The Little Red Schoolhouse
Session Seven
Developing Arguments
4
Page 218
Introduction
Focus
The University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 219
Developing Arguments
Structure of Arguments
The Five Questions of Argument
1. What do you think?
elicits
Claim
2. Why do you say that
elicits
Reasons
3. How do you know?
elicits
Evidence
4. Why do you think your reason
supports your claim?
elicits
Warrant
5. But what about this
alternative claim/reason/
evidence/warrant?
elicits
Acknowledgement &
Response
The Five Parts of Argument (Plus One)
1. Claim: A statement made to resolve a problem by motivating others to act or think in
ways they otherwise would not. Claims are always in question.
2. Reasons: statements made to support a claim. Reasons are always in question: they
represent the arguers contestable judgments about the states of affairs that make a
claim acceptable. Reasons interpret, generalize from, or highlight aspects of evidence.
3. Evidence: Statements (or other representations) of states of affairs that are not in
question (at least for the purposes of the argument) and that make reasons and claims
acceptable. Evidence almost always involves representations of states of affairs.
4. Warrants: Statements of general principles of reasoning that connect certain kinds of
reasons with certain kinds of claims. Warrants are often drawn from familiar
background knowledge shared by the participants in an argument, but they can also be
principles articulated for the first time. Warrants are most effective when they don’t
have to appear on the page.
5. Acknowledgment and Response: Statements that acknowledge alternative claims,
reasons, evidence, or warrants that do not support the claim in question. Responses can
reject the alternative summarily, argue against it, or indicate the degree to which the
alternative reduces the acceptability of the claim. Responses are optional.
+1. Qualifications: Words, phrases, and occasionally sentences that acknowledge some
degree of uncertainty, limit the range of a claim, or state limiting conditions (excluding
ceteris ceteribus clauses concerning obvious conditions that go without saying).
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 220
Developing Arguments
Structure of Argument
Qualifications enhance your credibility by showing readers that they can trust you to be
precise about the reliability and range of applicability of your argument.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 221
Developing Arguments
Structure of Arguments
The Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for
light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity
which constrains them to alter their former Systems of government The history of the present
King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having indirect object
the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted
to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws . . .
He has refused his Assent to Laws . . .
He has forbidden his Government to pass laws . . .
He has refused to pass other Laws . . .
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, . . .
He has dissolved Representative Houses . . .
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected . . .
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States . . .
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice . . .
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 222
Developing Arguments
Structure of Argument
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, . . .
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, . . .
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies . . .
He has affected to render the military independent . . .
He has combined with others . .
He has abdicated Government here, . .
He has plundered our seas, . . .
He is at this time transporting large Armies . . .
He has constrained our fellow Citizens . .
He has excited domestic insurrections . . .
[several more accusations follow]
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble
terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned
them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction
over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt
our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of
consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation
and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress
Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do,
in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as
Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract
Alliances, establish Commerce , and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States
may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 223
Developing Arguments
Reasons and Evidence
Distinguishing Reasons and Evidence -1
Reasons Are in Our Minds — Evidence Is out in the World
We commonly use those two words in ways that seem almost synonymous:
What reasons can you offer to support that claim?
What evidence can you offer to support that claim?
But evidence and reasons are not synonymous, because we can find contexts
where we can not exchange them.
Tell me your reasons/your evidence.
What is your reason/your evidence for proposing that?
We have to think up some good reasons/good evidence.
I want to see your reasons/your evidence with my own eyes.
It is important to search everywhere for good reasons/good evidence.
Most of the important questions in the world are those for which we have no good
reasons/no good evidence to decide either way.
The history of those two words illuminates one aspect of their difference:
• The word evidence goes back to the Latin e-videre, “to see.”
• The word reason goes back to the Latin ratio, "to calculate or think."
The first word seems to refer to what comes from outside your head; the second
to what comes from inside:
• When we praise evidence, we say it is “hard,” “concrete.” Evidence is
something that we seem to “look for” and then bring into our paper from
outside — quotations, numbers, data, facts, and so on.
• Reasons, on the other hand, are what we seem to think up on our own and
express in our own words to support our claims.
