Arguments: Some Simple First Principles
Initial Comments
Put most simply, an argument is an
attempt to persuade someone of something. It is prompted usually by a
disagreement, confusion, or ignorance about something which the arguers wish to
resolve or illuminate in a convincing way. In the most general sense, arguments
go on all the time; they are a staple ingredient of many conversations, as well
as the heart of any enquiry into the truth or probability of something (as in,
for example, the judicial process, a scientific research project, a policy
analysis, a business plan, and so forth).
Arguments can also, of course, be
internal, as, for example, when we are faced with making a difficult choice
(Should I marry to this man? Is it right for me to oppose capital punishment?
Why do I need to purchase a new home? Which candidate should I vote for? And so
on).
The final goal of an argument is
usually to reach a conclusion which is sufficiently persuasive to convince
someone of something (a course of action, the reasons for an event, the
responsibility for certain acts, the probable truth of an analysis, or the
validity of an interpretation). Arguments may also often have a negative
purpose: to convince someone that something is not the case.
The Importance
of Reason
Thus, to construct effective
arguments in the modern western world, one must, first and foremost, have an
understanding of the rules of reasoning. The major aim of an undergraduate
education in all disciplines is to develop such an understanding in students.
Of course, we are a liberal
society, and we still allow people in their private lives to resolve their
arguments or make their private decisions (which often amounts to much the same
thing) in any manner they wish, short of inflicting physical harm on others. So
it is quite permissible in one's private affairs to consult scripture, toss
coins, use numerology, consult spirit mediums, or sit around a Ouija board in
order to resolve private arguments (once again, however, all participants have
to agree if the resolution is to be persuasive).
In the public world of work,
politics, education, and the media, however, the primary requirement of an
effective argument is that it must be rational (that is, follow the rules of
reason). Of course, in this public world there is often a great deal of
irrationality (e.g., in political speeches and in advertising). An important
part of being an educated citizen is possessing the skill to recognize this
irrationality, especially when it is posing as a reasonable argument, since
manipulating citizens through misleading arguments is a major feature of modern
life.
What are these rules of reason?
Well, that is what this handbook is largely concerned with, at least on a
fairly basic level. The sections which follow offer some specific guidelines
about the nature of a reasonable argument, about how to produce one in an essay
form, and about a number of the ways your written argument can go astray. There
is no attempt here to offer a comprehensive treatment of what can be a very complex
subject; at the same time the different sections do cover much of what an
undergraduate needs to know in order to analyze and construct arguments.
An Overview of
the Major Tools
Almost all reasonable arguments,
even the simplest, require the use of three basic tools. We will be discussing
each of these in more detail later, but for the time being you should make sure
you have a firm grasp of the general meaning of each of these.
The first essential tool is clear
definition of the basis of the argument (e.g., what is under dispute) and
of all terms central to the argument. Obviously, if the parties to the dispute
have different notions of what they are arguing about or of what key terms
mean, then they will end up arguing about different things (what is called arguing
at cross purposes). So an essential part of most arguments is clarifying
exactly what you mean. For instance, in the second example above, a key term
requiring definition is better runner. Until we define that term much
more precisely, we cannot proceed intelligently to deal with the argument.
Clear definition is usually
straightforward enough, but, as we shall see, it can present particular
problems, especially if a key term has competing definitions (e.g., rival
definitions of a foetus are central to debates on abortion, just as
rival definitions of death and right are central to debates about
the right to die). And a major source of confusion in student essays is often
the fact that the writer does not initially define what the argument is claiming.
Such a mistake is often lethal to the rest of the essay (more about that
later).
The second essential tool is
something called deductive reasoning or deduction. This is a
logical process by which we move from something we already all agree to be true
to the application of this general truth to a particular case (e.g., Killing
people is always wrong; capital punishment involves killing people; therefore,
capital punishment is always wrong). We use deduction every time we begin the
argument with something about which there is general agreement and then
interpret a particular example in the light of that general truth (as in
geometric proofs, for instance, which always start with an appeal to what
already has been proven or agreed to as true).
The general truth we begin with in
deductive reasoning must be something we all agree on (its validity must be
established prior to the argument). If it is not, then the deductive argument
cannot proceed effectively. In some deductive arguments, especially in science,
the general truth we agree on may be hypothetical; in other words, we
provisionally agree upon something in order to make predictions on the basis of
it and then to test the predictions.
Making correct deductions is not
always easy, for there are a number of pitfalls (we will be looking at some of
them later). However, you need at this point to recognize that any argument
which starts from a shared assumption about the truth of a general principle is
a deductive argument and that the persuasiveness of the argument is going to
depend, in large part, on the shared truth of that general principle.
