Chapter 3 - Argument

At school, at work, and in everyday life, argument is one of the main ways we exchange ideas with one another. Academics, scientists, and other professionals all make arguments to determine what to do, what to think, or how to solve a problem by enlisting others to do or think something they otherwise would not. Not surprisingly, argument dominates writing, and training in argument writing is essential for all college students.

This chapter will explore how to define argument, how to talk about argument, how logic works in argument, and the main argument types.

1. What Is Argument?
2. What Are the Parts and Vocabulary of Argument?
3. What Is Logic?
4. What Are the Different Types of Argument?

1. What Is Argument?

Everyone, including you, makes arguments every day for many different reasons. Consider the following:

• If, as a teenager, you ever made a case for borrowing your parents’ car using reasonable support—a track record of responsibility in other areas of your life, a good rating from your driving instructor, and promises to follow rules of driving conduct laid out by your parents—you have made an argument.

• If, as an employee, you ever persuaded your boss to give you a raise using concrete evidence—records of sales increases in your sector, a work calendar with no missed days, and personal testimonials from satisfied customers—you have made an argument.

• If, as a botanist, you ever published the results of your studies, declaring the conclusions you have come to based on scientific research—such as from field studies and lab work—you’ve made an argument.

• If, as a literature student, you ever wrote an essay on your interpretation of a poem— defending your ideas with numerous examples from the text and logical explanations for how those examples demonstrate your interpretation—you have made an argument.

Your college courses typically seek to train you for academic and professional life by using two kinds of argument: rhetorical argument and academic argument. If rhetoric is the study and practice of effective communication, particularly writing or speaking designed to persuade, then the student studying rhetorical argument focuses on creating a strong argument to persuade a reader as effectively as possible. To that end, the student must understand how to think broadly about argument, the particular vocabulary of argument, and the logic of argument. The close sibling of rhetorical argument is academic argument, argument used to discuss and evaluate ideas, usually within a professional field of study, and to convince others of those ideas. In academic argument, interpretation and research play central roles.

It would be incorrect to say that academic argument and rhetorical argument do not overlap. Indeed, the kinds of argument often mix. A psychologist not only wishes to prove an important idea with research, but she will also wish to do so in the most effective way possible. A politician will want to make the most persuasive case for his side, but he should also be mindful of data that may support his points. Thus, throughout this chapter, when you see the term “argument,” remember that it refers to a broad enough category to include both rhetorical and academic argument.

For now, keep this simple definition of argument in mind as you read this chapter:

An argument is a set of statements, some of which (premises) attempt to provide reasons for thinking that some other statement (the conclusion) is true.

Before moving to the specific parts and vocabulary of argument that the language of “premises” and “conclusion” gestures to above, let’s first consider what argument is not.

Argument vs. Controversy or Fight

As consumers of written texts, people are often tempted to divide writing into two categories: argumentative and non-argumentative. According to this view, to be argumentative, writing must have the following qualities: it has to defend a position in a debate between two or more opposing sides; it must be on a controversial topic; and the goal of such writing must be to prove the correctness of one point of view over another. This understanding of argument, however, severely limits its scope.

A related understanding of argument implies a confrontation, a clash of opinions and personalities, or just a plain verbal fight. This vision of argument implies a winner and a loser, a right side and a wrong one. Because of this understanding of the word argument, many students think the only type of argument writing is the debate-like position paper, in which the author defends their point of view against other, usually opposing, points of view. For a fun illustration of the reductive nature of a mere fight, see “The Argument Clinic” skit from Monty Python.

These two characteristics of argument—as controversial and as a fight—are far too limiting because arguments come in many different shapes and sizes. It is helpful to look at the term argument in a new way. What if we think of argument as an opportunity for conversation, for sharing our point of view on something, for showing others our perspective of the world? What if we see argument as the opportunity to tell our stories, including our life stories? What if we think of argument as an opportunity to connect with the points of view of others rather than defeating those points of view?  

One community that values argument as a type of communication and exchange is the community of scholars. They advance their arguments in order to share research and new ways of thinking about topics. Biologists, for example, do not gather data and write analyses of the results because they wish to fight with other biologists even if they disagree with the ideas of other biologists. They want to share their discoveries and get feedback on their ideas. When historians put forth an argument, they do so often while building on the arguments of other historians who came before them. Literature scholars publish their interpretations of different works of literature to enhance understanding and share new views, not necessarily to have one interpretation replace all others. There may be debates within any field of study, but those debates can be healthy and constructive if they mean even more scholars come together to explore the ideas involved in those debates. Thus, be prepared for your college professors to have a much broader view of argument than a mere fight over a controversial topic or two.

Argument vs. Opinion

Argument is often confused with opinion. Indeed, arguments and opinions sound alike. Someone with an opinion asserts a claim that they think is true. Someone with an argument asserts a claim that they think is true. Although arguments and opinions sound the same, there are two crucial differences:

1. Arguments have rules; opinions do not. In other words, to form an argument, you must consider whether or not the argument is reasonable. Is it worth making? Is it rational? Do all of its parts fit together logically? Conversely, opinions have no rules, and anyone asserting an opinion need not think it through for it to count as one.
2. Arguments have support; opinions do not. If you make a claim and then stop, as if the claim itself were enough to demonstrate its truthfulness, you have asserted mere opinion. An argument must be supported, and the support of an argument has its own rules. The support must also be reasonable, relevant, and sufficient.

Figure 0.1 "Opinion vs Argument"

Public Domain images.

Argument vs. Thesis

Another point of confusion is the difference between an argument and an essay’s thesis. For college essays, most professors use the terms “argument” and “thesis” interchangeably to refer to the key point a writer wants to make with their writing. However, a true argument involves more development than just a single-sentence thesis statement can provide. For more on the thesis, see Chapter 4, “The Writing Process.

Consider this as well: most formal essays center upon one main claim (the thesis) but then support that main claim with supporting evidence and arguments. The topic sentence of a body paragraph can be another type of argument, though a supporting one and hence a narrower one. Try not to be confused when professors call both the thesis statement and topic sentences arguments. They are not wrong because arguments come in all sizes; some claims are broad enough to be broken down into several supporting arguments. Many longer essays are structured by the smaller arguments that are a part of and support the main argument. Sometimes, when professors say “supporting points” or “supporting arguments,” they mean the reasons (premises) for the main claim (conclusion). If a claim has several reasons, those reasons will form the support structure for the essay, and each reason will be the basis for the topic sentence of its body paragraph.

Argument vs. Fact

Arguments are also commonly mistaken for statements of fact. This confusion arises because people often privilege facts over opinions, even as they defend their right to opinions. In other words, people frequently assume facts are “good” and opinions are “bad,” or if not exactly bad, then fuzzy and thus easy to reject. But remember the important distinction between an argument and an opinion stated above: while argument may sound like an opinion, the two are not the same. An argument is not as weak as a mere opinion because it will have support.

As for mistaking a fact for an argument, keep this distinction in mind: an argument must be arguable. In everyday life, “arguable” is often used as a synonym for “doubtful.” For our purposes, though, “arguable” means that the main claim is worth arguing: it’s something with which a reasonable person might disagree. Facts, by virtue of being facts, are not arguable. Facts are statements that can be proven using objective data. In other words, the statement can be pronounced as definitively true or definitively false. For example, 2 + 2 = 4. This expression identifies a verifiably true statement, a fact, because it can be proved with objective data. When a fact is established, there is no other side, and there should be no disagreement.

The misunderstanding about facts (being inherently good) and argument (being inherently problematic because it is not a fact) leads to the mistaken belief that facts have no place in an argument. This couldn’t be further from the truth. First of all, most arguments are formed by analyzing facts. Sometimes, an argument can even result in a conclusion that becomes a fact, as when Newton made an argument about the existence of gravity, which we now accept as a fact. Second, facts provide one type of support for an argument. Do not think of facts and arguments as enemies; rather, they work closely together.

Explicit vs. Implicit Arguments

Arguments can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit arguments contain noticeable and definable thesis statements and lots of specific proofs to support them. Explicit arguments are common in academic writing from scholars of all fields. Implicit arguments, on the other hand, work by weaving together facts and narratives, logic and emotion, personal experiences, and statistics. Unlike explicit arguments, implicit ones do not have a one-sentence thesis statement. Implicit arguments involve evidence of many different kinds to build and convey their point of view to their audience. Implicit arguments are common in popular nonfiction writing and essays. Both types use rhetoric, logic, and support to create compelling arguments.

Exercise: Finding An Implicit Argument

Go on a hunt for an implicit argument in the essay, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police” by Martin Gansberg. If you have issues accessing this link due to a paywall, you can get New York Times articles through our library databases. Search the title and author of this article in the “New York Times (1851-2013)” database here.