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 224
Developing Arguments
Reasons and Evidence
Distinguishing Reasons and Evidence -2
Reasons Sit on Evidence, Evidence Sits on Itself
Here is yet another way to distinguish reasons from evidence.
• Good reasons must rest on good evidence—or on other reasons—before we
can accept them as sound.
You claim "Hamlet was devoid of Christian values."
Your readers ask "Why do you believe that?"
You offer as a reason "Hamlet calculatedly decided not to kill his step-father
Claudius as Claudius was praying, because if he did, he would have sent him
to heaven instead of hell."
Before we accept that as a reason (if we find it at all plausible in the first place),
we might reasonably ask for evidence from the text that would support your
reason:
What's your evidence? What did Hamlet say or do that leads you to think
that he made a cold-blooded decision based on that reasoning?"
• That evidence is what you hope your readers will agree to as a starting point
in your argument, without their needing to see any argument supporting it.
This would count as evidence:
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying:
And now I'll do't; and so he goes to heaven;
And so am I reveng'd. That would be scann'd [examined closely]:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.
If you offer a quotation, numbers, a photograph and we accept them as reliable,
then we will accept that those bits of data qualify as evidence on their own,
without needing to see any further support.
If we reject your evidence as unreliable because you misquoted or quoted out of
context, we are challenging not your power of reasoning but your powers of
observation.
•
Good reasons need either evidence or other reasons to be sound.
•
Good evidence does not rest on more evidence, but on itself.
Now to be sure (here's where it gets complicated) someone might reject your
evidence as good evidence, claiming it is not “true.” If so, your reader is claiming
that our evidence is no longer evidence, but rather only a reason, or even an
unsupported claim. In that situation, we might have to mount a separate
argument first to make the case that our evidence is good evidence.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 225
Developing Arguments
Reasons and Evidence
Complication #1
Chains of Reasons
So far, we've been talking as if the spine of an argument was only three links
long. In fact, that middle step — reasons — may consist of multiple reasons:
An argument begins in evidence that supports a reason. That reason supports a
claim. But that claim then serves as a reason to support a next claim; and that
claim becomes a reason to support the next one, like this:
When Jefferson said "all men are created equal,"evidence
—> he laid down the first principle of civil society. That principle
implies that we come into the world with rights that cannot be taken
away.reason 1
—>[therefore] If someone does try to take them, it is the duty of
government to protect us, because that is why we have government in
the first place, to protect us against the rule of the jungle.claim/reason 2
—>[therefore] When government itself tries to deprive us of those
rights, we have have the duty to replace that government with
another that will protect us. claim/reason 3 In a democracy that
replacement can be done at the ballot box.
—> but when the government is a monarchy, [therefore] we must
throw off its rule by force, if necessary.main claim
•
The writer starts with evidence, a quotation.: “all men are created equal.”
•
He then offers reason 1 based on that evidence: we have rights that cannot be
taken away.
•
That reason 1 in turn supports a claim: we establish government to protect
those rights.
•
That claim becomes reason 2 that supports the next claim: when government
fails to do that, we must replace the government.
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 226
Developing Arguments
Reasons and Evidence
•
That claim becomes reason 3 to support the main claim: when that
government is a monarchy, we must throw off its rule by force.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 227
Developing Arguments
Reasons and Evidence
Complication #2
We usually offer only Reports of Evidence
Imagine the following conversations:
Bob:
I think we should build a monument to Harry Truman.
Ann:
What reasons do you have for thinking that?
Bob:
He was one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.
Ann:
Oh, why do you think that?
Bob:
He stopped Communist expansion by establishing the Marshall plan and by committing
American forces to defend South Korea.
Ann:
Well, I think you're right. You can't argue with that evidence.
Bob:
I think we should build a monument to Harry Truman.
Ann:
What reasons do you have for thinking that?
Bob:
He was one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.
Ann:
Oh, why do you think that?
Bob:
He stopped Communist expansion by establishing the Marshall Plan and by committing
American forces to defend South Korea.
Ann:
What reasons do you have for thinking that it was primarily he who was responsible for
adopting that plan and for committing us to defend South Korea?
