Argument Prompt:
EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT
EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT!!!!!
A writer is always trying to have his way with you. The question is HOW does he or she
accomplish that goal? Always ask yourself: WHAT IS THE WRITER’S PURPOSE????
Argument = Conviction or Belief—Appeal to Logos (Reason)
Persuasion = Call to Action—Appeal to Logos, Pathos, Ethos
 Often arguments rely on assumptions. Examine assumptions.
 Many arguments are implied rather than stated.
 Faulty arguments are known as fallacies.
o CLAIM
o EVIDENCE
o MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS / PATHOS-- Appealing to: shared values,
tradition, authority, fear, guilt, shame, pity, spite, ridicule, popularity, novelty, fun,
flattery
o APPEAL TO REASON (LOGOS)
REASONING–INFERENCES (Deductive vs. Inductive),
ASSUMPTIONS, FALLACIES
o SPEAKER – APPEAL TO ETHOS; BIAS
 Argumentation
Authority
Evidence—Support
Refutation
Thesis-Antithesis
 Persuasion
Emotional—Pathos
Ethical—Ethos (reputation or tribe)
Logical—Logos
 Apophasis—mentioning while pretending not mention
 Aporia— the expression of a simulated or real doubt, as about where to begin or what to do or
say
 Set the agenda for what’s to come --hypophora
 Brief statement of what has been said and what will follow – metabasis
 Anticipate an objection
 Concession to the other side
Elements of Logic—syllogism, enthymeme
Logical Fallacies:
 Ad hominem—Personal attack; Poisoning the well; Judging the argument by the who the speaker
is rather than by the logic of the argument itself
 False Analogy
 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (False cause, Doubtful cause)
 Either-or fallacy
 Generalization
 Hasty generalization / Lacks representative sample
 Sweeping Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter)
 Guilt by Association
 Slippery Slope
 Non-sequitur
 Begging the question
 Oversimplification
 Red herring
 Straw man
 Confusing a whole for the part or a part for the whole / Fallacies of Division and Composition
 False appeals: Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordium)
 Appeal to Authority
 Old is better Argumentum ad antiquitatem (Saying something's right because it's always been done
that way)
 New is better
 Bandwagon appeal (Everybody is doing it/buying it, so it must be good.)
 Two wrongs make a right.
Understanding Premises, Inferences, and Conclusions Austin Cline,
About.com Guide
When people create and critique arguments, it's helpful to understand what an argument
is and is not. Sometimes an argument is seen as a verbal fight, but that is not what is
meant in these discussions. Sometimes a person thinks they are offering an argument
when they are only providing assertions.
Perhaps the simplest explanation of what an argument is comes from Monty Python’s
Argument Clinic sketch:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite
proposition. ...an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
This may have been a comedy sketch, but it highlights a common misunderstanding: to
offer an argument, you cannot simply make a claim or gainsay what others claim.
An argument is a deliberate attempt to move beyond just making an assertion. When
offering an argument, you are offering a series of related statements which represent an
attempt to support that assertion — to give others good reasons to believe that what you
are asserting is true rather than false.
Here are examples of assertions:
1. Shakespeare wrote the play Hamlet.
2. The Civil War was caused by disagreements over slavery.
3. God exists.
4. Prostitution is immoral.
Sometimes you hear such statements referred to as propositions. Technically speaking, a
proposition is the informational content of any statement or assertion. To qualify as a
proposition, a statement must be capable of being either true or false.
The above represent positions people hold, but which others may disagree with. Merely
making the above statements does not constitute an argument, no matter how often one
repeats the assertions.
To create an argument, the person making the claims must offer further statements
which, at least in theory, support the claims. If the claim is supported, the argument is
successful; if the claim is not supported, the argument fails.
This is the purpose of an argument: to offer reasons and evidence for the purpose of
establishing the truth value of a proposition, which can mean either establishing that
the proposition is true or establishing that the proposition is false. If a series of statements
does not do this, it isn’t an argument.
Another aspect of understanding arguments is to examine the parts. An argument can be
broken down into three major components: premises, inferences and a conclusion.