1. Read the article, and take notes on it--either in a notebook or by annotating a printed copy of the text itself (for help with note-taking on reading material, see Chapter 1, “Critical Reading”). Mark or write down all the important details you find.
2. After you are finished reading, look over your notes or annotations. What do all the details add up to?  Use the details you’ve read to figure out Gansberg’s implicit argument in his essay. Write it out in your own words.
3. Discuss your results with a partner or a group. Did you come up with the same argument?  Go around and have everyone explain the reasoning for their results.

Argument and Rhetoric

An argument in written form involves making choices, and knowing the principles of rhetoric allows a writer to make informed choices about various aspects of the writing process. Every act of writing takes place in a specific rhetorical situation. The most basic and important components of a rhetorical situation are

• Author of the text.
• Purpose of the text.
• Intended audience (i.e., those the author imagines will be reading the text).
• Message of the text.

These factors give readers a way to analyze a text when they first encounter it. These factors also help writers select their topics, arrange their material, and make other important decisions about the argument they will make and the support they will need. For more on rhetoric, see Chapter 2, “Rhetorical Analysis”.

Key Takeaways: What Is an Argument?

With this brief introduction, you can see what rhetorical or academic argument is not:

• An argument need not be controversial or about a controversy.
• An argument is not a mere fight.
• An argument does not have a single winner or loser.
• An argument is not a mere opinion.
• An argument is not a statement of fact.

Furthermore, you can begin to see what rhetorical argument is:

• An argument is a claim asserted as true.
• An argument is arguable.
• An argument must be reasonable.
• An argument must be supported.
• Supporting arguments are often topic sentences.
• An argument can be explicit or implicit.
• An argument must be adapted to its rhetorical situation.

2. What Are the Parts and Vocabulary of Argument?

Questions are at the core of arguments. What matters is not just that you believe what you have to say is true, but that you give others good reasons to believe it as well—and also show them that you have considered the issue from multiple angles. To do that, build your argument from the answers to the five questions any rational person will expect you to answer. In academic and professional writing, we tend to build arguments from the answers to these central questions:

1. What do you want me to do or think?
2. Why should I do or think that?
3. How do I know that what you say is true?
4. Why should I accept the reasons that support your claim?
5. What about this other idea, fact, or consideration?
6. How should you present your argument?

When you ask people to do or think something they otherwise would not, they quite naturally want to know why they should do so. In fact, people tend to ask the same questions when wanting to understand why they should accept your point. When you make a strong argument, you anticipate and respond to each of these questions with a particular part of argument:

1. The answer to What do you want me to do or think? is your conclusion: “I conclude that you should do or think X.”
2. The answer to Why should I do or think that? states your premise: “You should do or think X because . . .”
3. The answer to How do I know that what you say is true? presents your support: “You can believe my reasons because they are supported by these facts . . .”
4. The answer to Why should I accept that your reasons support your claim? states your general principle of reasoning, called a warrant: “My specific reason supports my specific claim because whenever this general condition is true, we can generally draw a conclusion like mine.”
5. The answer to What about this other idea, fact, or conclusion? acknowledges that your readers might see things differently and then responds to their counterarguments.
6. The answer to How should you present your argument? leads to the point of view and tone that you should use when making your arguments.

As you have likely noticed, the answers to these questions involve knowing a lot of particular vocabulary about argument, and many of these terms refer to specific parts of an argument. The remainder of this section will cover the terms referred to in the questions listed above and others that will help you better understand the building blocks of argument.

What Is a Conclusion and What Is a Premise?

The root notion of an argument is that it convinces us that something is true. What we are being convinced of is the conclusion. An example would be this claim:

Littering is harmful.

The reason for thinking the conclusion is true is called the premise. Typically, a conclusion will be supported by two or more premises. Some premises for our littering conclusion might be these:

        Littering is dangerous to animals.

        Littering is dangerous to humans.

To be clear, an argument asserts that something is true in two main parts: the argument's premises exist to show that the conclusion is true.

TIP: Vocabulary

There are many words writers and professors use to refer to a conclusion—claim, assertion, point, thesis—and other ways to discuss the premise—reason, topic sentence, factor, the why.

Be careful, too, not to confuse this use of the word “conclusion” with a conclusion paragraph for an essay.

What Is a Statement?

A statement is a type of sentence that can be true or false and corresponds to the grammatical category of a declarative sentence. For example, the sentence,

The Nile is a river in northeastern Africa,

is a statement because it makes sense to inquire whether it is true or false. (In this case, it happens to be true.) But a sentence is still a statement even if it is false. For example, the sentence,

The Yangtze is a river in Japan,

is still a statement; it is just a false statement (the Yangtze River is in China). In contrast, none of the following sentences are statements:

Please help yourself to more casserole.

Don’t tell your mother about the surprise.

Do you like Vietnamese pho?

None of these sentences are statements because it doesn’t make sense to ask whether those sentences are true or false; instead, they are a request, a command, and a question, respectively. Make sure to remember the difference between sentences that are declarative statements and sentences that are not because arguments depend on declarative statements.

TIP: Questions & Arguments

A question cannot be an argument, yet students will often pose a question at the end of an introduction to an essay, thinking they have declared their thesis. They have not! If, however, they answer that question (conclusion) and give some reasons for that answer (premises), they then have the components necessary for both an argument and a declarative statement of that argument (thesis)

To reiterate: all arguments are composed of premises and conclusions, both of which are types of statements. The argument's premises provide reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true. Arguments typically involve more than one premise.

What Is Standard Argument Form?

A standard way of capturing the structure of an argument, or diagramming it, is by numbering the premises and conclusion. For example, the following represents another way to arrange the littering argument:

Premise 1: Litter is dangerous to animals.

Premise 2: Litter is dangerous to humans.

Conclusion: Littering is harmful.

This numbered list represents an argument put into standard argument form. As we mentioned in the previous section, an argument is a set of statements, some of which (the premises: statements 1 and 2 above) attempt to provide a reason for thinking that some other statement (the conclusion: statement 3) is true. The argument form above helps you separate premises from conclusions.

TIP: Questions & Arguments

Diagramming an argument can be helpful when trying to figure out your essay’s thesis. Since a thesis is a conclusion, putting the parts of an argument into standard form can help sort out ideas. You can transform the numbered ideas into a cohesive sentence or two for your thesis once you are more certain of what your argument parts are.

For example, the thesis statement for an essay that makes the argument that littering is harmful might be: “I argue that littering is harmful because it is dangerous to both animals and humans.”

Figure 0.2 "Argument Diagram"

Argument: Public libraries should be funded in every community because the provide learning resources for all ages and provide safe spaces for people to read study and gather.

Premise #1: Public libraries provide learning resources for all ages.

Premise #2: Public libraries provide safe spaces for people to read, study, and gather.

Conclusion: Public libraries should be funded in every community.

Recognizing arguments is essential to analysis and critical thinking; if you cannot distinguish between the details (the support) of a piece of writing and what those details are there to support (the argument), you will likely misunderstand what you are reading. Additionally, studying how others make effective arguments can help you learn how to make your own.

What Are Argument Indicators?

While mapping out an argument in standard argument form can be a good way to figure out and formulate a thesis, identifying arguments by others is also important. The best way to identify an argument is to ask whether or not there is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true by basing it on some other statement. If so, then there is an argument present. If not, then there is not. Other identifying markers of arguments are keywords or phrases that are premise indicators or conclusion indicators. For example, recall the littering argument, reworded here into a single sentence (much like a thesis statement):

Littering is harmful because it is dangerous to both animals and humans.

The word “because” here is a premise indicator. That is, “because” indicates that what follows is a reason for thinking that littering is bad. Here is another example:

The student plagiarized since I found the exact same sentences on a website, and the website was published more than a year before the student wrote the paper.

In this example, the word “since” is a premise indicator because what follows it is a statement clearly intended to be a reason for thinking that the student plagiarized (i.e., a premise). Notice that in these two cases, the premise indicators “because” and “since” are interchangeable: “because” could be used in place of “since” or “since” in the place of “because,” and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same. To be clear, please note that a word like “because” or “since” may not always serve as a premise indicator. If a professor says, “I’ve been working at Berea College since the late 20^th century,” they are only referring to a moment in time, not stating a premise.

Figure 0.3 "Common Premise Indicators", CC-O, by Virginia Western Community College.

In addition to premise indicators, there are also conclusion indicators. Conclusion indicators mark that what follows is the conclusion of an argument. For example,

Bob-the-arsonist has been dead for a year, so Bob-the-arsonist didn’t set the fire at the East Lansing Starbucks last week.

In this example, the word “so” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). Here is another example of a conclusion indicator:

A poll administered by Gallup (a respected polling company) showed candidate X to be substantially behind candidate Y with only a week left before the vote; therefore, candidate Y will probably not win the election.

In this example, the word “therefore” is a conclusion indicator because what follows it is a statement that someone is trying to establish as true (i.e., a conclusion). As before, in both of these cases, the conclusion indicators “so” and “therefore” are interchangeable: “so” could be used in place of “therefore” or “therefore” in the place of “so,” and the meaning of the sentences would have been the same.

