Creating an Argument

1
Creating an Argument

• Dr Trevor L Jordan
• Humanities Program

2
What is an argument?

• . a set of reasons or evidence in support of a
  conclusion

3
Arguing in a scholarly context

• A thesis is more than a data dump! Whats the
  point?
• In a scholarly context arguing ought to be a
  thoughtful conversation between amiable
  colleagues (Booth et al. 2003, 112)
• Entering a conversation
• Listening and responding
• Cooperation not coercion
• Scholarly manners
• Be considerate of the reader
• Imagine them -- who are they? e.g. your examiners
• Start where they are with what they know and
  dont know
• Anticipate their questions
• A set of expectations based on conventions that
  increase our ability to be understood.
• Conventions not constrictions
• Creativity in context

4
Creating an argument is a process

• Stating a claim
• Supporting a claim
• reasons
• evidence
• Qualifying a claim
• Linking claims
• Re-claiming the draft

5
5 elements (after Booth et al.)
Warrant
Reason
Claim
Evidence
Acknowledgment response
6
Stating a claim

• Turning topics into research questions
• Not just information but answers to questions
  worth asking
• Significance -- so what? because
• So that motivate the question
• Research problems vs. practical problems
• When your research has finished your research
  questions becomes a research claim
• When writing up state the research question and
  the research claim - your thesis is a not a
  chronological account of your research
• Keep this consistent throughout the thesis

7
Claims

• Ought to be
• Specific
• Dont chew on more than you can bite off!
• Vague claims lead to vague arguments
• Significant
• to the reader, not just to you
• If the reverse of a claim seems self-evidently
  false or trivial then most readers are unlikely
  to consider the original worth of an argument
• Qualified or hedged
• Flatfooted certainty undermines research vs
  marketing
• You make research more credible when you
  acknowledge and respond to objections and
  alternatives. (Booth et al. 2003, 135)
• State the limiting conditions of your claim

8
Using reasons to plan an argument
Evidence
Subreason
Reason
Subreason
Evidence
Main Claim
Subreason
Evidence
Reason
Reason
As you collect evidence, you can use your reasons
(and subreasons) to organise that evidence
9
Supporting a claim

• Your claim has to be based on
• Good reasons
• Good evidence
• These are not the same thing
• Reasons state why researchers should accept your
  claim (because ).
• Note researchers can think up reasons they cant
  think up evidence
• Evidence is what your readers are willing to
  accept as facts, at least for the moment

10
with evidence

• Appropriate
• Different fields use different kinds of evidence
• e.g direct quotation (humanities), citations and
  borrowing from previous writers (law), thick
  descriptions of behaviour (anthropology),
  statistical summaries of behaviour (social
  sciences), quantitative data from laboratories
  (science), photographs, sound recordings,
  videotapes, films,(music, art, media studies)
  documentary data presented as narrative
  (history), networks of principles, implications,
  and conclusions (philosophy)
• A methodology is simply a way of gathering
  evidence to support your claim
• Some pitfalls
• Oversimplification being new to the field
• - avoid banal definitions
• Applying one kind of argument/method over and
  over again
• Reductionism
• Scoring tries against cricketers

11
with evidence

• Reliable evidence is
• Sufficient and representative
• Beware the lonely bit of evidence
• Dont claim that evidence doesnt exist just
  because you havent found it
• Dont just gather evidence that supports your
  claim
• Accurately reported
• gains the confidence of the reader
• Questionable evidence can be admitted if
  qualified or later rejected
• Appropriately precise
• Neither too vague or too precise

12
Acknowledgment and response

• Imagine the reader asking questions, suggesting
  alternatives or stating objections
• questioning your clarity, the relevance of your
  reasons or the quality of your evidence
• looking at the problem differently or offering
  new evidence
• (This is one reason we go to conferences!)
• Do it yourself
• Question your problem, your solution, your
  support
• (Booth,et al. 2003, Chapter 10)
• Acknowledging weaknesses increases credibility

13
3 very predictable responses

• There are causes in addition to your claim
• Counterexamples
• Think of them first
• Explain why they dont count
• I dont define X the way you do .
• Acknowledge then respond
• Juijitzu
• Develop your argument fully then respond. Dont
  just dismiss objections as a form of introducing
  your argument

14
Supporting claims with reasons

• Analogies must be relevantly similar
• Authorities informed, impartial and accurately
  cited, and cross-checked with other authorities
• Causes the correlation vs cause problem,
  propose the most likely cause, explain the link
• Deductions formal structure of valid arguments
• Avoiding fallacies
• Formal denying the antecedent, affirming the
  consequent,
• Informal
• (See Weston, 2000)

15
Some informal Fallacies

• Generalisation
• Overlooking alternatives
• Attacking the person
• Appeal to ignorance
• Appeal to pity
• appeal to the crowd
• Begging the question/circular argument
• Complex question
• False dilemma
• Persuasive definition and Loaded language
• Red herring
• Straw man
• Weasel word
• Despite their logical shortcomings these are
  regularly used as tool of persuasion
• Debates encourage rhetoric discussions encourage
  reasons

16
Warrants

• A general circumstance that leads to a general
  consequence
• They undergird the relevance of our reasons
• General principle ---gt specific instance
• Warrants are often unstated or assumed
• e.g. Commonplaces or the accepted knowledge in a
  field
• You only need to state your warrant when you
  think the reader will question the relevance of a
  reason
• Check out Booth et al. 2003, Chapter 11)
• Experts will not always state their assumptions

17
Linking claims
Evidence
Subreason
Reason
Subreason
Evidence
Main Claim
Subreason
Evidence
Reason
Reason
18
Revising and re-claiming a draft

• Identify the outer frame of your research paper
  or thesis
• Introduction
• Where does it end?
• Body
• Beginning and end
• Conclusion
• Where does it begin?
• Identify the main point sentence of your
  introduction and conclusion
• They should not contradict each other
• Revise the main pint of the introduction to make
  it specific

19
Revising and re-claiming a draft

• Identify the main sections and their points
• Where each section stops and the next begins
• How each section relates to the previous one
• The main point of each section
• Use the same process for each section as used for
  the whole power
• Highlight the sentence that expresses the point
  of each sections (usually one of the main reasons
  of your argument)
• Ask yourself If I tried to assemble these
  sentences into a single paragraph would it make
  sense? If it doesnt you are in trouble (Booth et
  al. 2003, 213)

20
Evaluate your argument

• Does the organisation of your paper reflect the
  organisation of its argument?
• Does your discussion reflect the argument?
• identify all the evidence (summaries, paraphrase,
  facts, graphs, etc)
• if you remove that do you still have the
  expression of your analysis, evaluation and
  judgment
• Is your evidence reliable and connected to your
  claims?
• Have you appropriately qualified your argument?
• Does you this read like conversation between
  colleagues who are amiable and have minds of
  their own?
• Are there any important warrants left
  unexpressed?

21
Recommended reading

• Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M.
  Williams. 2008. The craft of research. 3rd ed.
  Chicago University of Chicago Press.  
•  
• Warburton, Nigel. 2000. Thinking from A to Z. 2nd
  ed. London Routledge. 
•  
• Weston, Anthony. 2000. A rulebook for arguments.
  3rd ed. Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company.
•  

22
(No Transcript)