Arguments
183
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.
LRS
The University of Virginia
184
Arguments
• 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.
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
185
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.
LRS
The University of Virginia
186
Arguments
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 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.
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
187
• That claim becomes reason 3 to support the main claim: when that
government is a monarchy, we must throw off its rule by force.
LRS
The University of Virginia
188
Arguments
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?
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
189
Evidence is largely defined by what your
readers agree not to question.
LRS
The University of Virginia
190
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 . . .
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
191
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.
LRS
The University of Virginia
192
Arguments
Where to Locate The Parts of Argument
Match the Core Argument Structure to the Text Structure
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
193
ISSUE / INTRO
ISSUE / INTRO
Claim
Reason 1
Evidence
1
Reason 2
Evidence
2
Reason 3
Evidence
3
Reason 4
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
CONCLUSION
Evidence
1
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
LRS
ISSUE / INTRO
CONCLUSION
Reason 4
Claim
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
The University of Virginia
194
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;
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
195
(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.
LRS
The University of Virginia
196
Arguments
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
The 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
LRS
Arguments
197
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
LRS
The University of Virginia
198
Arguments
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.
The University of Virginia
LRS
Arguments
199
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.
LRS
The University of Virginia
200
Arguments
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.
LR
The University of Virginia
S
LRS