FdA Housing with Support
Study Skills: How to construct an argument
1.
The Components of an Argument
A good way of understanding or constructing an argument is to view the process
in reverse, starting with the conclusion and working back towards the argument’s
opening statement.
1. Define the nub of the argument-what is the conclusion?
2. What central premise does this conclusion rest on?
3. Is this premise supported by the literature?
4. Link this to a generic premise which is likely to be supported. This is the
starting point.
5. Once that part of the argument is built, return to the practical applications,
or implications, acknowledge the pitfalls of this premise, and competing
perspectives within the literature.
2.
Handy things to know about arguments
Types of arguments
Anytime someone’s trying to persuade you to buy something, give money, do
something, make a judgment, or change your mind about anything, they are
attempting to make an argument for or against something. There are two types
of argument, both of which will be very familiar:

Emotional arguments attempt to be persuasive by ‘tugging on the heart
strings’; they often rely on connotative language and sensationalism.

Logical arguments seek to persuade by constructing a rational argument
that appeals to the intelligence, by using comparisons, analogies, theories,
facts and research; in short, by assembling evidence to support the case
being made.
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
1
The academics seek to discover truth through rational arguments built on
research findings and logic.
Pitfalls in Arguments
Here are some potential pitfalls that will weaken an argument:

Claiming too much: make sure you can prove what you say. A statement
beginning 'Everyone knows that...' or 'Everyone thinks that...' cannot be
proved (no one can know what everyone either knows or thinks and . it
only takes one person to claim the opposite for your statement to be
proven false.) and immediately undermines the argument that follows

Oversimplification: many issues are very complex, and to ignore such
complexity simply weakens an argument, making it easier to defeat.

Arguments should always be supported with concrete evidence:
topics should be researched thoroughly.

Reliance on personal opinion: your opinion is valid and you are entitled
to have one, but arguments that hinge on personal opinion are very
subjective. Always set your argument in more objective terms: as an
objective truth that stands by itself. This should mean that any attacks on
your argument are not personalised i.e. an attack on you rather than your
argument.
Strategies
Cogency
Firstly, make your argument cogent. An argument is cogent if the truth of the
argument's premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the
argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true.
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
2
Organisation
Then organise your argument. Argumentative strategies are the way a writer has
organised his or her argument in order to persuade you. As a reader, you would
ask 'what tools has the writer used to construct this argument?' The strategies
listed here are likely to be used in arguments in a variety of contexts. You can
begin by asking some preliminary questions:
1. What is the thesis of the argument?
When you have read the argument several times, determine exactly what
the writer's argument is, not just in general terms: 'this writer favours the
privatisation of social housing', but specifically: 'this writer is arguing in
favour of the privatisation of social housing regardless of the quality of its
management, the quality of the housing stock or the views of the tenants'.
2. What reasons are given in support of the thesis?
Some reasons will be stated explicitly, others will be implied; you must
discover both. Here is an example of an analysis of an argument:
Thesis: the legal age for drinking alcohol ought to be raised to twenty-one.
Reason: alcohol leads to anti-social behaviour by young people.
Support for reason: It is well known that excessive intake of alcohol is one
of the greatest contributing factors to prosecutions for anti-social
behaviour by people aged below 21 years.
Logic
Logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning. An argument is a form of
logical reasoning using a group of statements that advance a particular point of
view. A statement is a sentence that makes a factual claim. Here are two
statements, which may be either true or false:
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
3
Cows eat grass.
All politicians are honest.
Statements that lead to a conclusion are usually called its premises. In an
argument, the statements come to a conclusion. When you are evaluating an
argument, bear in mind these two points:

If one or both of the premises are false, then the argument is not
acceptable.