Figure 0.4 "Common Conclusion Indicators", CC-O, by Virginia Western Community College.

Exercise: Identifying Arguments

Which of the following are arguments?  If it is an argument, identify its conclusion (claim). If it is not an argument, explain why not. Remember to look for the qualifying features of an argument: (1) it is a statement or series of statements, (2) it states a claim (a conclusion), and (3) it has at least one premise (reason for the claim).

1. The woman with the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses, and she doesn’t have a long nose.
2. I have been wrangling cattle since before you were old enough to tie your own shoes.
3. Albert is angry with me, so he probably won’t be willing to help me wash the dishes.
4. First, I washed the dishes, and then I dried them.
5. If the road weren’t icy, the car wouldn’t have slid off the turn.
6. Marvin isn’t a fireman and isn’t a fisherman, either.
7. Are you seeing the rhinoceros over there? It’s huge!
8. Obesity has become a problem in the US because obesity rates have risen over the past four decades.
9. Bob showed me a graph with rising obesity rates, and I was stunned to see how much they had risen.
10. Marvin isn’t a fireman because Marvin is a Greyhound, which is a type of dog, and dogs can’t be firemen.
11. What Susie told you is not the actual reason she missed her flight to Denver.
12. Carol likely forgot to lock her door this morning because she was distracted by a clown riding a unicycle while singing Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Simple Man.”
13. No one who has ever gotten frostbite while climbing K2 has survived to tell about it; therefore, no one ever will.

What Constitutes Support?

To ensure that your argument is acceptable, you must establish support. The burden of proof, to borrow language from law, is on the one making an argument, not on the recipient of an argument. If you wish to assert a claim, you must then also support it, and this support must be relevant, logical, and sufficient.

It is important to use the right kind of evidence, to use it effectively, and to have an appropriate amount of it.

• If, for example, your philosophy professor didn’t like that you used a survey of public opinion as your primary evidence in an ethics paper, you most likely used material that was not relevant to the discipline. Rather, you should find out what philosophers count as good evidence. Different fields of study involve other types of evidence based on how relevant that evidence is to those fields. In the discipline of sociology, for example, results from a well-designed survey may be the perfect source of primary evidence.

• If your professor has put question marks by your thesis or has written, “it does not follow,” you likely have problems with logic. Make sure it is clear how the parts of your argument logically fit together.

• If your instructor has told you that you need more analysis, suggested that you’re “just listing” points or giving a “laundry list,” you likely have not included enough reasonable explanation for how and why certain points connect to and support your argument, which is another problem with logic, this time related to the warrants of your argument. You need to do more to fully incorporate evidence into your argument. (See more on what a warrant is immediately below.)

• If you see comments like “for example?,” “proof?,” “go deeper,” or “expand,” you may need more evidence. In other words, what evidence you do have is not sufficient. One or two pieces of evidence will not be enough to prove your argument. Would a lawyer go to trial with only one piece of evidence? No. The lawyer would want to have as much evidence as possible from various sources to make a viable case.

You will find more information about the different types of evidence, how to find them, and what makes them credible in Chapter 6, “Research”. Another type of support, logic, will be covered later in this chapter.

What Is the Warrant?

Above all, make sure that you connect whatever evidence you use to the argument you make. This connection is the warrant. Evidence is not self-evident. In other words, after introducing evidence into your writing, you must say why and how it supports your argument rather than dropping it in and expecting it to stand for itself. You must explain the significance of the evidence and its function in your paper. What turns a fact or piece of information into evidence is its connection with a larger claim or argument: evidence is always evidence for or against something, and you must clarify that link.

TIP: Explain Your Thought Process

Student writers sometimes assume that readers already know the information being written about; students may be wary of elaborating too much because they think their points are obvious. But remember, readers are not mind readers: although they may be familiar with many of the ideas discussed, they don’t know what writers want to do with those ideas unless they indicate that through explanations, organization, and transitions. Thus, when you write, be sure to explain the connections you made in your mind when you chose your evidence, decided where to place it in your paper, and drew conclusions based on it.

What Is a Counterargument?

As a college writer constructing an essay, you might find yourself quite attached to a topic and a working thesis statement. Perhaps you are so attached and focused on your argument that you have difficulty imagining why anyone would disagree with you. This attachment is certainly understandable. After you have done so much preliminary thinking and writing, trying to untangle the thoughts in your head and, if working on a research paper, spending hours wrestling with multiple databases, pinning down all the sources you can find, you might have a hard time imagining how anyone could possibly disagree with your position or why they would want to. But it is important to remember that not all of your potential readers will automatically agree with your premises or conclusion. In fact, if your potential readers do automatically agree with your premises or conclusion, you should ask yourself if your argument is worth writing at all. At the other extreme, if your topic or take on an issue is particularly controversial, you might have to work hard at convincing almost all of your readers about the soundness of your argument.

Almost anything claimed in an essay can be refuted or challenged. Opposing points of view and arguments exist in every debate. These are counterarguments, and it’s important to anticipate these possible objections to your arguments to strengthen your point. Another term for a counterargument is antithesis (i.e., the opposition to a thesis). To find possible counterarguments (and keep in mind, there can be many counterpoints to one claim), ask the following questions:

• Could someone draw a different conclusion from the facts or examples you present?
• Could a reader question any of your assumptions or claims?
• Could a reader offer a different explanation of an issue?
• Is there any evidence out there that could weaken your position?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the next set of questions can help you respond to these potential objections:

• Is it possible to concede the point of the opposition, but then challenge that point’s importance/usefulness?
• Can you explain why a reader should question a piece of evidence or consider a different point of view?
• Can you explain how your position responds to any contradicting evidence?
• Can you put forward a different interpretation of the evidence?

It might not seem so at first, but directly acknowledging and addressing positions different from those you hold can strengthen your position. When you take on the antithesis of an argument essay, it shows you have thought carefully about the issue at hand and acknowledge that there is no clear and straightforward correct answer.

You can use signal phrases in your paper to alert readers that you’re about to present an objection. Consider using one of these phrases--or ones like them--at the beginning of a paragraph:

• Researchers have challenged these claims with…
• Critics argue that this view…
• Some readers may point to…

What Are More Complex Argument Structures?

So far, you have seen that an argument consists of a conclusion and a premise (typically more than one). However, arguments and explanations often have a more complex structure than just a few premises directly supporting the conclusion. For example, consider the following argument:

No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The reason is simple: the lava was flowing too fast, and there was nowhere to go to escape it in time. Therefore, this account of the eruption, which claims to have been written by an eyewitness living in Pompeii, was not actually written by an eyewitness.

The main conclusion of this argument—the statement that depends on other statements as evidence but doesn’t itself provide any evidence for any other statement—is

1. This account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness.

However, the argument’s structure is more complex than simply having a couple of premises that provide evidence directly for the conclusion. Some statements provide evidence directly for the main conclusion, but some premise statements support other premise statements, which then support the conclusion.

To determine the structure of an argument, you must determine which statements support which, using premise and conclusion indicators to help. For example, the passage above contains the phrase, “the reason is…” which is a premise indicator, and it also contains the conclusion indicator, “therefore.” That conclusion indicator helps identify the main conclusion, but the more important element to see is that statement A does not itself provide evidence or support for any of the other statements in the argument, which is the clearest reason statement A is the main conclusion of the argument. The next question to answer is this: which statement most directly supports A? What most directly supports A is

1. No one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.

However, there is also a reason offered in support of B. That reason is the following:

1. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast and there was nowhere for someone living in Pompeii to go in order to escape it in time.

So the main conclusion (A) is directly supported by B, and B is supported by C. Since B acts as a premise for the main conclusion but is also itself the conclusion of further premises, B is classified as an intermediate conclusion. What you should recognize here is that one and the same statement can act as both a premise and a conclusion. Statement B is a premise that supports the main conclusion (A), but it is also itself a conclusion that follows from C. Here is how to put this complex argument into standard form (using numbers this time, as is typical for diagramming arguments):

1. The lava from Mt. Vesuvius was flowing too fast and there was nowhere for someone living in Pompeii to go in order to escape it in time.
2. Therefore, no one living in Pompeii could have survived the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. (from 1)
3. Therefore, this account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius was not actually written by an eyewitness. (from 2)

Notice that at the end of statement 2 is a written indicator in parentheses (from 1), and likewise at the end of statement 3 is another indicator (from 2). From 1 is a shorthand way of saying, “this statement follows logically from statement 1.” Use this convention to keep track of an argument’s structure. It may also help to think about the structure of an argument spatially, as the figure below shows:

Figure 0.5 from Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking ", CC-BY, by Matthew Van Cleave.

The main argument here (from 2 to 3) contains a subargument, in this case the argument from 1 (a premise) to 2 (the intermediate conclusion). A subargument, as the term suggests, is a part of an argument that indirectly supports the main argument. The main argument is simply the argument whose conclusion is the main conclusion.