Bob:
I have the notes from a variety of meetings at which these decisions were made, and it is
clear from the conversation that Truman was responsible for bringing everyone together
to back those two decisions, including many influential people who were strongly
opposed.
Ann:
Well, you know it is easy to misinterpret notes taken so long ago. \What actually do they
say?
Bob:
I happen to have them right here in my briefcase. Here they are. Read them yourself and
you'll see how influential Truman was and how opposed so many others were at first. He
says on June 29, 1945 that ". . . ."
Ann:
Well, I think you're right. You can't argue with that evidence.
Why is it that in the first Ann accepted as evidence only documents she could read for
herself and in the second she accepted as evidence Bob statement that Truman stopped
Communist expansion by establishing the Marshall Plan and by defending South
Korea?
Evidence is largely defined by what your
readers agree not to question.
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 228
Developing Arguments
Acknowledgment and Response
Because Arguments are Cooperative, You Must
Acknowledge the Ideas of Others
Four Forms of Acknowledgement
1. Objections to the implications of your claim
• But that solution is expensive/hard to implement/has been tried before/ etc.
• But if your claim is true, then we also have to believe . . .
• But if your claim is true, then we can’t also believe . . .
• But if your claim is true, then bad things will happen . . .
2. Objections to specific parts of your argument
• But I would draw a different conclusion . . .
• But I need more than X reasons to accept that claim . . .
• But that evidence is incomplete/unrepresentative/not fully reliable/ etc.
• But I would apply a different principle . . .
• But I define X differently . . .
3. Additional factors
• But have you considered these other reasons . . .
• But have you considered this other evidence . . .
• But have you considered this other line of reasoning . . .
• But have you considered this other principle . . .
4. Alternative views
• But so-and-so has claimed . . .
• But so-and-so found evidence showing . . .
• But what about this perspective . . .
◊◊◊
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 229
Developing Arguments
Acknowledgment and Response
The Language of Acknowledgment & Response
Acknowledging
When you respond to an anticipated alternative or objection, you must decide how much
weight to give it. You can just mention and dismiss it, or raise it and address it at
length. We have ordered these expressions roughly in that order, from most dismissive
to most respectful.
1. You can down play an objection or alternative by summarizing it briefly in a short
phrase introduced with despite, regardless of, or notwithstanding:
Despite Congress’ claims that it wants to cut taxes, acknowledgment the public
believes that . . . response
Regardless of problems in Hong Kong, acknowledgment Southeast Asia remains a
strong . . . response
Notwithstanding declining crime rates, acknowledgment there is still a need for
vigorous enforcement of … response
You can use although and while in the same way:
Although Congress claims it wants to cut taxes, acknowledgment the public believes
that … response
While there are problems in Hong Kong, acknowledgment Southeast Asia remains a
strong … response
Even though crime has declined, acknowledgment there is still a need for vigorous
enforcement of … response
2. You can indirectly signal an objection or alternative with a seem or appear, along with
some other qualifying conditioning verb or adverb, such as plausibly, justifiably,
reasonably, accurately, understandably; foolishly, surprisingly or even certainly.
In his letters, Lincoln expresses what seems to be depression. acknowledgment But
those who observed him… response
Smith’s data appear to support these claims. acknowledgment However, on closer
examination… response
This proposal may have some merit, acknowledgment but in light of… response
Liberals have made a plausible case that the arts ought to be supported by
taxpayers. acknowledgment But they ignore the moral objections of … response
3. You can acknowledge alternatives by attributing them to unnamed sources or to no
source at all. This kind of acknowledgment gives a little weight to the possible
objection. In these examples, brackets and slashes indicate choices:
It is easy to [think/imagine/say/claim/argue] that taxes should be spent on…
There is [another/alternative/ possible/standard] [explanation / line of argument
/ account / possibility].
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 230
Developing Arguments
Acknowledgment and Response
Some evidence [might/ may / could / would / does] [suggest/ indicate/ point to /
lead some to think] that we should…
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 231
Developing Arguments
Acknowledgment and Response
4. You can acknowledge an alternative by attributing it to a more or less specific source.
This construction gives slightly more validity to the position that you acknowledge:
There are some who [might/ may / could / would] [say / think / argue / claim /
charge/ object] that Cuba is not. . .