The premises must have a direct relationship with the conclusion. An
argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion.
A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in
support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion, which is also a
sentence that is either true or false.
Deductive arguments
A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises provide, or appear
to provide, complete support for the conclusion. A good deductive argument is
known as a valid argument in which all its premises are true, meaning that its
conclusion must be true. If the argument is valid and actually has all true
premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or
more false premises, it will be unsound. Here is an example of a deductive
argument:
Premise 1: If Bill is a cat, then Bill is a mammal.
Premise 2: Bill is a cat.
Conclusion: Bill is a mammal.
In deductive arguments the conclusion follows from the premises and all the
information in the conclusion is contained in the premises. Deductive arguments
are either valid or invalid. A valid argument is one in which the premises
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
4
guarantee the argument. We should accept the conclusion only if all the
premises are true and the argument is valid. To test the truth of the conclusion,
test whether the premises are true and whether the argument is valid.
Inductive arguments
An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises provide, or appear
to provide, some degree of support, but less than complete support, for the
conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for
the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good inductive argument is
known as a strong or cogent inductive argument, which means that when the
premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true. Here is an example of an
Inductive Argument:
Premise 1: Most cats are domestic.
Premise 2: Bill is a cat.
Conclusion: Bill is a domestic cat.
In the inductive argument the conclusion goes way beyond the evidence given in
the premises: the premises build up a case for the conclusion. It is judged not as
valid or invalid, but as a strong or weak argument, that is, the evidence can be so
overwhelming that we can say we know a conclusion is true or we can suspend
judgment because there is insufficient evidence to persuade us.
Fallacies
A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid, meaning that it could
have all true premises and still have a false conclusion. Here is an example of a
Deductive Fallacy:
Premise 1: If Cardiff is the capital of Wales, then it is in Wales.
Premise 2: Cardiff is in Wales.
Conclusion: Cardiff is the capital of Wales.
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
5
An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. It is simply an
argument that appears to be an inductive argument but the premises do not
provided enough support for the conclusion. Consequently, even if the premises
are true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true. Here is an example
of an Inductive Fallacy:
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Rutland Water, I saw a white swan.
Conclusion: All Rutland Water swans are white.
Fallacies are identifiable errors in reasoning; that is, when someone makes an
error in reasoning, chances are it could be classified as an error. This gives a
more intellectual approach to analysing an argument.
Some common fallacies:
Ad hominem/personal attack/poisoning the well: these are all about attacking
a person instead of his or her argument. They range from character
assassination, such as saying someone cannot be trusted, to claiming that
someone's argument is false because of their personal characteristics.
Anecdotal evidence: this is basing evidence for a position on one story, or
maybe a couple, for example, making a statement beginning with “someone said
to me…” and then building an argument on hearsay or anecdote. This will prove
nothing and can be easily overturned and by an anecdote that states the
opposite.
Appeal to authority: this is claiming something to be true on the grounds that it
is endorsed by a person in authority, for example, the prime minister is religious:
religion must be right. Not necessarily so! The prime minister’s beliefs prove
nothing.
Appeal to common practice /appeal to popularity: this is similar to appealing
to authority: claiming that something is good (or true or worthwhile) simply
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
6
because it is common. An example of this is stating that all landlords must have
tenant participation policies. Why? All the other landlords have TP policies!
Adopting TP policies may or may not be a good thing, but doing it because
everyone else has does not make it inherently good.
Appeal to pity/ ad misericordiam: claiming a privilege on the grounds of mercy.
You've got to give me an 'A' for my essay because I worked very hard on it and I
had to go to work every day! Your essay will score an 'A' if it deserves it,
regardless of the circumstances in which it was produced.
Argument from ignorance/ burden of proof: claiming that something is true
simply because it cannot be disproved. Ergo, God must exist because you can't
prove he doesn't! WRONG!
Begging the question/circular argument: going around in circles: people who
read Dostoyevsky’s novels are very intelligent! How do you know? Well, they
read Dostoyevsky’s novels. Here the alleged proof is simply a repetition of the
opening contention, going full circle and proving nothing.
Post hoc/questionable cause/confusing cause and effect: this is behind
much superstitious practice: every time I buy a Lotto ticket from that shop, I win
something. That is co-incidence. The consequence of an action has become its
reason for happening.
False analogy: comparing chalk and cheese or two things that cannot be
compared.
False dilemma: giving your opponent only two options. This is rarely the case in
a complex issue.
Hasty generalisation/ Small sample/ Dicto simpliciter: these are related, not
identical. A small sample is when there is too small a number from which to draw
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
7
any conclusions. Also be aware of using unqualified generalisations: exercise is
good! Not for everyone, recent heart surgery patients, for example.
Slippery slope: this is an argument that takes you from a small beginning to the
worst possible scenario: better give up smoking because next you'll be on drugs,
then you'll be in debt and then you'll ruin your life! That's a slippery slope.
How to construct an argument
FdA Study Skills
8