Another type of structure that arguments can have is when two or more premises provide direct but independent support for the conclusion. Here is an example of an argument with that structure:

Wanda rode her bike to work today because when she arrived at work she had her right pant leg rolled up, which cyclists do in order to keep their pants legs from getting caught in the chain. Moreover, our co-worker, Bob, who works in accounting, saw her riding towards work at 7:45 am.

The conclusion of this argument is “Wanda rode her bike to work today,” two premises provide independent support for it: the fact that Wanda had her pant leg cuffed and the fact that Bob saw her riding her bike. Here is the argument in standard form:

1. Wanda arrived at work with her right pant leg rolled up.
2. Cyclists often roll up their right pant leg.
3. Bob saw Wanda riding her bike towards work at 7:45.
4. Therefore, Wanda rode her bike to work today. (from 1-2, 3 independently)

Again, notice that next to statement 4 of the argument is an indicator of how each part of the argument relates to the main conclusion. In this case, to avoid any ambiguity, you can see that the support for the conclusion comes independently from statements 1 and 2, on the one hand, and from statement 3, on the other hand. It is important to point out that an argument or subargument can be supported by one or more premises. This is the case in this argument because the main conclusion (4) is supported jointly by 1 and 2, and singly by 3. As before, we can represent the structure of this argument spatially, as the figure below shows:

Figure 0.6 from Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking ", CC-BY, by Matthew Van Cleave.

Endlessly different argument structures can be generated from these few simple patterns. At this point, it is important to understand that arguments can have these different structures and that some arguments will be longer and more complex than others. Determining the structure of complex arguments is a skill that takes some time to master. Even so, it may help to remember that any argument structure ultimately traces back to some combination of premises, intermediate arguments, and a main conclusion.

Exercise: Diagramming Arguments

Write the following arguments in standard form. If any arguments are complex, show how each complex argument is structured using a diagram like those shown above.

1. Someone was in this cabin recently because warm water was in the tea kettle and wood was still smoldering in the fireplace. However, the person couldn’t have been Tim because Tim has been with me the whole time. Therefore, someone else must be in these woods.
2. Someone can be blind and yet run in the Olympic Games since Marla Runyan did it at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
3. The train was late because it had to take a longer, alternate route since the bridge was out.
4. Israel is not safe if Iran gets nuclear missiles since Iran has threatened multiple times to destroy Israel, and if Iran had nuclear missiles, it would be able to carry out this threat. Furthermore, since Iran has been developing enriched uranium, it has the key component needed for nuclear weapons; every other part of the process of building a nuclear weapon is simple compared to that. Therefore, Israel is not safe.
5. Since all professional hockey players are missing front teeth, and Martin is a professional hockey player, it follows that Martin is missing front teeth. And since almost all professional athletes who are missing their front teeth have false teeth, it follows that Martin probably has false teeth.
6. Anyone who eats at Taco Bell will probably have stomach troubles afterward. It has happened to me every time; thus, it will probably happen to other people as well. Since Stefan ate at Taco Bell, he will probably have stomach troubles afterward.
7. Jackson and Caroline like to run in the afternoon in Brushy Fork. Since Jackson never runs alone, any time Jackson is running, Caroline must also be running. Jackson looks like he has just run (since he is panting hard), so it follows that Caroline must have run too.
8. Just because Linda’s prints were on the gun that killed Terry and the gun was registered to Linda, it doesn’t mean that Linda killed Terry since Linda’s prints would certainly be on her own gun, and someone else could have stolen her gun and used it to kill Terry.

Key Takeaways: Parts and Vocabulary of Argument

• Conclusion—a claim that is asserted as true. One part of an argument.
• Premise—a reason behind a conclusion. The other part of an argument. Most conclusions have more than one premise.
• Statement—a declarative sentence that can be evaluated as true or false. The parts of an argument, premises and the conclusion, should be statements.
• Standard Argument Form—a numbered breakdown of the parts of an argument (conclusion and all premises).
• Premise Indicators—terms that signal that a premise, or reason, is coming.
• Conclusion Indicator—terms that signal that a conclusion, or claim, is coming.
• Support—anything used as proof or reasoning for an argument, including evidence, experience, and logic.
• Warrant—the connection made between the support and the reasons of an argument.
• Counterargument—an opposing argument to the one you make. An argument can have multiple counterarguments.
• Complex Arguments--these are formed by more than individual premises that point to a conclusion. Complex arguments may have layers to them, including an intermediate argument that may act as both a conclusion (with its own premises) and a premise (for the main conclusion).

3. What Is Logic?

Logic, in its most basic sense, is the study of how ideas reasonably fit together. In other words, when applying logic, you must analyze ideas and arguments using reason and rational thinking, not emotions, mysticism, or mere belief. As a dedicated field of study, logic belongs primarily to math, philosophy, and computer science; these are the areas where one can get professional training in logic. However, all academic disciplines employ logic in many ways: to evaluate evidence, to analyze arguments, to explain ideas, and to connect evidence to arguments. One of the most important uses of logic is composing and evaluating arguments.

The study of logic is divided into two main categories: formal and informal. Formal logic is the study of the structure of argumentation, much like an architect studies the structure of a building. In other words, in math, philosophy, or computer science, if you were to take a class on logic, you would likely be learning formal logic. Formal logic aims to eliminate any imprecision or lack of objectivity in evaluating arguments. Logicians, scholars who study and apply logic, have devised a number of formal techniques that accomplish this goal for certain classes of arguments. These techniques can include truth tables, Venn diagrams, proofs, syllogisms, and formulae. The different branches of formal logic include, but are not limited to, propositional logic, categorical logic, and first order logic.

Informal logic is just that: logic applied outside of formal study. This type of logic is most often used in college, business, and life. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

For centuries, the study of logic has inspired the idea that its methods might be harnessed in efforts to understand and improve thinking, reasoning, and argument as they occur in real life contexts: in public discussion and debate; in education and intellectual exchange; in interpersonal relations; and in law, medicine and other professions. Informal logic is the attempt to build a logic suited to this purpose. It combines the study of argument, evidence, proof and justification with an instrumental outlook which emphasizes its usefulness in the analysis of real life arguing.

When people apply the principles of logic to employ and evaluate arguments in real-life situations and studies, they typically use informal logic. That informal logic, however, may be informed by the principes of formal logic whether or not the person using informal logic realizes it.

Why Is Logic Important?

Logic is among the most essential elements of scholarly and professional thinking and writing. Consider that logic teaches us many things, and one is how to recognize good and bad arguments—not just arguments about logic, but any argument. Nearly every undertaking in life will ultimately require that you evaluate an argument, perhaps several. You are confronted with a question: “Should I buy or rent my textbooks?”  “Should I do this or that internship?” “Did that scientific experiment show what the scientist claims it did?” “Should I vote for the candidate who promises to lower taxes or for the one who says they might raise them?” And so on. Your life is a long parade of choices.

When answering such questions, to make the best choices, you often have only one tool: an argument. You listen to the reasons for and against various options and must choose between them. Thus, the ability to evaluate arguments is useful in everything you do—your work, your personal life, and your most profound reflections. This is the job of logic.

If you are a student, note that nearly every discipline--be it a science, one of the humanities, or a study like business--relies upon arguments. Evaluating arguments is fundamental to math, physics, psychology, history, literary studies, and other intellectual endeavors. Logic alone tells you how to evaluate the arguments of any discipline.

The alternative to developing these logical skills is to always be at the mercy of flawed reasoning and, as a result, be limited to bad choices. Worse, you will always be manipulated by deceivers. Speaking in Canandaigua, New York, on August 3, 1857, the escaped enslaved person and abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass observed,

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Add this to Frederick Douglass’s words: If you find out just how much a person can be deceived, that is just how far she will be deceived. The limits of tyrants are also prescribed by the reasoning abilities of those they aim to oppress. What logic teaches you is how to demand and recognize good reasoning so that you can avoid deceit. You are only as free as your powers of reasoning enable.

The remaining part of this logic section will concern two types of logical arguments—inductive and deductive—and the tests of deductive arguments (validity and soundness) so that you can check out your own arguments and evaluate the arguments of others, no matter if those arguments come from the various academic disciplines, politics, the business world, or just discussions with friends and family.

What Is Inductive Reasoning?

There are two basic approaches to how we come to believe something is true. The first is called inductive reasoning, in which a conclusion is supported through probability (rather than certainty). This type of reasoning, where one recognizes a pattern that leads to a conclusion, is the basis for any field where data accumulation and analysis occurs.

You have been employing inductive reasoning for a very long time. Inductive reasoning derives from the ability to recognize meaningful patterns and connections. By considering both examples and your understanding of how the world works, induction allows you to conclude that something is likely to be true. By using induction, you move from specific data to a generalization that tries to capture the data's meaning.

Imagine that you ate a dish of strawberries and soon afterward your lips swelled. Now imagine that a few weeks later you ate strawberries and soon afterwards your lips again became swollen. The following month, you ate yet another dish of strawberries, and you had the same reaction as before. You are aware that swollen lips can be a sign of an allergy to strawberries. Using induction, you conclude that, more likely than not, you are allergic to strawberries:

Data: After you ate strawberries, your lips swelled (1^st time).