5. You can acknowledge an alternative in your own voice or with a passive verb or
concessive adverb. You concede the alternative has some validity, but by changing
the words, you can qualify how much validity you acknowledge.
I [understand/ know/ realize/ appreciate] that liberals believe in . . .
It is [true / possible / likely / certain] that no good evidence proves that coffee
causes cancer . . .
It [must / should / can] be [admitted / acknowledged / noted/ conceded] that no
good evidence proves that coffee causes cancer . . .
[Granted/ admittedly/ true/ to be sure / certainly /of course], Adams admitted…
We [can/ might / may / could / would] [say / argue / claim / think] that
spending on the arts supports pornographic . . .
We have to [consider / raise] the [question/ possibility / probability] that further
study [could/ might / will] show crime has not . . .
We cannot [overlook/ ignore / dismiss / reject] the fact that Cuba was . . .
What X [says/ states/ writes/ claims / asserts / argues / suggests / shows] may
[be true/ has merit/ make sense/ be a good point]: Perhaps Lincoln did suffer . . .
Responding
We signal a response with but, however, or on the other hand. Remember that after you
state your response, readers probably expect reasons and evidence supporting it,
because it will seem to be a claim needing an argument.
1. You can respond that the acknowledged position is irrelevant.
But as insightful as that position may be, it [ignores / is not relevant to / has no
bearing on/ was formulated for other situations than] the issue at hand.
2. You can respond that the acknowledged position is unreliable.
But the evidence is [unreliable/ shaky / thin/ not the best available].
But the argument is [untenable/ wrong / weak / confused / simplistic].
But that view [overlooks/ ignores/ misses] key factors . . .
But that position is based on [unreliable / faulty / weak / confused] [reasoning /
thinking / evidence].
◊◊◊
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 232
Developing Arguments
Warrants
WARRANTS
C: I need new sneakers. These are dirty. Look at these raggedy laces.
P: Raggedy laces and dirt aren’t enough reason to buy new sneakers.
C: Billy thinks I should get new shoes.
P: What does that have to do with it?
C: Everybody else got new shoes.
P: I doubt it, but it doesn't matter either.
C: Parents who don’t love their kids don’t buy them new shoes. Don’t you love me?
P: No new sneakers.
C: I need new sneakers.claim These are dirty. Look at these raggedy laces.evidence
P: Raggedy laces and dirt aren’t enough reason to buy new sneakers. [i.e., What you say may be true, but
it is not relevant evidence. Dirt and raggedy shoelaces are insufficient evidence of the bad condition of shoes.]
C: Billy thinks I should get new shoes.evidence
P: What does that have to do with it? [i.e., It does not matter whether your observation is true. Billy’s opinion
is not authoritative; moreover it’s irrelevant.]
C: Everybody else got new sneakers.evidence
P: I doubt it, but it doesn't matter what they get. [i.e., I do not care whether your statement is true; I do
not buy you things only because other people get them.]
C: Parents who don’t love their kids don’t buy them new shoes.general principle Don’t you love
me?implied claim
P: No new shoes. [i.e., Your principle is true: parents who don’t love their children usually neglect them, and so
don’t buy them new shoes when they need them. But in order to conclude, as your question implies, that I do not
love you, the converse must also be true: all parents who do not buy their children new shoes thereby do not love
them. This last principle is false, so you cannot conclude that I do not love you because I will not buy you new
shoes.]
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 233
Developing Arguments
Warrants
Finding and Testing Warrants
Imagine the following conversation between friends:
Tarik:
You should buy a gun. claim
Leah:
Why?
Tarik:
Because you live alone in the woods. reason
Leah:
Why does that mean I should buy a gun.?
To answer Leah’s second “Why?” Tarik needs a warrant, a general principle that Leah
accepts and that “covers” his connection of his reason to his claim. Although he can
state the warrant in many ways, all warrants have the same underlying logical structure.
The warrant has two parts, one that corresponds to the reason and one that corresponds
to the claim. Each part of the warrant should be more general than its corresponding
reason or claim (at least one part must be more general).
WARRANT BOX
Reason Side
Claim Side
Whenever this general condition exists, reason
we can infer this general conclusion. claim
This reason is true. reason
Therefore, this claim is valid. claim
Step 1: Find a general principle that covers the claim and reason.