Premises are statements of (assumed) fact which are supposed to set forth the reasons
and/or evidence for believing a claim.
The claim, in turn, is the conclusion: what you finish with at the end of an argument.
When an argument is simple, you may just have a couple of premises and a conclusion:
1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise)
2. I want to earn a lot of money. (premise)
3. I should become a doctor. (conclusion)
Inferences are the reasoning parts of an argument. Conclusions are a type of inference,
but always the final inference. Usually an argument will be complicated enough to
require inferences linking the premises with the final conclusion:
1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise) Factual claim
2. With a lot of money, a person can travel a lot. (premise) Factual claim
3. Doctors can travel a lot. (inference, from 1 and 2) Inferential claim
4. I want to travel a lot. (premise)
5. I should become a doctor. (from 3 and 4)
Here we see two different types of claims which can occur in an argument. The first is a
factual claim, and this purports to offer evidence. The first two premises above are
factual claims and usually not much time is spent on them — either they are true or they
are not.
The second type is an inferential claim — it expresses the idea that some matter of fact
is related to the sought-after conclusion. This is the attempt to link the factual claim to the
conclusion in such a way as to support the conclusion. The third statement above is an
inferential claim because it infers from the previous two statements that doctors can
travel a lot.
Without an inferential claim, there would be no clear connection between the premises
and the conclusion. It is rare to have an argument where inferential claims play no role.
Sometimes you will come across an argument where inferential claims are needed, but
missing — you won’t be able to see the connection from factual claims to conclusion and
will have to ask for them.
Assuming such inferential claims really are there, you will be spending most of your time
on them when evaluating and critiquing an argument. If the factual claims are true, it is
with the inferences that an argument will stand or fall, and it is here where you will
find fallacies committed.
Unfortunately, most arguments aren’t presented in such a logical and clear manner as the
above examples, making them difficult to decipher sometimes. But every argument
which really is an argument should be capable of being reformulated in such a manner. If
you cannot do that, then it is reasonable to suspect that something is wrong.
We’ve just seen a description of what an argument is and why, so now may be a good
time to take a look at some things which are not arguments. Premises, propositions and
conclusions — the pieces of arguments — may usually be easy to spot. But arguments
themselves aren’t always so easy, and very often people will offer things which they
claim are arguments but definitely are not.
Too often, you will hear something like these:
1. God exists and the Bible is true!
2. Ronald Reagan was the best President we ever had!
3. Global warming is a great danger to life and civilization.
None of these are actually arguments; instead, they are all just assertions. They could be
transformed into arguments if the speaker were to offer evidence in support of their
claims, but until then we don’t have very much to go on. One sign that you just have a
strong assertion is the use of the exclamation points.
What is NOT an Argument?
Differentiating Arguments from Hypotheticals
Arguments vs. Hypotheticals
One common pseudo-argument which you will probably encounter too often is the
hypothetical proposition. Consider the following examples:
4. If the Bible is accurate, Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or the Son of God.
5. If you want to improve the economy, you have to lower taxes.
6. If we don’t act quickly, the environment will be damaged beyond repair.
These all look like arguments and, because of that, it isn’t uncommon for them to be
offered as if they were arguments. But they aren’t: they are simply conditional statements
of the if-then type. The part following the if is called the antecedent and the part
following the then is called the consequent.
In none of the three cases (#4-6) do we see the premises which would supposedly support
the conclusion. If you want to try to create a genuine argument when you see such claims,
you have to focus on the antecedent of the conditional and ask why it should be accepted
as true. You can also ask why there is any connection between the hypothetical in the
antecedent and the proposition in the consequent.
To better understand the difference betweeen an argument and a hypothetical proposition,
look at these two very similar statements:
7. If today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
8. Because today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
Both of these statements express similar ideas, but the second is an argument while the
first is not. In the first, we have an if-then conditional (as you can see, sometimes the then
is dropped). The author is not asking readers to make any inferences from any premises
because it is not being claimed that today is, in fact, Tuesday.