Data: After you ate strawberries, your lips swelled (2^nd time).

Data: After you ate strawberries, your lips swelled (3^rd time).

Additional Information: Swollen lips after eating strawberries may indicate an allergy.

Conclusion: You are likely allergic to strawberries.

However, the results of inductive thinking can be skewed if relevant data are overlooked. In the previous example, inductive reasoning was used to conclude that you are likely allergic to strawberries after suffering multiple instances of swollen lips. Would you be as confident in that conclusion if you were eating strawberry shortcake on each of those occasions? Is it reasonable to imagine that the allergic reaction might be due to another ingredient besides strawberries? This example illustrates that inductive reasoning must be used with care. When evaluating an inductive argument, ask the same questions listed above that you use to test for soundness.

Inductive reasoning can never lead to absolute certainty, which is one reason scholars keep studying and trying to add to knowledge. Instead, induction allows you to say that, given the examples provided for support, the claim is more likely than not true. You should account for the limitations of inductive reasoning and form a more credible conclusion by drawing from multiple lines of reasoning as support.

What Is Deductive Reasoning?

In deductive reasoning, instead of observing a pattern and drawing a conclusion based on probability, a person tests the premises that support a conclusion for validity and soundness.

What Makes an Argument Valid?

So far in this chapter, you have learned what arguments are and how to determine their structure, including how to reconstruct arguments in standard form. But what makes an argument good or bad? There are two main ways to judge an argument. One way is to determine its validity, a concept central to logical thinking. Validity relates to how well the premises support the conclusion, and it is the gold standard that every deductive argument should aim for. A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion cannot be false, assuming that the premises are true. Another way to put this is as a conditional statement: a valid argument is an argument in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Here is an example of a valid argument:

Premise 1: Dogs are mammals.

Premise 2: Violet is a dog.

Conclusion: Therefore, Violet is a mammal.

You might wonder whether it is true that Violet is a dog (maybe she’s a lizard or a buffalo—you have no way of knowing from the information given). But, for the purposes of determining validity, it doesn’t matter whether premise 1 is actually true or false. All that matters for validity is whether the conclusion follows from the premise. And you can see that the conclusion--that Violet is a mammal--does seem to follow from the premises--that dogs are mammals and Violet is a dog. That is, given the truth of the premise, the conclusion has to be true. This argument is clearly valid since if you assume that “Violet is a dog” is true, then, since all dogs are mammals, it follows that “Violet is a mammal” must also be true. And so, whether or not an argument is valid has nothing to do with whether the premises of the argument are actually true or not. Here is example where the premises are clearly false, yet the argument is valid:

Premise 1: Everyone born in France can speak French.

Premise 2: Barack Obama was born in France.

Conclusion: Therefore, Barack Obama can speak French.

This argument is valid. Why? Because when you assume the truth of the premises (everyone born in France can speak French, and Barack Obama was born in France), the conclusion (Barack Obama can speak French) must be true. Notice that this is so even though none of these statements is actually true. Not everyone born in France can speak French (think about people who were born there but then moved somewhere else where they didn’t speak French and never learned it), and Barack Obama was not born in France, but it is also false that Obama can speak French. However, the argument is still valid even though neither the premises nor the conclusion is actually true. That may sound strange, but if you understand the concept of validity, it is not strange at all. Remember: validity describes the relationship between the premises and conclusion, and it means that the premises imply the conclusion, whether or not any of the statements are true.

To better understand the concept of validity, examine this example of an invalid argument:

1. George was the President of the United States
2. Therefore, George was elected President of the United States.

This argument is invalid because the premise can be true, yet the conclusion can be false. Here is a counterexample to the argument. Gerald Ford was President of the United States, but he was never elected president since Ford Replaced Richard Nixon when Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Therefore, it doesn’t follow that just because someone is President of the United States that they were elected President of the United States. In other words, it is possible for the premise of the argument to be true and yet the conclusion false. And this means that the argument is invalid. If an argument is invalid, it will always be possible to construct a counterexample to show that it is invalid (as demonstrated in the Gerald Ford scenario). A counterexample is simply a description of a scenario in which the argument's premises are all true while the argument's conclusion is false.

Exercise: Test the Validity of Arguments

Determine whether or not the following arguments are valid by using an informal test of validity. In other words, ask whether you can imagine a scenario in which the premises are both true and yet the conclusion is false. For each argument, do the following: (1) If the argument is valid, explain your reasoning, and (2) if the argument is invalid, provide a counterexample. Remember, this is a test of validity, so you may assume all premises are true (even if you know or suspect they are not in real life) for the purposes of this assignment.

1. Katie is a human being. Therefore, Katie is smarter than a chimpanzee.
2. Bob is a fireman. Therefore, Bob has put out fires.
3. Gerald is a mathematics professor. Therefore, Gerald knows how to teach mathematics.
4. Monica is a French teacher. Therefore, Monica knows how to teach French.
5. Bob is taller than Susan. Susan is taller than Frankie. Therefore, Bob is taller than Frankie.
6. Craig loves Linda. Linda loves Monique. Therefore, Craig loves Monique.
7. Orel Hershizer is a Christian. Therefore, Orel Hershizer communicates with God.
8. All Muslims pray to Allah. Muhammad is a Muslim. Therefore, Muhammad prays to Allah.
9. Some protozoa are predators. No protozoa are animals. Therefore, some predators are not animals.
10. Charlie only barks when he hears a burglar outside. Charlie is barking. Therefore, there must be a burglar outside.

What Makes an Argument Sound?

A good argument is not only valid but also sound. A sound argument is a valid argument that has all true premises. That means that the conclusion, or claim, of a sound argument will always be true because if an argument is valid, the premises transmit truth to the conclusion on the assumption of the truth of the premises. But if the premises are actually true, as they are in a sound argument, and since all sound arguments are valid, we know that the conclusion of a sound argument is true. The relationship between soundness and validity is easy to specify: all sound arguments are valid arguments, but not all valid arguments are sound arguments.

When a student makes deductive arguments in college writing, usually in essay form, professors will expect sound arguments. Philosophy professors, for the sake of pursuing arguments based on logic alone, may allow students to pursue unsound arguments, but nearly all other professors will want sound arguments. How do you ensure all the premises of your argument are true?  How can we know that Violet is a dog? That littering is harmful to animals and people? Answers to these questions come from evidence, often in the form of research.

TIP: Countering Arguments

One way to counter another’s argument is to question and test their premises for soundness. If you find that one or more premise is unsound, you can add that information--and your explanations--to the support of your own argument.

One way to test the accuracy of a premise is to apply the following questions:

• Is there a sufficient amount of data?
• What is the quality of the data?
• Has additional data been missed?
• Is the data relevant?
• Are there additional possible explanations?

Determine whether the starting claim is based upon a representative and sufficiently large sample, and ask yourself whether all relevant factors have been taken into account in the data analysis that leads to a generalization.

Another way to evaluate a premise is to determine whether its source is credible. Ask yourself,

• Are the authors identified?
• What are their backgrounds?
• Was the claim something you found on an undocumented website?
• Did you find it in a popular publication or a scholarly one?
• How complete, how recent, and how relevant are the studies or statistics discussed in the source?

What Are Logical Fallacies and Why Should You Avoid Them?

Fallacies are errors or tricks of reasoning. A fallacy is an error of reasoning if it occurs accidentally; it is a trick of reasoning if a speaker or writer uses it to deceive or manipulate his audience. Fallacies can be either formal or informal.

Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity and soundness of any deductive argument. At the same time, fallacious reasoning can damage the credibility of the speaker or writer and improperly manipulate the emotions of the audience or reader. This is a consideration you must keep in mind as a writer who is trying to maintain credibility (ethos) with the reader. Moreover, being able to recognize logical fallacies in the speech and writing of others can greatly benefit you as both a college student and a participant in civic life. This awareness increases your ability to think and read critically—and thus not be manipulated or fooled—and provides you with a strong basis for counterarguments.

But even more importantly, using faulty reasoning is unethical and irresponsible. Using logical fallacies can be incredibly tempting. The unfortunate fact is they work. Every day—particularly in politics and advertising—we can see how using faults and tricks of logic effectively persuades people to support certain individuals, groups, and ideas and, conversely, turn them away from others. Furthermore, logical fallacies are easy to use. Instead of doing the often difficult work of carefully supporting an argument with facts, logic, and researched evidence, many turn routinely to the easy path of tricky reasoning. Humans too often favor what is easy and effective, even if morally questionable, over what is ethical, particularly if difficult. However, your college professors’ task is not to teach you how to join the Dark Side. Their job is to teach you how to write, speak, and argue effectively and ethically. To do so, you must recognize and avoid the logical fallacies.

What Are Formal Fallacies?