Tarik can find a warrant to cover this claim and reason by looking for ways to generalize
the major terms in each. Then he should state that principle in its most explicit form:
“Whenever X, we can conclude Y.”
You should buy a gun. claim
you
buy
—>
—>
—>
friend, American, woman, person
—>
—>
—>
friend, American, woman, person
obtain, own, have, keep
gun
weapon, instrument of violence, protection, threat
Because you live alone in the woods. reason
you
live
alone
in the woods
University of Virginia
exist, ?????
isolated, without companions, ?????
—>
in nature, peacefully, without neighbors
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 234
Developing Arguments
Warrants
Whenever a woman lives alone in an isolated place, reason side she should obtain the
means to protect herself. claim side
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 235
Developing Arguments
Warrants
Step 2: Add appropriate qualifications.
Stated so baldly, Tarik’s principle seems too general. What about a woman living alone
on a desert island? Why would she need protection? Would a nuclear bomb qualify as a
means to protect herself? So to make his warrant more acceptable, he has to add
qualifications:
Whenever a woman lives alone in an isolated place where she may encounter strangers
and cannot get help quickly, reason side she should take reasonable precautions to protect
herself. claim side
Step 3: Test the warrant to see whether it covers both the reason and the claim.
By putting his warrant, reason, and claim into a “warrant box,” Tarik can check whether
Lean is likely to accept his warrant as a principle that should lead her to agree that she
should buy a gun. Does the reason side of the warrant cover the reason? That is, will
Leah think that “living alone in the woods” counts as a good instance of “living alone in
an isolated place where she may encounter strangers and cannot get help quickly”?
Does the claim side of the warrant cover the claim? That is, will Leah think that “buying a
gun” is a good instance of “taking reasonable precautions to protect herself”?
Reason Side
Claim Side
Whenever a woman lives alone in an isolated
place where she may encounter strangers and
cannot get help quickly, reason
she should take reasonable precautions to
protect herself. claim
You live alone in the woods. reason
Therefore, you should buy a gun. claim
Step 4: Rephrase the warrant in more persuasive terms.
Warrants are not always most persuasive in the “Whenever X, then Y” form. So long as
he preserves its logical structure, Tarik can state his warrant in whatever form suits his
style and Leah’s preferences.
A woman who lives far from civilization can’t call for help, so she’d better take
reasonable precautions to be able to protect herself.
If you can’t get a cop, you need a gun.
A woman alone needs a gun.
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 236
Developing Arguments
Warrants
Tarik:
You should buy a gun. claim
Leah:
Why?
Tarik:
Because you live alone in the woods. reason
Leah:
Why does that mean I should buy a gun.?
Tarik:
A woman who lives that far from civilization can’t call for help, so she’d better take
reasonable precautions to be able to protect herself. warrant
Leah will be persuaded to accept Tarik’s claim only if she believes the warrant is true. If
she doesn’t, then Tarik has to find a new principle or make an argument to persuade her
to accept this one. But Leah also has to believe not only that the warrant is true but that
it covers her situation. She will reject his claim if she can in fact get help quickly (for
instance, from a neighboring woodsman), or if she does not believe that a gun is a
reasonable precaution, or if she is insulted by Tarik’s assumption that a woman must be
able to call for help, and so on.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 237
Developing Arguments
Organizing Arguments
Where to Locate The Parts of Argument
Match the Core Argument Structure to the Text Structure
ISSUE / INTRO
ISSUE / INTRO
Claim
Reason 1
Evidence
1
Reason 2
Evidence
2
Reason 3
Evidence
3
Reason 4
ISSUE / INTRO
ISSUE / INTRO
Claim
I
Reason 1
D
I
S
C
Evidence
1
I
Reason 2
D
I
S
C
I
D
I
S
C
I
Evidence
D
4
I
S
C
Evidence
1
Reason 1
D
I
S
D
CB
UO
S D
S Y
I
O
N
Evidence
2
Evidence
2
University of Virginia
Reason 1
Evidence
2
Reason 2
Reason 2
Evidence
3
Evidence
3
Reason 3
Reason 3
Evidence
4
Evidence
4
Reason 3
Evidence
3
Reason 4
Evidence
4
Reason 4
Claim
CONCLUSION
Evidence
1
CONCLUSION
Reason 4
Claim
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 238
Developing Arguments
Organizing Arguments
Where to Locate The Parts of Argument
Match Warrants and A&R to Reader’s Immediate Needs
Locate Warrants near the Claim or Reason whose
support they guarantee.
