The Language of Composition: Analyzing Arguments: From Reading to Writing

In our discussions, however, we define argument as a persuasive discourse, a coherent and considered movement from a claim to a conclusion.

Every argument has a claim—also called an assertion or proposition—that states the argument’s main idea or position.

Anytime you propose a change, you’re making a claim of policy.

A variant of the open and closed thesis is the counterargument thesis, in which a summary of a counterargument, usually qualified by although or but, precedes the writer’s opinion.

Before we turn to specific types of evidence, let’s consider logical fallacies: potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in an argument.

A red herring occurs when a speaker skips to a new and irrelevant topic in order to avoid the topic of discussion.

One common type of red herring is an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is Latin for “to the man”; the phrase refers to the diversionary tactic of switching the argument from the issue at hand to the character of the other speaker.

Analogy is the most vulnerable type of evidence because it is always susceptible to the charge that two things are not comparable, resulting in a faulty analogy.

A straw man fallacy occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example in order to ridicule and refute an opponent’s viewpoint.

Yet another fallacy of inaccuracy is equivocation, through which a writer or speaker intentionally misleads the audience by using a word with a double or ambiguous meaning.

Perhaps the most common of fallacies occurs when evidence is insufficient. We call this a hasty generalization, meaning that there is not enough evidence to support a particular conclusion.

Quantitative evidence includes things that can be represented in numbers: statistics, surveys, polls, census information.

Bandwagon appeal (or ad populum fallacy) occurs when evidence boils down to “everybody’s doing it, so it must be a good thing to do.” Sometimes, statistics can be used to prove that “everybody’s doing it” and thus give a bandwagon appeal the appearance of cold, hard fact.

Classical Oration
Classical rhetoricians outlined a five-part structure for an oratory, or speech, that writers still use today, although perhaps not always consciously.

Classical Oration
Classical rhetoricians outlined a five-part structure for an oratory, or speech, that writers still use today, although perhaps not always consciously.

The introduction (exordium) introduces the reader to the subject under discussion.

The narration (narratio) provides factual information and background material on the subject at hand, thus beginning the developmental paragraphs, or establishes why the subject is a problem that needs addressing. Today, this is more commonly known as exposition.

The narration (narratio) provides factual information and background material on the subject at hand, thus beginning the developmental paragraphs, or establishes why the subject is a problem that needs addressing. Today, this is more commonly known as exposition.

The confirmation (confirmatio), usually the major part of the text, includes the development or the proof needed to make the writer’s case—the nuts and bolts of the essay, containing the most specific and concrete detail in the text. The confirmation generally makes the strongest appeal to logos.

The refutation (refutatio), which addresses the counterargument, is in many ways a bridge between the writer’s proof and conclusion.

The conclusion (peroratio)—whether it is one paragraph or several—brings the essay to a satisfying close.

Induction (from the Latin inducere, “to lead into”) means arranging an argument so that it leads from particulars to universals, using specific cases to draw a conclusion.

When you argue using deduction, you reach a conclusion by starting with a general principle or universal truth (a major premise) and applying it to a specific case (a minor premise).

Deductive reasoning is often structured as a syllogism, a logical structure that uses the major premise and minor premise to reach a necessary conclusion.

A warrant expresses the assumption necessarily shared by the speaker and the audience.

A warrant expresses the assumption necessarily shared by the speaker and the audience.

The qualifier, when used (for example, usually, probably, maybe, in most cases, most likely), tempers the claim a bit, making it less absolute.

The reservation explains the terms and conditions necessitated by the qualifier.

In many cases, the argument will contain a rebuttal that gives voice to objections.