But statement #8 is an argument because “today is Tuesday” is being offered as a factual
premise. From this claim, it is being inferred — and we are asked to accept this inference
— that tomorrow is therefore Wednesday.
Another type of pseudo-argument can be found in the following examples:
9. You must do your duty to God, your Creator.
10. We must stop the government from interfering with people’s private property.
11. People must make sure that international corporations don’t get too much
power.
None of these are really arguments, either — in fact, they aren’t even propositions. A
proposition is something which can be either true or false, and an argument is
something offered to establish the truth value of the proposition. But the statements
above are not like that. They are commands, and cannot be true or false — they can only
be wise or unwise, justified or unjustified.
Similar to commands are warnings and suggestions, which are also not arguments:
13. You should take foreign language classes while at college.
Something that is sometimes confused with an argument is an explanation. Contrast the
following two statements:
14. I am a Democrat, so I voted for the Democratic candidate.
15. She didn’t vote in the Republican primary, so she must be a Democrat.
In the first statement, no argument is being offered. It is an explanation of an alreadyaccepted truth, that the speaker voted for the Democratic candidate. Statement #15,
however, is a bit different — here, we are being asked to infer something (“she must be a
Democrat”) from a premise (“She didn’t vote...”). Thus, it is an argument.
Statements of belief and opinion are also often presented as if they were an argument. For
example:
16. I think that abortion is a horrendous procedure. It violently kills a young,
innocent human life and the extent of abortions in this country constitutes a new
holocaust.
There is really no argument here — what we have are emotive statements rather than
cognitive statements. No effort is made to establish the truth of what is said nor are they
being used the establish the truth of something else. They are expressions of personal
feelings. There is nothing wrong with emotive statements, of course — the point is that
we must understand when we are looking at emotive statements and that they are not
genuine arguments.
Of course, it will be common to find arguments which have both emotive and cognitive
statements. Often, the statements in #16 might be combined with other statements which
would constitute an actual argument, explaining why abortion is wrong or why it should
be illegal. It is important to recognize this and learn how to disengage the emotional and
value claims from the logical structure of an argument.
It is easy to be distracted by language and miss what is really going on, but with practice
you can avoid that. This is especially important not just when it comes to religion and
politics, but especially in advertising. The entire marketing industry is dedicated to using
language and symbols for the purpose of creating particular emotional and psychological
responses in you, the customer.
They would rather you just spend your money than think too much about the product, and
they design their advertising based on that premise. But when you learn how to set aside
your emotional responses to certain words and images and get right at the logical — or
illogical - heart of what is being claimed, you’ll be a much better informed and prepared
consumer.
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
What’s the Difference?
Arguments can be separated into two categories: deductive and inductive. A deductive
argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion
false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this
way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is
a classic example:
1. All men are mortal. (premise)
2. Socrates was a man. (premise)
3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible
for the conclusion to be false. If you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth
of the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if you reject it,
then you are rejecting logic itself.
An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the
conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the
conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and
inferences. Here is an example:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be
false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example). Words which tend to mark an
argument as inductive — and hence probabilistic rather than necessary — include
probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.
It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments because there
must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not
entirely true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if
implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don't arrive at new information — at best,
we are shown information which was obscured or unrecognized previously. Thus, the
sure truth-preserving nature of deductive arguments comes at a cost.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas and thus may
expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for deductive
arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may be used most often with
mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of inductive arguments.
Claim
By Richard Nordquist, About.com Guide
The three traditional types of claims
Definition:
An arguable statement.
Generally speaking, there are three primary types of persuasive claims:



Claims of fact assert that something is true or not true.
Claims of value assert that something is good or bad, more or less desirable.
Claims of policy assert that one course of action is superior to another.
In rational arguments, all three types of claims must be supported by facts.
What is an Explanation?
Explanations are not Arguments
An explanation is not an argument. Whereas an argument is a series of statements
designed to support or establish the truth of an idea, an explanation is a series of
statements designed to shed light on some event that is already accepted as a matter of
fact.