If you expect readers to accept a warrant without a supporting argument, locate it
before its related claim or reason.
If you intend to support a warrant with a sub-argument, locate it after its related
claim or reason but before you develop the support for that claim or reason.
If you are using a familiar warrant to emphasize a claim, put it at the end of the
text unit as a Coda.
Locate Acknowledgement & Response where readers
are likely to think of the question you acknowledge.
If you intend to dismiss an objection or alternative view quickly, mention it briefly
before you develop your own position.
If you know readers expect you to take a position different from the one you will
take, acknowledge it and explain why you do not accept it before you develop
your own position.
If you know readers will have serious objections that you must address, you have
three options:
(1) acknowledge and rebut them as soon as they become relevant to your
argument;
(2) acknowledge each objection as soon as it becomes relevant to your
argument, but rebut all of them after you have developed your own position;
(3) acknowledge at the start that readers will have objections you do not specify,
and wait until after you have developed your own position to acknowledge
and rebut specific ones.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 239
Developing Arguments
How Argument Fail
Where Arguments Go Wrong - 1
I don't accept your evidence
Your evidence is not
•
true/accurate:
"You got your facts wrong."
•
sufficient:
"You don't have enough evidence."
•
precise
"It is too vague and general."
•
representative
"It doesn't accurately reflect the data available."
•
current
"It's out of date."
•
authoritative
"It comes from an unreliable source."
Where Arguments Go Wrong -2
I don’t see the how your evidence connects to the claim
It is particularly important to make clear the relationship among claim, reason,
and evidence when you are dealing with uninterpreted data such as quantitative
information or quotations. Compare these three passages:
1a.
Since Alameda, Danberg, and Eden need new revenues, they will probably have
to impose a city sales taxclaim.
1b.
Since Alameda, Danberg, and Eden need new revenues, they will probably have
to impose a city sales taxclaim:.
Table 12-2: 1993 Revenues for Selected Municipalities (in millions)
Alameda
Blythe
Capital
Danberg
Eden
University of Virginia
Total
$
1.43
8.19
20.02
3.03
10.32
Sales Tax
$
%
0.00 (00)
2.37 (28)
7.41 (37)
0.00 (00)
0.00 (00)
User Fees
$
%
0.97 (68)
3.38 (41)
2.60 (13)
0.39 (13)
3.61 (35)
Property Taxes
$
%
0.20 (14)
2.44 (31)
7.41 (37)
1.48 (49)
5.16 (50)
evidence
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 240
Developing Arguments
How Arguments Fail
1c. Since Alameda, Danberg, and Eden need new revenues, reason they will
probably have to impose a city sales tax.claim Those three municipalities
now get the bulk of their revenue from user fees and property taxes,
none from sales taxes, the only source of revenue still untapped. reason
Table 12-2: 1993 Revenues for Selected Municipalities (in millions)
Alameda
Blythe
Capital
Danberg
Eden
Total
$
1.43
8.19
20.02
3.03
10.32
Sales Tax
$
%
0.00 (00)
2.37 (28)
7.41 (37)
0.00 (00)
0.00 (00)
User Fees
$
%
0.97 (68)
3.38 (41)
2.60 (13)
0.39 (13)
3.61 (35)
Property Taxes
$
%
0.20 (14)
2.44 (31)
7.41 (37)
1.48 (49)
5.16 (50)
evidence
2a.
Hamlet most clearly shows his lack of Christian values when he plots
revenge against his stepfather Claudius..claim
2b.
Hamlet most clearly shows his lack of Christian values when he plots
revenge against his stepfather Claudius.claim
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying:
And now I'll do't; and so he goes to heaven;
And so am I reveng'd. That would be scann'd [examined closely]:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.evidence
2c.
