Notes on making arguments

Focused InquiryDr. Marx

Put simply, an argument is a set of claims. One claim has the role of the conclusion. The other claims are premises.

The conclusion is the claim the argument supports. The premises provide that support, by giving reasons to accept the conclusion as true.

The central conclusion of an argumentative essay is the thesis.

Donny failed Focused Inquiry because he never came to class.

Unlike electric cars, ordinary cars emit dangerous fumes. So, electric cars are safer.

Smart phones are unnecessary distractions. Nobody should own one.

In general, we understand a single argument to have a single conclusion. If you have a text where two conclusions are drawn, then you can identify two separate arguments, even if they share premises.

Conclusions are often (but not always) marked with key terms or phrases such as “Thus,…”, “So,…”, “It follows that…”, etc.

The premises of an argument offer reasons to accept the conclusion.

Premises are often (but not always) marked with key terms or phrases such as “Because…”, “Since…”, “On account of…”, “Due to…”, etc.

The strength of an argument depends on its premises, and their relation to the conclusion: Are the premises true? If they are true, is it still plausible to deny the conclusion?

Ralph Nader won nearly 100,000 votes in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.

In that election, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in Florida by less than 600 votes.

Therefore, if Ralph Nader had not run for President in 2000, Al Gore would have won that election.

Most arguments rely on unstated assumptions. These are conditions that must be true for the premises to provide strong support for the conclusion.

Example: This car is brand new and in perfect working order. So, it’s ready to drive off the lot. What does this argument assume?

Many unstated assumptions are so obvious that they “go without saying”:

Today is Tuesday. It’s not a holiday, it’s not summer vacation,and the weather is perfect. Thus, school will be in session today.

This argument assumes that the school didn’t burn down, but that goes without saying!

Finding the flaw in an argument is often a matter of identifying questionable assumptions.

VCU has many expenses. The university’s income from government funding and student tuition and fees is not enough to cover those expenses. Therefore, VCU will have to reduce its expenses, or lose money.

What does this argument assume?

To identify an assumption, imagine how the conclusion could be false, even if the premises are true. What would also have to be true for the conclusion to be false?

VCU has huge expenses each year. The university’s income from government funding and student tuition and fees is not enough to cover those expenses. Therefore, VCU will have to reduce its expenses, or lose money.

Here, the conclusion could be false if VCU has another significant source of revenue.

So, the argument assumes that VCU has no other significant source of revenue.

To criticize an argument is to question whether the conclusion gains any real support from its premises

There are two fundamental approaches to criticizing arguments Showing that one or more of the premises is false

Showing that the conclusion does not follow from the premises▪ Frequently, this will involve demonstrating that a key assumption is false.

Remember, an argument is made up of premises and a conclusion. The premises give reasons to accept a conclusion.

Remember also that arguments can be strong or weak. Even if an argument is unpersuasive, it is still an argument.

ExampleMost VCU students want a football team. So, VCU should get one!

Breaking it down: Premise: “Most VCU students want a football team.”

Conclusion: “VCU should get a football team.”

We could represent this visually in a straightforward way.

Is the fact that students want a team sufficient reason to get one?

We might need more support for our conclusion.

Let’s add the premise: “VCU should take any measure that the students strongly support.”

An argument can have a “sub-arguments”: an argument that supports a premise.

Premises often need justification, too.Someone might claim the argument we’re working with is weak because it is doubtful that there is strong desire for a team.

We could strengthen the argument by adding this “sub-premise”: “75% of students surveyed said they would love VCU to have a football team.”

Why the Difference in Organization?[Answer: The bar indicates that the premises are intended to work together. When there’s no bar, it means that the premises are independent.]