build strong arguments

Build Strong ArgumentsHuda Al Midani

Academic Skills Lectures Series The Social Sciences Research Development Initiative (SSRDI)

Agenda

• Clear Thinking

• Arguments are the language of Logic

• Four Basic Principles of Logic

• What is an Argument?

• Basic Building Blocks of Arguments

• How to Assess an Argument?

• 12 General Rules for Strong Arguments

Agenda

• 5 Rules for Strong Arguments about Sources

• 4 Rules for Strong Arguments about Causes

• 5 Rules for Strong Extended Arguments (5 rules)

• 6 Rules for Strong Argumentative Essays (6 rules)

• 6 Rules for Strong Oral Arguments (6 rules)

• What are The Sources of Illogical Thinking?

• What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?

Let’s warm up!

This is a 10-minutes exercise,

Choose a topic,

Choose a specific subject,

Take a position (develop a thesis statement),

Try to argue (persuade us rationally) that your position is true.

We need Clear Logical Thinking!

Arguments are the Language of Logic!

Thing

Objective fact

Mind

IdeaCommunicating

using

External Realitye.g. Cat, love

Internal RealityThinking

WordsStatementsArguments

SpeechWriting

about

To Other Minds

There is "ontological" truth and "logical" truth.Logic is about “True” and “False”!

Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

“The whole purpose of reasoning, of logic, is to arrive at the truth of things. This is often an arduous task, as truth can sometimes be painfully elusive. But not to pursue truth would be absurd, since it is the only thing that gives meaning to all our endeavors.”

~McInerny, D.Q. 2004 Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (page 19)

How much do you agree?

Four Basic Principles of Logic

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY

A thing is what it is.

II. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

Between being and nonbeing there is no middle state.

III. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON

There is a sufficient reason for everything.

IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION

It is impossible for something both to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

What about gray areas?


What is an Argument?

What is an Argument?

• Arguments is about “the inferential move, whereby we go from one idea that is known to be true to a second idea that is recognized as true on the force of the first idea.”

• Every argument is composed two different types of statements: a “premise” (Supporting) statement and a “conclusion” (supported) statement.

Premise 1 Premise 2 Conclusion+


Basic Building Blocks of Arguments

1.The Move from Universal to Particular

The Move from Particular to Universal

Predication

Negative Statements

Making Comparisons

Conditional Argument

Syllogistic Argument


1. The Move from Universal to Particular

• every dog is carnivorous, then some dogs are carnivorous.

• If no males are mothers is true, then that some males are not mothers is also true.”

“necessary conclusion”

“The basic rationale behind deductive reasoning is this: Starting from a statement we know to be true (major premise), we draw out of it and make explicit (through minor premise to conclusion) what is implied in that initial true statement”.


2. The Move from Particular to Universal

“Some women are mothers” is a true statement. But “every woman is a mother.” is not true.

“Not necessary conclusions” they are true as the evidence allows.

“We could say that deductive argument is analytic because it breaks a general truth down into its constituent parts. The premises of inductive argument are all the particular facts that go together to serve as a collection of evidence. Those facts provide the basis for making a reliable generalization about them.”


3. Predication

• “every statement is composed of a subject and a predicate.”

• “Predication,” then, is the idea-connecting process by which we attribute something to something else.

. “Ulysses S. Grant was born in Ohio.” Being born in Ohio is properly predicated of Grant because the statement reflects what is actually the case.” it state, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of proposition.

“Jane Austen wrote Persuasion in New Hampshire” is false because writing Persuasion in New Hampshire cannot be predicated of Jane Austen.


4. Negative Statements

• “Affirmative statements” connect ideas; “negative statements” disconnect ideas.

• “universal negative statement” disconnects ideas completely e.g“ No philosophers are infallible”.

• “particular negative statement” disconnects ideas incompletely e.g. Some North Dakotans do not read Dickens”.