Hamlet most clearly shows his lack of Christian values when he plots
revenge against his stepfather Claudius.claim When he had an
opportunity to kill Claudius while Claudius was praying, Hamlet
chose not to because if he killed Claudius then, he would send him to
heaven, and he wanted to send him to hell as an act of
revenge.reason:
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying:
And now I'll do't; and so he goes to heaven;
And so am I reveng'd. That would be scann'd [examined closely]:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.evidence
When you present data to support a claim, add a sentence or two that
interpret or summarize the data, thereby providing an intervening
reason to support the claim.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 241
Developing Arguments
How Argument Fail
Where Arguments Go Wrong - 3
I don't accept your warrant
Let's say that you are doing a paper on Shakespeare's King Lear, and you offer this little
argument (we omit the evidence--quotations from the play):
King Lear was justified in banishing his daughter Cordeliaclaim because while
her two sisters testified publicly how much they loved him, Cordelia
refused.reason
How would you explain how and why your reason supports your claim? You could not just
quote more lines from the text. You would have to offer a general principle. You could
phrase it in several ways:
Rejecting a king in public justifies punishing any offender.
A king can punish anyone who rejects him in public.
All public rejections of a king merit punishment.
Punishment is appropriate for publicly offending a king.
But we will continue to break out the warrant into two clear parts:
When someone publicly rejects a king, evidence side he may punish that person.
claim side
But what if readers believe that this warrant is in fact true? It is, after all, itself only a claim.
Someone might think it false, objecting that even a king doesn't have that right. If so a writer
has two options:
1. Construct another section of her essay that would try to establish the truth of that warrant
by means of another argument.
2. Find another warrant that applies.
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 242
Developing Arguments
How Arguments Fail
Where Arguments Go Wrong - 4
Your warrant may be true, but it doesn't apply to your claim or evidence
Let's say that you finally persuade your reader to accept as true the warrant that a king has the
right to punish someone who rejects him in public. But she might then object to whether that
warrant actually applies to the reason:
OK, you've persuaded me that a king has a right to punish someone who rejects
him in public. But look, Cordelia didn't really reject him. She only remained
silent. He simply took offense at something that was not intended. So even if I
accept your warrant as true, it doesn't really apply to your reason.
In the same way, someone might object that your claim does not fit the warrant:
OK, I agree that a king has a right to punish someone who offends him in public
and I even agree that she did publicly reject him, but banishment goes way
beyond punishment. He could have reprimanded her or punished her in some
other way, but banishing her is more than just punishing her. That's like killing
her.
In either case, the writer has two options:
1. Construct another section of her essay that would try to establish by means of another
argument that the reason or the claim does count as an instance of the reason or claim
side of the warrant.
2. Find another warrant that applies.
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Page 243
Developing Arguments
How Argument Fail
Where Arguments Go Wrong - 5
Your warrant is generally true but there are exceptions
Let's say that after all this you finally persuade your reader of all this:
•
The warrant is true: a king does have the right to punish someone who offends
him in public,
•
The warrant does cover Cordelia's behavior.
•
The claim does cover Lear's response.
That person might still object:
OK, you've persuaded me--Cordelia rejected him, banishment counts as
legitimate punishment, and kings can punish people who offend them, . All that
is true, unless the person banished happens to be his daughter. Then none
of that applies. He might have been justified in banishing Kent, say, but not his
daughter Cordelia.
In offering that objection, your reader trumps your warrant with a higher one:
When a person is a child of a king, the king cannot banish that person.
Now what? Well, now you have to mount yet another argument against that claim. By this
point, your argument is quite complex.
You can see that readers can criticize an argument on lots of grounds:
•
The evidence is just bad evidence: it is not accurate, sufficient, etc.
•
The warrant is false.
•
The warrant does not apply to either the reason or the claim.
•
The claim is too general; there are exceptions and objections.
◊◊◊
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 244
Developing Arguments
FFA
AQ
Qss
?
“Isn’t ‘hard’ evidence always the best evidence?”
Yes it is. But the problem is that to call evidence “hard” is simply another way to say
that it’s what we consider the best evidence. Many people like to think that the best—
hard—evidence is always the evidence of our senses. We say that we are looking for a
“smoking gun, “ that “Seeing is believing” or that “The proof of the pudding is in the
eating.” But there are several complications with that way of thinking.
