Sample arguments
Volatility in the stock market will probably persist for the foreseeable future. In a global economy, changing
circumstances anywhere in the world can create uncertainty.
•
Claim: value/judgment: volatility in the stock market will probably persist for the foreseeable future.
•
Grounds: In a global economy, changing circumstances anywhere in the world can create uncertainty.
•
Warrant: cause-effect reasoning; political and economic uncertainties elsewhere produce fluctuations in
stock values in the U.S.
Ronald Reagan’s likeness should be chiseled onto Mt. Rushmore, alongside Washington, Jefferson Lincoln and
Roosevelt. Polls show Americans rank him with John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest
presidents of all time.
•
Claim: policy Ronald Reagan’s likeness should be chiseled onto Mt. Rushmore.
•
Grounds: Polls show Americans rank him with JFK and Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
•
Warrant: value assumption; public popularity is the basis for determining whose face belongs on Mt.
Rushmore.
How do you know WWE wrestling is fake? I’ll tell you how. You never see the results printed in the Sports section
of the newspaper.
•
Claim: factual claim WWE wrestling is fake.
•
Grounds: The results are never reported in the Sports section of the newspaper.
•
Warrant: argument from authority & sign reasoning; authority; newspapers only print the results of
legitimate sports. sign; newspaper coverage is a reliable sign of a genuine sport
Conservatives may not like it, but citizens have a Constitutional right to burn the American flag. Flag burning is a
symbolic, political act and it is precisely such unpopular, offensive symbolic acts that the 1st amendment was
designed to protect.
•
Claim: value/judgment Conservatives may not like it, but citizens do have a Constitutional right to burn
the American flag.
•
Grounds: Flag burning is a symbolic, political act and it is precisely such unpopular, offensive symbolic acts
that the 1st amendment was designed to protect.
•
Warrant: value premise; Not only words, but symbolic acts, such as flag burning, are encompassed within
the scope of the 1st amendment.
Common Types of Claims
1.) Policy Claims: Something should be done or avoided
We should considered films more deeply; we should not consider current “political” rock and roll as honestly political; we
should/should not invade Iraq.
2.) Claims of Value: Evaluate or judge something
The CBC is a better model of broadcasting than PBS or NPR; Nightline does a better/worse job of examining a subject than
NOW; Sesame Street teaches people how to watch TV, not their ABC’s.
3.) Claims of Fact: What was, is, and shall be
Saddam Hussein has terrorized his neighbors and his own populace and will do so again; people respond to film simply as if
they were Beavis & Butthead, and as a result we get simple-minded films; political rock used to consider the relation of the
musician to the music, but now does nothing of the sort.
4.) Claims of Definition: Argue how something should be defined or categorized
Political rock should consider the relation of the musician to the music; Sesame Street should be considered as educational in
the traditional sense; news media in the US tends to fall either into public or commercial categories, each with its own pros
and cons.
Common Warrants
There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are often established. They
have the acronym “GASCAP”: Generalization, Analogy, Sign, Causality, Authority, Principle. These strategies are used at various
different levels of generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected and
work in combination.
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.
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 'casebased' 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?
3. Argument via Sign/Clue
The notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. For example, smoke is often
considered a sign for fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college.
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 of warrant. The biggest danger with it is mixing up correlation with causation.
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?
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 it 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?