5. Making Comparisons

• “Even a goodly number of similar significant characteristics does not make a strong comparison if a key significant characteristic is omitted.”

• “A possesses traits R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y, B possesses traits R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y, A possesses trait Z, Therefore B also possesses trait Z.”

• “I make a comparison of the two animals. I tell them that both mice and elephants have four feet, two eyes, two ears, a mouth, a tongue, a tail, a heart, and so on. All are significant characteristics. But in my account I make no mention of the comparative size of the animals.”


6. Conditional Argument

• If A → B A Therefore, B

If Louise is running, then Louise is moving. But Louise is in fact running. Therefore, Louise is moving.

• If A → B -B Therefore, -A

“If Louise is running, then she is moving.” “Louise is not moving.” Conclusion: “Therefore, she is not running.”


7. Syllogistic Argument

• If Every M is P

Every S is M

Therefore, every S is P

• Every NFL player is a professional athlete.

The Minnesota Vikings are NFL players.

Thus, the Minnesota Vikings are professional athletes.


Basic Building Blocks of Arguments

1.If all A are B,

2.Therefore, some A are B

If some A are B,

Therefore not all A are B

B is a predicate of A Not all A is B

Some A is not B

If A has traits R, S,

and Y, B have traits R, S,

and Y, A have trait Z,

Therefore B also has trait Z.

If A -> B

A is true

Therefore, B is true

If Every A is B

Every C is A

Therefore, every C is B


How to Assess an Argument?

How to Assess an Argument?

• Is there an argument?

• Are the premises true? E.g. are they seductive?

• How they relate to the conclusion they seek to support? Does conclusion follow necessarily?

• If not necessarily, but probably does that reflected in a clearly probable conclusion?

• Do the data of the premises give strong and convincing support to the argument?

Let’s Assess Our Arguments

Take a look at your argument,

Please think of ways to enhance it,

Let’s listen to each others’ lessons learned,

Please comment on other arguments,

How much do you give each one ( 1- 5)?

Who is the winner ?

“In the final analysis, the force of an argument depends on the extent to which it reflects the objective order of things.

We argue well because first we reason well, and the purpose of both arguing and reasoning is to enable us to perform more freely and purposefully in the world”.

~McInerny, D.Q. 2004 Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (page 86)

12 General Rules for Strong Arguments

1. Identify premises and conclusion

2. Develop your ideas in a natural order

3. Start from reliable premises

4. Be concrete and concise

5. Build on substance, not overtone

6. Use consistent terms

Source: Weston, A. 2009

12 General Rules for Strong Arguments

7. Use more than one example

8. Use representative examples

9. Background rates may be crucial

10. Statistics need a critical eye

11. Consider counterexamples

12. Analogies require relevantly similar examples


5 Rules for Strong Arguments (Sources)

13. Cite your sources

14. Seek informed sources

15. Seek impartial sources

16. Cross-check sources

17. Use the Web with care


4 Rules for Strong Arguments (Causes)

18. Causal arguments start with correlations

19. Correlations may have alternative explanations

20. Work toward the most likely explanation

21. Expect complexity


5 Rules for Strong Extended Arguments

29. Explore the issue

30. Spell out basic ideas as arguments

31. Defend basic premises with arguments of their own

32. Consider objections

33. Consider alternatives


6 Rules for Strong Argumentative Essays

34. Jump right in

35. Make a definite claim or proposal

36. Your argument is your outline

37. Detail objections and meet them

38. Get feedback and use it

39. Modesty, please!


6 Rules for Strong Oral Arguments

40. Reach out to your audience

41. Be fully present

42. Signpost your argument

43. Offer something positive

44. Use visual aids sparingly

45. End in style


What are the Sources of Illogical Thinking?

What are the Sources of Illogical Thinking?

