control their own actions. If, however, we believe most crime is caused by societal conditions, such as poverty, and that people generally commit crime out of necessity, then we believe that individuals are more strongly influenced by societal factors.

Of course, in reality, crime is probably caused by a combination of all of these factors, but that is exactly the point. We should not assume only ONE cause for social problems. Debates often occur on the issue of how to reduce crime when only one cause is assumed.

Sometimes, we confuse a correlation for a cause-effect relationship. A correlation is when two things occur at once, but one thing is not necessarily the cause of the other. Think of some of the superstitions that we have: a full moon causes people to go crazy. The evidence of this, if you ask law enforcement and medical personnel, is that crime increases and more people need emergency medical attention on nights when there's a full moon. Do you have any explanations for this phenomenon?

Analogical arguments.

An analogical argument is reasoning from one specific case to another specific case.

Let's say you wanted to raise money for a class activity or class trip. How might you propose to the teachers and the principal to do this? Well, you might look to what other high schools have done in the past. Perhaps a nearby school ran a car wash last weekend and raised $1,000. You might then propose a similar event, requesting the use of the faculty parking lot on a weekend to wash cars and raise money. You would tell the principal that it worked for another high school, so it is likely to work for yours as well. The argument you have used is

an analogy because you compared a specific event that worked in the past to one that should work in the future.

What if we wanted to figure out some way to reduce handgun-related violent crime in the United States? What types of policies can we implement? We might argue that the United States should take away all guns from its citizens because this works in Great Britain (which has a very low incidence of gun-related crime). Thus, we are comparing one country (a specific instance) to another country (another specific instance). What is potentially wrong with this reasoning?

If we wish to make an analogy, we must be careful not to compare "apples to oranges." We've all heard this expression, and in it we find the key to properly using analogical reasoning. The United States and Great Britain are not similar enough to make this analogy. Why? Think of cultural, legal, and law enforcement issues. Until recently, for instance, police in Great Britain did not themselves carry a gun!

Research and arguments go hand-in-hand

You can use reasoning to examine the claims made by the research you have gathered. The key questions to ask:

Do I have all of the information available to construct the argument? What gap needs to be filled in my information to fully support the argument? Am I making assumptions about things I cannot prove/disprove? Do I have a representative sample of cases to work with (are they typical?) Does it, on the surface, make sense?

Special thanks to Jody Roy, Ph.D. for providing these materials to SAVE.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download