Finally, the third tool of
reasoning is called inductive reasoning or induction. This is the
logical process in which we proceed from particular evidence to a conclusion
which, on the basis of that evidence, we agree to be true or probably true.
Such thinking is also often called empirical reasoning or empiricism.
It requires evidence (facts, data, measurement, observations, and so on).
Induction is the basis of a great
deal of scientific and technical arguments, those involving the collection of
information and the creation of conclusions based upon that information. And it
is the basis for most literary interpretation, historical analysis and
argument, and so on. Any argument which relies for the persuasiveness of its
conclusion on collections of data, on measurement, on information collected
somehow (rather than on a general principle) is an inductive argument.
Most of your undergraduate courses
spend a good deal of time dealing with induction, instructing you what counts
as evidence in a particular discipline, how one sets about collecting and
classifying it (laboratory or field procedures, methods of reading literature),
and what conclusions one is entitled to derive from it.
Exercise 1:
Recognizing the Form of Simple Arguments
Here are some short arguments in
which the writer presents a conclusion (which is in bold) and provides some
reasons for that conclusion.
Indicate beside each argument
whether it is an example of deductive or inductive reasoning (you can use the
letters D and I). If you are not sure, use a question mark.
Note that this exercise is not
asking you whether you agree with the argument or not or whether the argument
is a good one or not. It is asking you only to indicate the form of reasoning
used, inductive or deductive. Remember the key test here: Does the argument
rely upon an appeal to a general principle or upon assembled data.
1. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Therefore if A equals B and if B equals C, then A must equal C.
2. The doctrine of free speech is the most important element of our liberal democracy. Therefore this student newspaper must be free to print opinions offensive to many people.
3. Six out of ten test samples of the water in that lake, collected and analyzed by university researchers last week, revealed unsatisfactorily high levels of serious contamination. We must investigate this problem further and post warning signs on the beach immediately.
4. All human beings have the right to die with dignity when they wish. Therefore this terminally ill patient has the right to an assisted suicide.
5. In this essay the writer frequently uses words like "perhaps," "maybe," and "alternatively." This feature of the style creates doubts in the mind of the reader about the writer's confidence in his analysis.
6. Giving minority groups the right to political self-determination is fundamental to liberty. Therefore, if a majority of Quebec people vote for independence from Canada, they must be allowed to separate.
7. All people in a free society must be treated equally under the law. Homosexual citizens in our society must therefore be granted full legal spousal benefits, equivalent to those of heterosexual Canadians.
8. Model X gets better mileage, costs less to purchase and to maintain, and has a better all around rating in the Consumer Reports than Model Y. Therefore, it makes more sense for me to purchase Model X rather than Model Y.
9. Hamlet keeps wondering about why he is not carrying out the murder. He frequently gets upset with himself for delaying, and yet he still seems unable to carry it out. Clearly, there is something internal preventing him from murdering his uncle.
Some Brain
Teasers
Here are three problems to
experiment with. The important point here is not to get the correct answer but
to think about the forms of reasoning you are using to resolve the difficulty.
1. You are a police officer on a highway patrol. You come across an accident in which two cars have collided in an off-highway rest area. Each driver claims that he has been at the rest area for over two hours eating lunch and sleeping and that the other driver drove in from the highway and ran into his car a few minutes ago. You cannot tell from the position of the vehicles which one is telling the truth. There are no witnesses. Can you think of how you might sort out the claims on the spot? What form of reasoning have you used?
2. Two friends of yours are having a bitter argument over the question of whether or not two women could have exactly the same number of hairs on their heads. They want you to determine the question. Can you think of some deductive way to resolve their problem? What would an inductive resolution of the issue require?
3. A man is walking to the town of Ipswich. He comes to a fork in the road, with the two branches leading in two different directions. He knows that one of them goes to Ipswich, but he doesn't know which one. He also knows that in the house right beside the fork in the road there are two brothers, identical twins, both of whom know the road to Ipswich. He knows that one brother always lies and the other always tells the truth, but he cannot tell them apart. What single question can he ask to whoever answers his knock on the door which will indicate to him the correct road to Ipswich?
4. Three men are placed directly in line facing a wall. The man at the back can see the two in front of him, the man in the middle can see the man immediately in front, and the man at the front can see only the wall. Each man has a hat on his head, taken from a supply of three black hats and two white hats (the men know this). They are told to remain in line silently until one of them can guess the colour of the hat on his head. That man gets a large cash prize. After five minutes of standing in line, the man facing the wall (at the front of the line) correctly identifies the colour of the hat on his head. What colour must it be? How did he arrive at the correct conclusion? Note that he did not guess.