Most formal fallacies are logic errors: the conclusion doesn’t really “follow from” (is not supported by) the premises. Either the premises are untrue, or the argument is invalid. Below is an example of an invalid deductive argument:

Premise: All black bears are omnivores.

Premise: All raccoons are omnivores.

Conclusion: All raccoons are black bears.

Bears are a subset of omnivores. Raccoons also are a subset of omnivores. But these two subsets do not overlap, making the conclusion illogical. The argument is invalid—that is, the relationship between the two premises doesn’t support the conclusion.

“Raccoons are black bears” is instantaneously recognizable as fallacious and may seem too silly to be worth bothering about. However, that and other forms of poor logic play out daily and have real-world consequences. Below is an example of a common fallacious argument:

Premise: All Arabs are Muslims.

Premise: All Iranians are Muslims.

Conclusion: All Iranians are Arabs.

This argument fails on two levels. First, the premises are untrue because, although many Arabs and Iranians are Muslim, not all are. Second, the two ethnic groups (Iranians and Arabs) are sets that do not overlap; nevertheless, the two groups are confounded because they (largely) share one quality in common (being Muslim). One only has to look at comments on the web to realize that the confusion is widespread and that it influences attitudes and opinions about U.S. foreign policy. The logical problems make this both an invalid and an unsound argument.

What Are Informal Fallacies?

Informal fallacies take many forms and are widespread in everyday discourse. Very often, they involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument, or they are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to be incorrect. Formal fallacies are created when the relationship between premises and conclusion does not hold up or when premises are unsound; informal fallacies are more dependent on misusing language and evidence.

It is easy to find fairly well-accepted lists of informal fallacies, but that does not mean that it is always easy to spot them. Some moves are always fallacious; others may be allowable given the context.

You can read about additional logical fallacies in the “Repository of Logical Fallacies” resources.

Key Takeaways: Logic

• Logic—shows how ideas fit together by using reason.
• Formal Logic—a formal and rigorous study of logic, such as in math and philosophy.
• Informal Logic—the application of logic to arguments of all types: in scholarship, in business, and in life. Informal logic is what this part of the chapter covers.
• Validity—a way to evaluate a deductive argument; a valid argument is one where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
• Soundness—another way to evaluate a deductive argument; a sound argument is one where the premises have been shown to be true (via support).
• Inductive Reasoning—a process of reasoning that reaches a conclusion based on probability
• Deductive Reasoning—a process of reasoning wherein an argument's premises and conclusions are both valid and sound
• Logical Fallacy—a flaw or trick of logic. Fallacies can be formal or informal. See the “Repository of Logical Fallacies” for individual examples.

4. What Are the Different Types of Arguments in Writing?

Throughout this chapter, you have studied the definition of argument, parts of argument, and how to use logic in argument. This section brings all of the previous material together and tackles arguments in writing. Foremost on most students’ minds when taking college composition courses is this question: “How do I write an argument paper?”  The answer is not a simple one because, as mentioned previously, arguments come in a variety of packages. This means that written arguments--whether in essay or some other form--also come in many different types.

Arguments of the Methods of Development

Most arguments involve one or more of the methods of development. Once again, rhetoric is the study and application of effective writing techniques. There are a number of standard rhetorical methods of development—structural and analytical models that can be used effectively to suit different writing situations. The methods of development include but are not limited to narrative, description, process analysis, illustration and exemplification, cause and effect, comparison, definition, persuasion, and classification. These methods will be covered in detail in Chapter 5, “Methods of Development”.  They are mentioned here, however, to make clear that any and all rhetorical modes can be used to pursue an argument. In fact, most professors will insist upon it.

Arguments of Persuasion

One of the most common forms of argument is that of persuasion. On some level, all arguments have a persuasive element because the goal of the argument is to persuade the reader to take the point seriously. Many arguments, however, exist primarily to introduce new research and interpretation whereas persuasive arguments expressly operate to change someone’s mind about an issue or a person.

A common type of persuasive essay is an Op-Ed article. Included in the opinion section of a newspaper, op-ed articles are more appropriately called argument essays because most authors strive not only to make explicit claims but also to support their claims, sometimes even with researched evidence. These articles are often well-designed, persuasive essays written to convince readers of the writer’s way of thinking.

In addition to essays, other forms of persuasive writing exist. One common and important example is the job letter, where you must persuade others to believe in your merits as a worker and performer so that you might get hired.

In a persuasive essay, you should be sure to do the following:

• Clearly articulate your claim and the main reasons for it. Avoid forming a thesis based on a negative claim. For example, “The hourly minimum wage is not high enough for the average worker to live on.” This is probably a true statement, but persuasive arguments should make a positive case. That is, the thesis statement should focus on how the hourly minimum wage is too low or insufficient.

• Anticipate and address counterarguments. Think about your audience and which counterarguments they would most likely have. Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space.

• Make sure your support comes in many different forms. Use logical reasoning and the rhetorical appeals, but also strive for concrete examples from your own experience and from society.

• Keep your tone courteous, but avoid being obsequious. In other words, shamelessly appealing to your readers’ vanity will likely ring false. Aim for respectful honesty.

• Avoid the urge to win the argument. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others to see the error of their ways. More often than not, however, arguments in which both sides try to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your audience to consider your claim as a sound one, not simply the right one.

TIP: Word Choice in Arguments

Since argument writing is designed to convince readers of an idea they may not have known before or a side of an issue they may disagree with, you must think carefully about the attitude you wish to convey as you advance your argument. The overall attitude of a piece of writing is its tone, and it comes from the words you choose (for more on the importance of word choice, see Chapter 10, “Working with Words”. In argument writing, strive for the following:

• Confidence—the reader needs to know that you believe in what you say, so be confident. Avoid hedgy and apologetic language. However, be careful not to cross the line from confidence to overconfidence. Arrogance can rebuff your readers, even if they agree with you.

• Neutrality—while you may advocate for one side or way of thinking, you still must demonstrate that you are being as objective as you can in your analysis and assessment. Avoid loaded terms, buzzwords, and overly emotional language.

• Courtesy and fairness—particularly when dealing with any counterarguments, you want your tone to reveal that you have given other points of view due consideration. Avoid being smug, snide, or harshly dismissive of other ideas.

Exercise: Drafting Counterarguments

Find an Op-Ed article from one of the major US newspapers: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, or the LA Times. Then, do the following:

1. Prewriting Work: Read the article carefully, taking notes or annotating it. Be sure to find the main argument and map out the support used by the author, i.e., how the author is trying to persuade you. Note any use of rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research. (For tips about note-taking and annotating reading material, see Chapter 1, “Critical Reading” for a review of the rhetorical appeals, see Chapter 2, “Rhetorical Analysis”.
2. Write a paragraph summary of the article. Include the main argument and its support. Explain the different types of support used by the author (rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research).
3. In a paragraph, devise and explain your own counterargument(s) to the author’s thesis.
4. In a paragraph, explain what kind of support you would use for your counterargument. What rhetorical appeals would you use?  What experts might you call on?  Do you think you would need to do research, and if so, on what?

Exercise: Make an Argument for Yourself

Write a job letter. As you design it, be sure to do the following:

1. Use formal letter format. Be sure to include these elements: your address, the address of the job you’re applying to (or the department you are applying to), the date you send the letter, a greeting, the letter content in coherent paragraphs (single-spaced paragraphs with a double space in between paragraphs), a sign-off, any additional information (your phone and/or email address). For some visual examples of what this would look like, do a Google image search for “job letter format.”
2. Prewriting Work 1: Imagine a job you would like to apply to. Ask yourself the following questions and brainstorm answers to them: “What skills would I need to have for this job, and which of those skills do I have?”  “What educational background would be required, and can I show that I fulfill the requirements?”  “What experience might the hiring committee want me to have, and do I have any experience that would be relevant?”
3. Prewriting Work 2: Take the notes you’ve come up with and add as many specific details as you can. If you believe you do have relevant skills, what are they, specifically?  Where did you get those skills, specifically?  How long have you had those skills, specifically?  Do you have examples where you have shown excellence with those skills, specifically?  And so on.
4. Drafting: Shape your details into three paragraphs, organized by issue: skills, education, and experience. Be specific, include a couple of examples per paragraph, and be succinct in your delivery.
5. Proofread carefully. First of all, excellent sentence composition, punctuation, and spelling communicate your seriousness to those who might hire you. Mistakes make you look sloppy and make it easy for them to toss your letter on the rejection pile. Second, watch your word choice. Choose the specific over the general words as much as possible (you say you are a hard worker, but what does that mean, practically speaking?). Make sure you avoid cliches and overly gushy sentiment (“I’m passionate about people!”). Finally, proofread for tone. Strive for courteousness and objectivity. Make it seem like you are being objective about your own abilities.