Technically, an explanation is composed of two parts: the explanandum and the
explanans. The explanandum is the event or phenomenon or thing which is supposed to
be explained. The explanans is the series of statements which is supposed to do the actual
explaining.
Here is an example:
1. Smoke appears because of fire: a combination of flammable material, oxygen,
and sufficient heat.
The phrase “smoke appears” is the explanandum and the phrase “fire: a combination of
flammable material, oxygen, and sufficient heat” is the explanans. In fact, this explanans
itself consists of an entire explanation — “fire” plus the reason why fires happen.
This is not an argument because no one disputes the idea that “smoke appears.” We
already agree that smoke exists and are simply looking to find out why. Were someone to
dispute the existence of smoke, we would have to create an argument to establish the
truth of smoke.
Although none of this seems very enlightening, the fact of the matter is that many people
don’t entirely realize what goes into a good explanation. Compare the above example
with this:
2. Smoke appears because of smoke-producing events.
This is not a valid explanation, but why? Because it provides us with no new information.
We have not learned anything from it because the supposed explanans is simply a
restatement of the explanandum: the appearance of smoke. A good explanation is
something which provides new information in the explandum which does not appear in
the explans. A good explanation is something from which we can learn.
In the first example above, we are provided with new information: fire, and what causes
fire. Because of that, we learned something new which we did not know from simply
examining the explanandum.
Unfortunately, too many “explanations” we see take a form more like #2 than like #1. It
usually isn’t quite so obvious as these examples here, but if you examine them closely
you will find that the explanans is little more than a restatement of the explanandum, with
no new information added.
ssuming that we have established that we have an actual argument, the next step is to
examine it for validity. There are two points on which an argument might fail: its
premises or its inferences. Because of this, it is necessary to distinguish between valid
arguments and sound arguments.
If a deductive argument is valid, then that means that the reasoning process behind the
inferences is correct and that no fallacies have been committed. If the premises of such an
argument are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion not to be true. Conversely, if an
argument is invalid, then the reasoning process behind the inferences is not correct.
If a deductive argument is sound, then that means that not only are all the inferences true,
but the premises are also true. Hence, the conclusion is necessarily true. Here are two
examples to illustrate the differences between a valid and a sound argument:
1. All birds are mammals. (premise)
2. A platypus is a bird. (premise)
3. Therefore, the platypus is a mammal. (conclusion)
This is a valid deductive argument, even though the premises are both false. But because
those premises are not true, the argument is not sound. It is interesting to note that the
conclusion is true — this demonstrates that an argument with false premises can
nevertheless produce a true conclusion.
1. All trees are plants. (premise)
2. The redwood is a tree. (premise)
3. Therefore, the redwood is a plant. (conclusion)
This is a valid deductive argument because its form is correct. It is also a sound
argument because the premises are true. As explained above, because its form is valid
and its premises are true, we are guaranteed that the conclusion is also true.
Evaluating Inductive Arguments
With inductive arguments, on the other hand, they are considered strong if the
conclusion follows probably from the premises and weak if it follows only improbably
from the premises, despite what is claimed about it. If the inductive argument is not only
strong but also has all true premises, then it is called cogent. Weak inductive arguments
are always uncogent. Here is an example:
Strolling through the woods is usually fun. The sun is out, the temperature is cool,
there is no rain in the forecast, the flowers are in bloom, and the birds are
singing. Therefore, it should be fun to take a walk through the woods now.
Assuming that we care about those premises, then the argument is strong. Assuming that
the premises are all true, then this is also a cogent argument. If we didn’t care about the
factors mentioned (perhaps you suffer from allergies and don’t like it when the flowers
are in bloom), it would be a weak argument. If any of the premises turned out to be false
(for example, if it is actually raining), then the argument would be uncogent. If
additional premises turned up, like that there have reports of a bear in the area, then that
would also make the argument uncogent.
To critique an argument and show that it is invalid or possibly unsound or uncogent, it is
necessary to attack either the premises or the inferences. It must be remembered,
however, that even if it can be demonstrated that both the premises and the intermediate
inferences are incorrect, that does not mean that the final conclusion is also false. All that
has been demonstrated is that the argument itself cannot be used to establish the truth of
the conclusion.
