Assumptions, Implications, Counterexamples, Qualifications & Rebuttals

The strength of an argument rests on a lot of things. Some of these are: the reasons given to support a claim; the nature of the chains of reasoning involved (consistency, coherence, logical rigor, non-contradiction); the strength and type of evidence used (relevance, scope of applicability); the credibility of the authorities invoked; the degree of vulnerability to counter-arguments, etc. Some other important considerations are the assumptions that underlie an argument, the implications that follow from it, and its susceptibility to counterexamples.

Assumptions:
Formal logic deals with symbolic assertions that are certain and unchanging, such as 'P's are Q's'. It starts from principles or axioms that are certain. By contrast, real world arguments deal with assertions that are debatable and probabilistic. They start not from axioms that are certain, but instead from assumptions, values, beliefs etc. granted by an audience. Looking closely at the assumptions that underlie an argument can help us both understand it better, as well as test its strength.

Assumptions are fundamental, taken for granted ways of viewing the world that inform a position. They are presuppositions, or (often) unstated premises that underlie an argument. Assumptions pervade all arguments in all disciplines, and exist at a number of different levels of generality.

It is useful to analyze assumptions in order to:

1. Understand what holds the foundations of an argument together.

2. Better understand the strengths and weaknesses of an argument

3. To find possible sources of critique - one way of interrogating an argument is to identify counterexamples that do not fit with a set of assumptions.

4. Make one aware of one's own assumptions when building an argument, so that one can argue with better self understanding and with better strategies for testing validity. 

Identifying Assumptions:
It is often very hard to identify assumptions. They are in the air we breathe, or rather the language we use. Often we may feel 'ill at-ease' by the position advanced in a given argument, without really knowing why, or without really being able to put our fingers on our objections. This may be because the argument assumes the audience takes for granted values or beliefs that we are not comfortable with.

Often conflict between people may be rooted in conflicting assumptions about the grounds of an argument. An argument will go around and around without really making headway because such different first principles are assumed. One cannot even reach principled disagreement in such cases. Debates about gun control, abortion, free speech etc often fall into this category. Very often major assumptions are unconscious - they are not are not part of a self-consciously examined set of reasons. They are thus hard to identify and argue about.

To identify assumptions, the following strategies are often useful:

1. Try to look for significant absences or gaps in an argument. Try to think who or what may be left out in a given position, and then try to identify why. This will often lead to a major assumption. It will help you identify what must be assumed in order for this absence or omission to exist. An example is American history books in the 50s and 60s, which many claimed left out certain people/events.

2. Invert an argument - try thinking about a position from the antithetical point of view, and imagine what is left out, what is emphasized, and why. 

3. By trying to 'denaturalize' what is taken for granted in an argument. Often, assumptions are preconceptions that have become fossilized or 'naturalized'. Often, these will be parts of an argument that the arguer, if questioned, would respond by saying 'well of course its only natural that x or y is the case/behaves this way'. Thus one can look for positions that use the language of 'nature', 'naturalness' or related terminology. De-naturalizing what is taken for granted may proceed by imagining oneself an 'alien', an outsider, or occupying a different position than usual. It may also proceed by taking an orientation that is somewhat 'social constructionist' in character. Scribner tries to do this in unpacking the assumptions that underlie different visions of literacy. Functional view is the most 'natural' one generally assumed - it is the one Applebee and Ogbu assume.

4. Look hard at the major categorizations, definitions, and the configuration of key concepts that an argument uses. This will often point to the existence of important assumptions. Take categorizations, for example. “Far East, Middle East, Near East; Mr, Mrs, Miss; Negro, Black, African American,” etc.   We can also look at how changes in the meanings associated with categories reveal cultural assumptions.

5. Search for significant counterexamples/objections. If you can find an important counterexample to a given position, this will often help one understand what is assumed in order for it to ignore such a counterexample.

 
Aristotle's 3 Foundational Assumptions

Aristotle, the ‘father’ of formal logic, held that logic, reason and argumentation must be underpinned by 3 primordial assumptions:

• The principle of Identity: A = A
• The principle of Non-Contradiction, A /= not A. A /=B and not B
• Law of excluded middle. A= A or not A.

For Aristotle, these assumptions cannot be contradicted - they are the basis of logic and argumentation. To engage in reasoned discourse, you have to grant these 3 assumptions. He admits that their validity cannot be proven directly. However he believes it can be proved indirectly. You imagine an evil genius, a skeptic who doubts the validity of these 3 axioms. In expressing doubt he confirms the principles, since there is tacit acceptance of the law of non-contradiction, and perhaps even identity.

But NOTE:       1. In fact it may be that a different kind of coherence is in operation in the skeptics argument, and that there is thus a circularity in Aristotle's position. It assumes in advance that disagreement must be couched in terms of the principles A wants to uphold. This isn't necessarily so.   2. It is essentialist. The identity of A is fixed, timeless, universal, and immanent. We can imagine identities that are relational, contextual, processual. For example, colors. Or male/female. Think for example of the difficulty of thinking that 'race' has the kind of existence that fits Aristotle's schema, that it can be assigned the place of 'A'.

In which case the principles Aristotle advances are not as clearly helpful as might be expected. The world of argument tends to involve categories whose identity is not easy to fix - in fact a lot of arguments turn precisely on what/whose categories will be the grounds on which debate takes place. The world of argument tends to involve not stable, clearly definable entities and clear logical relations, but probability,

Implications
These involve what follow from a given set of assumptions or a given position. Implications consist of the possible consequences of a given position that can be drawn out.

Arguments can often be attacked for what can be inferred to follow from them -i.e. what their implications are. A common strategy is to show that unintended consequences follow from a position, or that something bad follows from a given position. One must be careful when drawing implications that one does not end up imputing too much, or falling into the 'slippery slope' fallacy. That is, of drawing out a set of implications that go too far beyond what the author had in mind. An example of slippery slope reasoning that is often referred to is the “Domino theory,” which suggested that the U.S. could not allow Vietnam to become communist or this would cause neighboring countries to “fall” just like dominos into communism.  One criticism of the doctrine of “preemption” with regards to Iraq focuses on the potential implications of this position: if it is alright for the U.S. to attack a country before it has itself been attacked, then might not other countries adopt a similar policy?  Conversely, opponents of war are sometimes criticized for what can be inferred from their arguments regarding intervention.  Some opponents argue that it is never justified to attack a sovereign country except in self-defense.  However, this implies that some past interventions many people now consider vital, for example Bosnia and Kosovo, and some interventions that many think should have been made but weren’t (for example, Rwanda and Burundi) would not have been undertaken.

Counterexamples
The degree to which an argument can withstand all the counterexamples you can think of throwing at it is a good indicator of its strength. Counterexamples are also a useful thing to generate when you are building an argument, so as to add rigor, and to help you anticipate objections.  You should try to find counterexamples to your argument in order to help you a) build rebuttals, and b) qualify your argument.  Don’t think of counterexamples and counterarguments as things to sweep under the carpet but rather as resources for helping you think through an issue, and for building stronger, more nuanced and sophisticated arguments.  This is one reason why it is important to listen to and engage the arguments of those you disagree with – argument is a social practice.