Arguments of Evaluation

If you have ever answered a question about your personal take on a book, movie, television show, or piece of music, you have given a review. Most times, these reviews are somewhat hasty and based on initial or shallow impressions. However, if you give thought to your review, if you explain more carefully what you liked or didn’t like and why, and if you bring in specific examples to back up your points, then you have moved on to an argument of evaluation. Reviews of films, books, music, food, and other aspects of taste and culture represent the most familiar type of argument of evaluation. The main objective of an argument of evaluation is to render a critical judgment on the merits of something. What you judge can be just about anything, though we are probably most familiar with the movie review.

Another common argument of evaluation is the performance review. If you have ever held a job, you know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such a review; your timeliness, productivity, and attitude are scrutinized in order to determine if you have been a good worker or need to worry about looking for another job. If you are in any sort of supervisory position, you will be the one writing and delivering those reviews, and your own supervisor will want to know that you have logical justification and evidence for your judgments.

For all types of reviews or evaluation arguments, make sure to plan for the following:

• Declare your overall judgment of the subject under review—good, bad, or somewhere in between. This is your conclusion or thesis.

• Lay out the criteria for your judgment. In other words, your review must be based on logical criteria—i.e., the standards by which you evaluate something. For example, if you are reviewing a film, reasonable criteria would include acting, writing, storytelling, directing, cinematography, music, and special effects. If you are evaluating an employee, that criteria will change and more likely involve punctuality, aspects of job performance, and overall attitude on the job.

• Make sure to evaluate each criterion and provide evidence. Draw your evidence from what you are reviewing, and use as many specific examples as you can. In a movie review where you think the acting quality was top-notch, give examples of a particular style that worked well, lines delivered effectively, or emotions realistically conveyed.

• Use concrete language. A review is only an argument if we can reasonably see—from examples and your explanations—how you arrived at your judgment. Vague or circular language (“I liked it because it was just really good!”) will keep your evaluation at the opinion level only, preventing it from being taken seriously as an argument.

• Keep the tone respectful—even if you ultimately do not like something. Be as objective as you can when giving your reasons. Insulting language detracts from the seriousness of your analysis and makes your points look like personal attacks.

Roger Ebert (1942-2013), a movie reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times, was once one of the most famous movie critics in America. His reviews provide excellent examples of the argument of evaluation.

Figure 0.7 “Roger Ebert cropped", CC-BY-SA 3.0, by Roger Ebert

Consider his review of the 2009 film Avatar, and note how clearly he declares his judgments, how he makes his reader aware of just what standards he uses for judgment (his criteria), and how he uses a wealth of examples and reasons to back up his critiques (although he is careful to avoid spoilers; the review went to print as the movie was coming out).

Exercise: Evaluate your Job

Write a brief review of your labor position. How would you rate that position on campus, and what would your rating be based on?

1. Declare your overall judgment of your labor position. This is your main claim.
2. Come up with at least four criteria for evaluation. Give your judgment for each criterion. Include at least two specific examples to support each evaluation, and explain the logic of your support.
3. Proofread for tone, making sure to look for any words that would cause a reader to think your critique was unfair or hostile. For example, even if you loathe your labor position, treat it dispassionately, like you are a scientist putting that job position under a microscope. (This might allow you to say, for example, that although the job is dull and repetitive, it gives you some practical experience.)

Exercise: Evaluate a Source

Evaluate a source that you plan to use for a research project. Explain what type of source you have (website? journal article? book? newspaper article?), and declare your source to be credible or not, using the following criteria:

1. Author’s credentials. First of all, are the authors named?  Can you find out anything about them, like degrees and professional information?  If you cannot find anything, how does that affect credibility?  If you can find information, how does that information show credibility or lack of it?
2. How it was published. Was the article or book peer-reviewed?  Was it online or in print?  Did you find it through a database or a Google search?  Who funded the publication?  Explain what the results of these questions tell you about the source’s credibility.
3. The use of support. Does the source have footnotes or endnotes? A bibliography? Links to different articles?  In other words, how carefully is the author trying to back up their claims?  

Arguments of Fact and Explanation

At the beginning of this chapter, arguments were shown to be distinct from facts. Facts are not arguable; they don’t have “two sides,” and they are not up for debate. However, as we well know, people disagree with facts all the time. We wouldn’t have a nonsense term like “alternative facts” otherwise. We do, however, have arguments that deal with this scenario: arguments of fact and explanation. Arguments of fact seek to establish, often in the face of doubters, that a fact is indeed true. Arguments of explanation establish why that fact is true. Not surprisingly, these arguments frequently go hand in hand, and they lie primarily in the domain of the research paper. For more detail on the research process, refer to Chapter 6; this section will just clarify these two types of argument.

Arguments of Fact: Many times, the goal of giving an argument is simply to establish that the conclusion is true. For example, to convince someone that obesity rates are rising in the U.S., the writer should cite evidence such as studies from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The studies cited would function as premises for the conclusion that obesity rates are rising:

Obesity is on the rise in the U.S. because multiple studies carried out by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades.

Putting this simple argument into standard form would look like this:

Premise 1: Multiple studies by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades.

Conclusion: Therefore, obesity is on the rise in the U.S.

The standard form argument clearly distinguishes the premise from the conclusion and shows how the conclusion is supposed to be supported by the evidence offered in the premise. Again, the goal of this simple argument would be to convince someone that the conclusion is true. However, sometimes we already know that a statement or claim is true and we are trying to establish why it is true rather than that it is true.

Arguments of Explanation: An argument that attempts to show why its conclusion is true is an explanation. Contrast the previous example with the following:

The reason that the rate of obesity is on the rise in the U.S. is that the foods we most often consume over the past four decades have increasingly contained high levels of sugar and low levels of dietary fiber. Since eating foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat, it follows that people who consume foods high in sugar and low in fiber will tend to store more of the calories consumed as fat.

This passage gives an explanation for why obesity is on the rise in the U.S. Unlike the earlier example, here it is taken for granted that obesity is on the rise in the U.S. That is the claim whose truth the author must explain. The obesity explanation can also be put into standard form, just like any other argument:

Premise 1: Over the past four decades, Americans have increasingly consumed foods high in sugar and low in fiber.

Premise 2: Consuming foods high in sugar and low in fat triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat.

Premise 3: When people store more calories as fat, they tend to become obese.

Conclusion: Therefore, the rate of obesity is on the rise in the U.S.

Notice that in this explanation, the premises (1-3) attempt to explain why the conclusion is true rather than a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true. That is, in an argument of explanation, we assume that what we are trying to explain (i.e., the conclusion) is true. In this case, the premises are supposed to show why we should expect or predict that the conclusion is true. Explanations often give us an understanding of why the conclusion is true.

Arguments of Interpretation

Arguments of interpretation come mainly in the form of critical analysis writing. Scholars and students use critical analysis to understand a text more deeply; therefore, it is common in disciplines where texts are the main objects of study—literature, philosophy, and history. However, we can also think of critical analysis as any analysis where someone takes raw data—from texts, objects and images, laboratory experiments, or surveys of people—and analyzes that data in order to come up with what they mean. The “what it all means” is an interpretation. The argument in critical analysis writing is the interpretation of the data. This must be a logical interpretation, with the data also used to support the interpretation through reasoning and examples.

The guidelines for analyzing data are determined by the experts in those areas. Scholars of the life, earth, and physical sciences; the social sciences; and the humanities gather all sorts of different data. When writing up an interpretation of that data, writers and researchers should follow the models and standards provided by experts in those fields of study. In college, professors are important sources of these models and standards.

In the humanities, particularly in literature, there are generally four ways (or perspectives) for analyzing a text: writing from the perspective of a reader, writing as if the text were an object of study, writing about or from the perspective of an author, and writing about where a text fits into a particular context.

• Writing from the perspective of a reader: this means that you seek to understand a text through your own experience, yet you also try to understand how others who may be very different from you understand the same writing through their experience. This is characterized by noting down first impressions and lines or words that strike you in profound ways. This sort of analysis is common in journal or response paper assignments and can be a good way to begin a discussion of a text.

• Writing about the text as an object of study: this is a perspective that highlights what makes up that text and what meaning we can find in it. Finding meaning relies on identifying the patterns, segments, and strategies (devices) in the writing you choose to analyze. This is one of the most common types of essay assignments in a literature class.

• Writing about the text’s author: sometimes this provides another perspective with which to deepen an understanding of a piece of writing. Examining their life, thought processes, behaviors, and beliefs, can help you to further understand an author’s work. This type of analysis can be the basis of a research paper on a work of history or literature.

• Writing about the text’s context: This context usually has to do with how a text compares to other texts as well as how the text interacts with history and society. When historians analyze texts, studying context is crucial, but contextual analysis can also be the focus of a literature essay.

The process of critical analysis is dependent on close reading of the data or text and is an inductive process, where the writer moves from analyzing the details of the text to a broader conclusion that is logically based on those details. What can confuse a lot of students is that formal essay structure is fundamentally deductive—the main conclusion is established immediately, and then the details are organized to provide support. For more on close reading, see Chapter 1, “Critical Reading”.

Rogerian Argument

The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue. If, as stated at the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset. Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.