1. Skepticism اليوجد حقيقة أو ال يمكن لنا فهم الحقيقة) )

2. Evasive Agnosticism (إعطاء أحكام أنه اليمكن الوصول إلى موقف في أمر معين دون دراسة كافية)

3. Cynicism and Naïve Optimism السخرية والتشاؤم بدون دليل أو التفاؤل الساذج) )

4. Narrow-Mindedness (عدم استكشاف جميع أفاق الحل)

5. Emotion and Argument ( عدم استبعاد العواطف، ولكن ليس لها أولوية)

6. The Reason for Reasoning (استخدام الحجج ألمور أخرى غير فهم الحقيقة)

7. Argumentation Is Not Quarreling ( الجدال والشخصنة ليس محاججة)

8. The Limits of Sincerity (اإلخالص ال يكفي ولكن ضروري)

9. Common Sense ( البد من احترام الحس السليم وهو األساس فقط)

What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?


1. Denying the Antecedent (إنكار المقدمة ال يعني إثبات إنكار الخالصة)

2. Affirming the Consequent (إثبات الخالصة ال يعني إثبات المقدمة)

3. The Undistributed Middle Term (إذا كان بعض من مجموعة الكل لهم صفات ال يعني أن هذا ينطبق على الكل)

4. Equivocation (استنتاج أمور من المقدمة الصغرى للوصول إلى نتيجة خاطئة عن المقدمة الكبرى)

5. Begging the Question (خالصات بمقدمات مفترضة)

6. False Assumptions (افتراض صحة المقدمة إلثبات الخالصة)

7. The Straw-Man Fallacy (التعامل مع الشخص وراء المحاججة بدل النظر في الحجج )

8. Using and Abusing Tradition ( هذا ما ألفينا عليه آبائنا )

9. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right (مقدمات خاطئة ال تؤدي إلى خالصات صحيحة)



10. The Democratic Fallacy ( كثرة االعتقاد بصحة شيئ ال يجعله صحيحا)

11. The Ad Hominem Fallacy ( إظهار عيوب صاحب الحجة)

12. Substituting for the Force of Reason (اإلقناع بغير طرق المحاججة)

13. The Uses and Abuses of Expertise ( الخبرة ال تعني قوة الحجة بشكل أتوماتيكي)

14. The Quantifying of Quality (تكميم جودة األمور ال يعني أن الحجة أصبحت أقوى)

15. Consider More Than the Source (المصادر ال تعطي قوة الحجة بشكل أوتوماتيكي)

16. Stopping Short at Analysis (القيام بالتحليل فقط دون التركيب الجيد الستخالص النتائج)

17. Reductionism (مطابقة الشيء مع عدد قليل من صفاته فقط)

18. Misclassification (التصنيف الخاطئ)



19. The Red Herring ( تقديم معلومات مثيرة عاطفيا إلبعاد االنتباه إلى األخطاء في الحجج)

20. Laughter as Diversionary Tactic ( المزاح إلبعاد األنظار عن ضعف الحجة)

21. Tears as Diversionary Tactic (البكاء لتشتيت االنتباه عن ضعف الحجة)

22. An Inability to Disprove Does Not Prove (عدم القدرة على إثبات النفي اليعني إثبات)

23. The False Dilemma (اإلقناع أن هناك فقط إمكانيتين متساويتي القيمة)

24. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (الترافق ال يعني السببية)

25. Special Pleading (الدفاع عن أمر معين بدون حجة)

26. The Fallacy of Expediency ( اإلقتناع بأمر ما ألنه فعال في النتيجة النهائية دون دراسة أمور أخرى)

27. Avoiding Conclusions (االعتقاد أنه اليمكن الوصول إلى خالصات في أي شيئ)

28. Simplistic Reasoning ( التبسيط المسيئ)


What is your favorite fallacy?

Are you Still Hungary?

McInerny, D.Q.. 2004. Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Weston, Anthony. 2009. A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett Student Handbooks) . Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Many Others

Thank you

build strong arguments

Education