In an argument, the premises offered are assumed to be true and no effort is made to
support them. But, just because they are assumed to be true, this does not mean that they
are. If you think that they are (or may be) false, you can challenge them and ask for
support. This would require the other person to create a new argument in which the old
premises become the conclusions.
If the inferences and reasoning process in an argument are false, that will usually be
because some fallacy has been committed. A fallacy is an error in the reasoning process
whereby the connection between the premises and the conclusion is not what has been
claimed.
ARGUMENT





CLAIM
EVIDENCE
MOTIVATIONAL APPEALS
REASONING –ASSUMPTIONS, FALLACIES
SPEAKER – ETHOS, BIAS
Argument Evaluation
An important part of performing well on the Argument task is remembering what you are
not being asked to do:



You are not being asked to discuss whether the statements in the argument are
true or accurate.
You are not being asked to agree or disagree with the position stated.
You are not being asked to express your own views on the subject being
discussed.
Instead, you are being asked to evaluate the logical soundness of an argument of another
writer and, in doing so, to demonstrate the critical thinking, perceptive reading and
analytical writing skills that university faculty consider important for success in
graduate school.
Argument Evaluation
(You may want to answer one or more of the following sets of questions as you evaluate
the effectiveness of the author’s argument in the context of the target audience.)



Does the author effectively create an ethos which will lend him or her
credibility with this audience? What is this ethos? What information or
strategies does the author use to create his or her ethos? How does this
information or do these strategies fail or succeed at creating an effective ethos
for the target audience? Will the audience consider the author of "good sense,"
"good will" and "good character"?
Does the author use pathos in a manner which will be effective with the
target audience? What emotions does the author appeal to? How does the
author attempt to manipulate the audience’s emotions? Does he or she succeed
or fail at appealing to this audience’s emotions?
Does the author use logical arguments and strategies which will appeal to
the target audience? What logical strategies does the author use? How do
these strategies fail or succeed in creating audience adherence to his or her
argument?
 Does the author clearly establish a primary claim or thesis early in the
essay? What is the claim? Will the audience find this claim
reasonable?
 Does the author use grounds/reasons that effectively create audience
adherence? What grounds will the audience find reasonable? What
grounds might this audience reject, if any? What grounds might the
audience find fallacious? Why and how are these grounds effective in
creating this audience’s adherence to the claim? Or why and how are
they not effective?
 Does the author establish backing/support which will be effective in
creating audience adherence? What kinds of backing/support does the
author use? (Personal experience or observation, expert testimony,
appeal to authorities or experts, examples, statistics, facts,
studies/reports, etc?) Why are these kinds of backing effective in
creating audience adherence? Or why aren’t they effective . . .?
Evaluating An Argument (2) – The Critical Reader as Norm
When you evaluate an argument with the critical reader as norm, you must decide if you - as a critical reader -- consider the argument effective and convincing. Basically, does
the argument create adherence between its claim(s) a critical audience? It is often best to
start with an analysis of logos because if the author's logic is seriously flawed or
deceptive, then that should affect your evaluation of his or her ethos.
I. Summary
1. What is the author’s claim? What kind of claim is it? Substantiation/Fact?
Recommendation/Policy? Evaluation/Value? (What does the author hope to convince the
audience of?)
2. What are the grounds of the author’s argument? (What are the reasons that support the
claim?)
3. What is the warrant(s) (assumption) of the argument? What are the qualifiers, rebuttals,
and exceptions to the author’s argument?
II. Argument Evaluation
1. Does the author’s ethos create adherence with you, the critical reader? Why or why
not? Or do you, the critical reader, find it distracting or unconvincing? Does the author’s
ethos effectively convince you that he or she is knowledgeable about the subject? Does
the author project "good sense," "good will" and "good character"? How does the author
try to create such an ethos and does he or she create adherence with your ideas?