Figure 0.8 “Carl Ransom Rogers”, CC-BY 2.5, Wikimedia, by Didius

The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:

1. Introduction: Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way. Be sure to outline the main sides of the debate. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. And crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a compromise about the issue at hand. If this intent is not stated upfront, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight. Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so do not include your thesis in your introduction. You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion. Once again, state the intent to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.
2. Side A:  Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the opposing side of the argument first. The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called empathetic listening, which guides the overall approach to this type of argument. By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue. Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view. Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project. If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay. You can listen to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on YouTube.
3. Side B: Carefully go over your side of the argument. When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A. In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise. Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.
4. The Bridge: A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find common ground between the two sides. There should be at least one point of agreement. This can be an acknowledgment of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or admittance to a shared set of values, even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values. This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section builds a bridge from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.
5. The Compromise:   Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis. The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether or not to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society. That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes. For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.

Figure 0.9 “Rogerian Argument”, CC-0, by Virginia Western Community College

1. Issue
   1. You support you homeschooling.
2. Introduction
   1. Indicate your intent to find a compromise between those who support and those who oppose homeschooling.
   2. Briefly outline both sides of the issue.
3. Side A
   1. Show a deep understanding of the positions held by those who oppose homeschooling.
   2. Present the downsides to homeschooling.
4. Side B
   1. Present your side of the issue.
   2. Highlight the benefits of homeschooling.
5. Bridge
   1. Build a bridge to compromise between tje two sides. What can both sides agree on?
   2. Example Bridge: Both folks who support and oppose homeschooling want students to have the best possible education.
6. Compromise
   1. Make final argument that is likely both sides can support.
   2. Example Compromise; The state can ensure that parents who want to homeschool can do so while also ensuring that homeschooled students receive a high-quality education in a safe environment by requiring information sharing and standardized testing for all students.

Exercise: Rogerian Arguments

Find a controversial topic and begin building a Rogerian argument. Write up your responses to the following:

1. The topic or dilemma I will write about is…
2. My opposing audience is…
3. My audience’s view on the topic is…
4. My view on the topic is…
5. Our common ground--shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic--is…
6. My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is...

The Toulmin Argument Model

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toulmin devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components, was considered his most influential work, particularly in the fields of rhetoric, communication, and computer science. Toulmin’s components continue to provide useful means for analyzing arguments, and the terms involved can be added to those defined in earlier sections of this chapter.

Figure 0.10 “Toulmin Argument”, CC-0, by Virginia Western Community College

The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:

1. Claim: The claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept as true (i.e., a conclusion) and forms the nexus of the Toulmin argument since all the other parts relate back to the claim. The claim can include information and ideas you are asking readers to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact. One example of a claim:

My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.

This claim both asks the reader to believe an idea and suggests an action to enact. However, like all claims, it can be challenged. Thus, a Toulmin argument does not end with a claim but includes grounds and a warrant to give support and reasoning to the claim.

1. Grounds: The grounds form the basis of real persuasion and include the reasoning behind the claim, data, and proof of expertise. Think of grounds as a combination of premises and support. The truth of the claim rests upon the grounds, so those grounds should be tested for soundness. The following are examples of grounds:

Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.

Hearing aids raise hearing quality.

Information is usually a very powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical or rational will be more likely to be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. Thus, grounds can also include appeals to emotion, provided they aren’t misused. The best arguments, however, use a variety of support and rhetorical appeals.

1. Warrant: A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be carefully explained and explicit or unspoken and implicit. The warrant answers the question, “Why does that data mean your claim is true?”  For example,

A hearing aid helps most people hear better.

The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements, including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos, ethos, pathos, or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and hence unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.

1. Backing: The backing for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. The backing can be confused with grounds, but the main difference is this: Grounds should directly support the premises of the main argument itself, while backing exists to help the warrants make more sense. For example,

Hearing aids are available locally.

This statement works as backing because it gives credence to the warrant stated above that a hearing aid will help most people hear better. The fact that hearing aids are readily available makes the warrant even more reasonable.

1. Qualifier: The qualifier (or modal qualifier) indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. The necessity of qualifying words comes from the plain fact that most absolute claims are ultimately false (all women want to be mothers, e.g.) because one counterexample sinks them immediately. Thus, most arguments need some sort of qualifier, words that temper an absolute claim and make it more reasonable. Common qualifiers include “most,” “usually,” “always,” or “sometimes.” For example,

Hearing aids help most people.

The qualifier “most” here allows for the reasonable understanding that rarely does one thing (a hearing aid) universally benefit all people. Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect:

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.

Qualifiers and reservations can be used to bolster weak arguments, so it is important to recognize them. They are often used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus, they slip “usually,” “virtually,” “unless,” and so on into their claims to protect against liability. While this may seem like a sneaky practice, and it can be for some advertisers, the use of qualifiers and reservations can be a useful and legitimate part of an argument.

1. Rebuttal:  Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counterarguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. For example, if you anticipated a counterargument that hearing aids, as a technology, may be fraught with technical difficulties, you would include a rebuttal to deal with that counterargument:

There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.

Any rebuttal is an argument in itself and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.

Even if you do not wish to write an essay using a strict Toulmin structure, using the Toulmin checklist can make an argument stronger. When first proposed, Toulmin based his layout on legal arguments, intending it to be used analyzing arguments typically found in the courtroom; in fact, Toulmin did not realize that this layout would be applicable to other fields until later. The first three elements--“claim,” “grounds,” and “warrant”--are considered the essential components of practical arguments, while the last three—“qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”—may not be necessary for all arguments.

Exercise: Analyzing an Argument with Toulmin

Find an argument in essay form and diagram it using the Toulmin model. The argument can come from an Op-Ed article in a newspaper, a magazine think piece, or a scholarly journal article. See if you can find all six elements of the Toulmin argument. Use the structure above to diagram your article’s argument.

Key Takeaways: Types of Argument

• Arguments in the Rhetorical Modes—almost any model of writing can be used for an argument, including the rhetorical modes: narration, comparison, causal analysis, process, description, definition, classification, and exemplification.
• Arguments of Persuasion—used to change someone’s thinking on a topic or person.
• Arguments of Evaluation—critical reviews based on logical evaluation of criteria and evidence for that evaluation.
• Arguments of Fact and Explanation—the former establishes that a fact is true, the latter why it is true.
• Arguments of Interpretation—critical analysis writing where one makes an argument about what data means. Data can come from texts, objects, surveys, and scientific experiments.
• The Rogerian Argument Model—an argument model designed to bring about consensus and mutual understanding rather than conflict.
• Toulmin’s Argument Model—six interrelated components used to diagram an argument, drawn from both rhetorical and academic argument.

CC Licensed Content, Shared Previously

About Writing: A Guide. Authored by Robin Jeffrey. Published by: Open Oregon Educational Resources. License: CC-BY.

A Concise Introduction to Logic. Authored by: Craig DeLancey. Published by: Open SUNY Textbooks. License: CC-BY-NC-SA.

English 112: College Composition II. Authored by: Lumen. Published by: Lumen Learning Catalog. License: CC-BY-SA [Project for/Institution: VCCS]

English Composition 1. Authored by: Lumen. Published by: Lumen Learning Catalog. License: CC-BY-SA.

Frameworks for Academic Writing. Authored by: Stephen Poulter. License: CC-BY-NC-SA.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Authored by: Matthew J. Van Cleave. Institution: Lansing Community College. Published by: Matthew Van Cleave. License: CC-BY.

Methods of Discovery. Authored by: Pavel Zemilanski. Published/hosted by: Digication, Inc. License: CC-BY-NC-SA.

The Process of Research Writing. Authored by: Steven Krause. Published by: Steven Krause. Institution: Eastern Michigan University. License: CC-BY-NC-SA.

Successful Writing v. 1.0. Scott McLean. Publisher information removed. License: CC-BY-NC-SA.

Writing in College: From Competence to Excellence. Authored by: Amy Guptill. Institution: SUNY Brockport. Published by: Open SUNY. License: CC-BY-NC-SA.

Image Credits

Figure 0.1 "Opinion vs Argument" CC-O, by ijmaki.

Figure 0.2 "Argument Diagram" Thin Brace Down, CC-BY-SA 3.0, by pathoschild.

Figure 0.3 "Common Premise Indicators", CC-O, by Virginia Western Community College.

Figure 0.4 "Common Conclusion Indicators", CC-O, by Virginia Western Community College.

Figure 0.5 from “Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking ", CC-BY, by Matthew Van Cleave.

Figure 0.6 from “Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking ", CC-BY, by Matthew Van Cleave.

Figure 0.7 “Roger Ebert cropped", CC-BY-SA 3.0, by Roger Ebert.

Figure 0.8 “Carl Ransom Rogers”, CC-BY 2.5, Wikimedia, by Didius.

Figure 0.9 “Rogerian Argument”, CC-0, by Virginia Western Community College

Figure 0.10 “Toulmin Argument”, CC-0, by Virginia Western Community College