Constructing Argument

Analyzing Argument

• Claim—Thesis or purpose, goal, aim of paper.  You must have a clear claim for your paper. It may be stated or implied, but the reader must be able to articulate it.

• Does paper have a clear claim?
• Is it precise or expressed too vaguely to support?

• Grounds—evidence, reasons, support.
• In a deductive argument, the grounds are the premises from which the claim is deduced; in inductive arguments, the grounds are evidence that support your claim (examples, experiments, observations).

• Are the premises logical?  Or do they use logical fallacies?
• Is the evidence relevant?  Strong enough? Enough in number or magnitude?

• Warrants – the principle that connects the ground to the claim or guarantee that the grounds actually do support claim. Read page 281 for discussion of this point.

• Basically you are double checking grounds for relevancy! Warrants guarantee relevancy or make example relevant through explanation, comparison, etc.
• If deductive, do terms get defined and illustrated? Or does a parallel argument help explain?
• If inductive, is the example “representative”? Has a survey used a representative sample?

• Backing – (implicit assumptions). Use of appropriate support for the kind of argument you are making. If you are making claims about how an author creates a character, the most appropriate support is the story itself.  If you are arguing about legal rulings, legal precedents or other legal standards are used. Back up one’s reasoning.

• Appropriate to the discourse community you are communicating with. EX. For a literature class, claims are best supported by using material from the story to prove your point. In a history class, professors expect you to research and report upon that research. For a chemistry report, the actual experiment and its results are your proof.  Is the material used appropriate for the kind of argument being made?

• Modal Qualifiers indicate scope and character of claim (necessary or probable cause, for example). You must indicate any contingencies on which your claim is based. And you must limit its scope by using qualifiers.

• Does the thesis qualify itself to a degree that it can be proven?  All vs. Some, most, few. Never vs. rarely, seldom.  Always vs. often, regularly, usually.
• Prevents exaggeration, overstatement, hasty generalizations.

• Rebuttals – most arguments have counterarguments. A good argument tries to address the counterarguments given by the other side. To dismiss counterarguments as worthless is often insulting and inaccurate—it leaves your argument vulnerable.

• Does author show that he/she understands the other side of the issue, has examined it, but offers a rebuttal to that opposing point? Or to what rebuttals is the argument vulnerable?