OR
Does the author attack the ethos of his or her opponent (rather than his opponent’s
argument)? Or does the author make false appeals to authority? Does the author try to
create adherence to his or her claim with the appeal of a popular or famous individual?
Or does the author use the testimony of anonymous authorities?
2. Does the author effectively appeal to your emotions as the critical reader (pathos)?
Why or why not? Or do you, the critical reader, find the author’s appeal to emotions
manipulative in an unethical way? Does the author strike a balance between reasons and
emotions? Or does the author try to manipulate your emotions in the absence of solid
reasoning? Does the author play on your fears and desires in a manipulative way? Does
the author use force to create adherence to his or her claim? Or does the author state
unacceptable consequences to create fear in his or her audience? Does the author use
prejudicial language? Does he or she use the appeal of pity or popularity or nostalgia?
3. Do you, the critical reader, find the author’s reasoning convincing (logos)? Does the
author use effective and sufficient grounds and backing? Does the author create the
following logical fallacies?













Fallacies of Distraction
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Changing the Subject
Inductive Fallacies
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Causal Fallacies
Missing the Point
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Category Errors
Non Sequitur
Syllogistic Errors
Fallacies of Explanation
Fallacies of Definition
(See Stephen’s Guide to Logical Fallacies website.)
Do you find the backing convincing? Do you find the examples and statistics convincing?
Why or why not?
GMAT Exam:
1. Casual Passage: Passages that deals with cause and effect. For example: Because
of A, B will not happen.
2. Statistical Passage: Passages that provide statistical data to prove the conclusion
or the premise. For Example: 25% of the people do not use the Motorola Mobile
Service.
3. Analogical Passage: Analogical Passages are those passages that compare to even
situation on the same platform. For example: Just like Cricket, Football is also
famous in various in many countries.
Steps to evaluate an argument/persuasive piece:
1. Identify the conclusion (purpose) of the argument.
2. Identify the audience.
3. Identify the appeal(s) used in the argument and cite specific
evidence from the argument to illustrate and explain your point.
4. Identify any logical fallacies you see in the argument and cite
specific evidence from the argument to illustrate and explain
your point.
5. Does it use inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning or both?
Are its premises valid and true?
Evaluate the effectiveness of the argument, again citing specific
evidence to illustrate and explain your point. Is it persuasive
Weak Critique: Common Errors in Responding to Arguments
1. Unsupported denial of the conclusion.
Plato argues that the soul exists before a human being is conceived.
But this is false.
This method of "critique" fails to give any reasons for denying Plato's
view. It does not really count as critique at all.
2. Appeal to mere opinion or feeling.
Plato argues that the soul exists before a human being is conceived.
But in my opinion this is false.
The mere fact that someone believes a proposition about something
outside his or her own consciousness to be true or false is no evidence
that it is. This method of "critique" too does not really count as critique.
3. Denial of conclusion supported by a reason whose significance for
the position of the author being criticized is unexamined.
Plato argues that there are intelligible forms, such as Beauty, Justice,
and Equality. But this is false. Nobody has ever seen such things.
The author of this "refutation" seems completely unaware that
Plato himself admits that nobody has ever seen such things, i.e.,
with the eyes, but Plato distinguishes between seeing with the eyes and
mentally "seeing" (i.e., conceiving or understanding) "with the mind" or
rational part of the soul. The author of this "critique" fails to realize how
easy it would be for Plato or a Platonist to undermine the criticism.
The Case for Internal Criticism
Internal criticism does not try to directly refute the author's conclusion.
Rather it shows that on the premises of the author herself, she should or
could have drawn a different conclusion. Perhaps she is using an
unstated assumption that is false or possibly false and, if a true or more
probably true assumption were substituted for it, the author's conclusion
would not follow and a different conclusion could be proven.
Internal criticism does not rule out developing an alternate argument,
with several new premises (constituting a rival theory), whose
conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the author under criticism.
Internal criticism can prepare the way for development of a new, rival
theory, or if the rival theory already exists, for appreciation of that
theory's strengths.