First, we know that our senses may not provide the best evidence, especially when it
involves our memories of sensory experience. For example, it is well established that
eyewitness testimony is not the most reliable kind. People “clean up” their memories of
what they directly experienced—dropping out what seem to them irrelevant details and
constructing their memories so that they tell a better story. We are also prone to
remember that we actually experienced things that we only expected to experience—as
when after seeing a standard-looking American flag we swear that we saw white stars
on the blue field when in fact the flag had pale blue circles where we expected to see
white stars. Even worse, what we remember of our sensory experiences is influenced by
our present circumstances—as when eye witnesses report that a car was going faster if
they are asked, “How fast was the car going when it crashed into the barrier?” and
slower if they are asked, “How fast was the car going when it bumped into the barrier?”
Second, much of the evidence available for us to see (or touch, hear, etc.) is in fact
already highly processed information. We may know what we see, but not recognize
what we are really looking at. For example, we seem to see a broken bone on an X-ray,
when in fact we are looking at a highly processed representation—as is the case when
we see brain activity in an MRI scan or matching patterns in a DNA chart. A great deal
of what now counts as direct, “hard” evidence in scientific research is this kind of highly
processed information.
Third, the evidence that we can experience with our senses is often not the best
available evidence. Not only do many arguments concern matters to large, too small, too
diffuse, or otherwise unavailable for direct sensory experience, but even when we can
get it, sensory evidence is often not the best evidence. For example, DNA matches are
better evidence of identity than are eyewitness reports or surveillance tapes; complex
meteorological models provide better evidence of weather patterns than what we see in
the sky; and court-side lasers offer better evidence of whether a tennis serve was in or
our than do the observations of the side judges.
?
“How much evidence is enough?”
Little Red Schoolhouse
University of Virginia
Developing Arguments
Page 245
FFA
AQ
Qss
There’s an easy answer: “As much as it takes for your readers to accept your reasons.”
That answer is not as glib and useless a it might sound. To make it more useful, let’s
break it out into parts.
1) Readers don’t want you just to make the largest pile of evidence you can. They want
only enough evidence to feel confident that they can accept the reason that evidence
supports.
University of Virginia
Little Red Schoolhouse
7
7
Page 246
Developing Arguments
FFA
AQ
Qss
2) Readers in a specific field expect not only specific kinds of evidence but also specific
amounts of evidence, often depending on the kind of document and argument. For
example, the FDA requires a great deal of highly reliable evidence that a drug works
before it approves it for general use; a drug company needs less (and different) evidence
before it invests in testing that drug; and the NIH needs still other evidence before it
funds a study of the longer-term effects of approved drugs.
3) The stronger your evidence, the less you need; the weaker it is, the more you need.
Once you have shown readers evidence that is reliable and settles the case, you do not
improve their response if you add in a lot of less reliable, less definitive evidence. If
anything, you risk confusing them into thinking all of your evidence is as weak as your
weakest. On the other hand, readers look for more if they have to weigh the effects of
uncertain evidence; but they are seldom persuaded by piles and piles of bad evidence.
4) The more your readers resist your claim, the more and better evidence you need.
Resisting readers will find every weakness in your evidence, and they are likely to
weigh it against all of the reasons they have for not wanting your claim to be true. The
more solid evidence you can show them, the better chance you have of overcoming their
resistance.
If you are uncertain what kind and how much evidence you need, check out arguments
that your readers find persuasive. You can create your own personal “evidence index” by
estimating the ratio of space given to evidence vs space given to reasons. Try to be
slightly on the high side of that index.
?
“Aren’t reasons just more claims?”
Reasons are sub-claims supported by evidence (and perhaps also by other reasons). But
there are two important differences.
First, you offer your claim as the solution to the problem that prompted you to make an
argument in the first place. Reasons are usually not solutions to any particular problem
(except of course the problem of supporting your claim).
Second, to be worth making an argument about, a claim must be contestable—
something that readers would not do or think without the support of your argument.
Reasons can be contestable, but they often are not.
LR
Little Red Schoolhouse
S
University of Virginia