You
make judgments all the time about which arguments are good, bad, persuasive,
unpersuasive, etc. In the
course of listening to and judging arguments, you have probably internalized a
set of rough criteria for evaluating them.
We can externalize and reflect on these criteria, so as to be able to better
analyze, interpret, and compose strong
arguments.
Claim: At the most general level, the claim is reasonable – buttressed with sufficient evidence, grounds, warrants, etc. Claim follows from (is closely tied to) evidence, grounds and warrants.
The general type of claim – substantiation, evaluation, recommendation/public policy – contains the appropriate kinds of support. Fulkerson argues that the different kinds of claim impose different standards and demands when it comes to evidence, or for establishing a prima facie case. Substantiation involves questions of definition & fact
In practice, these different types of claim are often hard to disentangle.
E.g.: affirmative action. Questions of definition and fact. What is affirmative action; what does it seek to address; what kind of problem is racism, and to what extent does affirmative action help lessen its effects.
Questions of evaluation: under what condition is it justified?
Questions of recommendation: what should be done? Should affirmative action be abolished, reformed, extended, etc.
Evidence/Support for Claim:
Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of evidence from statistical, textual,
authority, or experiential realms to support claim. In each case, there are
criteria that determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable and
relevant; the experience is reasonably
typical and relevant. The statistics
are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to date, and
verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency,
scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim. In the Toulmin model, evidence
comes into play in 2 places: as data/evidence that supports a claim with the
aid of a warrant; or which functions as 'backing', and directly supports the
sufficiency of the warrant.
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning
that connect the grounds to the claim. These exist at various different levels
of
generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically
they are interconnected and work in
combination. There are 6 main
argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and
claim are often established.
1.
Argument based on Generalization
A very common form of
reasoning. It assumes that what is true
of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a
larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample
can be inferred of the group/population.
To evaluate this we need to
determine the scope of the
generalization (some, many, the majority, most, all, etc.).
The scope of the argument will determine the degree to which a sufficient
amount of typical, accurate,
relevant support is required (although the extent to which a generalization
is accepted by your audience is
also crucial here). We also need to
consider the nature, uniformity and stability of the group, category
or population being generalized about.
For example a key question in the O.J. Simpson trial concerned
which population ought to be used when generalizing about the likelihood of a
wife-beater going on to murder his spouse.
2. Argument based on Analogy
Extrapolating from one situation
or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event.
Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal
discourse. What is important here is
the
extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2
contexts. Are there sufficient,
typical,
accurate, relevant similarities? Example: gun ownership went up in Florida and
crime went down at the same
time. Therefore other states ought to
make guns more available.
3. Argument via Sign/Clue
Taking evidence of something
visible as symptomatic of something not visible. Smoke as a sign for fire.
For
example some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will
do well in college. We
evaluate it via the STAR
criteria. That is, for a sign to be
reliable, we need a sufficient number of typical,
accurate and relevant instances.
4.
Causal Argument
Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the
most complex of the different forms. The big dangers with it are:
A) Mixing up correlation with causation
B) falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and
causation,
this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
C) We can evaluate it via the STAR criteria. That is, for an argument about cause to be reliable, we need
a sufficient number of typical, accurate and relevant instances. Also important are questions concerning degree
of correlation; the question of controls; elimination of other factors; the extent to which causes are partial,
necessary or sufficient.
D) Confusing necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes
5.
Argument from Authority
Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological
or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities
are likely to agree on?
Using STAR: can we find a
sufficient number of authoritative sources, accurately cited with relevant knowledge
which agree, and whose arguments are persuasive?
To what degree does an authority exhibit logos, pathos and ethos (or good sense, good character and good will)?
6.
Argument from Principle
Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle
applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does is accurately apply to the situation in question?
Are there commonly agreed on
exceptions? Are there 'rival'
principles that lead to a different claim?
Are
the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently
desirable?
GENERAL CRITERIA
1. STAR: sufficiency, typicality,
accuracy, and relevance.
2. The nature of the basic categories and definitions constructed or applied in the argument.
3. The degree of consistency and coherence within the chain of reasoning.
4. The extent to which non-contradiction and ‘fallacious’ reasoning is avoided.
5. The extent to which counter-examples and counter-arguments are dealt with.
6. How credible are the assumptions on which an argument is founded? What kind of
implications follow from an argument?
7. “Nuance”: how qualifications and objections are managed.
8. How well does the argument
understand the audience and context of debate?
9. Are there significant gaps, silences or absences in an argument?
10. The Avoidance of forms of reasoning that approximate fallacies.
Discussion of ‘fallacies’ is not
useful as a laundry list of forms to avoid, or as an algorithm for finding
weaknesses in authors’
arguments, but as a way of reflecting on the nature of chains of reasoning,
for talking about the strengths and weaknesses of argumentative claims and
the evidence, support, backing, assumptions etc. associated with them.
Fallacies Related to GASCAP warrants:
1. Hasty Generalization
2. False Analogy
3. Fallible Sign
4. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact)
5. False authority
6. Fallacy of Accident – general principle misapplied, rebuttal conditions not noticed.
Other Fallacies
1. Straw Man
2. Slippery Slope
3. Begging the Question
4. False Dilemma/Dichotomy
5. Genetic Fallacy
6. Shifting the burden of proof
7. Argument ad Ignoratium (argument from ignorance)
8. Red Herring
9. Argument Ad Misericordium
10. Ad Hominem
Abusive – directed at speaker
Circumstantial – directed at some group. Similar to ‘Poisoning the Well’
Tu quoquo (‘thou too’)