Description
Write a brief (800-1000 words) report of a one Chapter that you choose from the book Critical Thinking and Communication.Critical Thinking and Communication
Critical Thinking and
Communication
The Use of Reason in Argument
SEVENTH edition
Edward S. Inch
Kristen H. Tudor
SEVENTH
edition
Inch
Tudor
This is a special edition of an established
title widely used by colleges and universities
throughout the world. Pearson published this
exclusive edition for the benefit of students
outside the United States and Canada. If you
purchased this book within the United States
or Canada you should be aware that it has
been imported without the approval of the
Publisher or Author.
The Use of Reason in Argument
For these Global Editions, the editorial team at Pearson has
collaborated with educators across the world to address a
wide range of subjects and requirements, equipping students
with the best possible learning tools. This Global Edition
preserves the cutting-edge approach and pedagogy of the
original, but also features alterations, customization and
adaptation from the North American version.
Global
edition
Global
edition
Global
edition
Pearson Global Edition
INCH_129205882X_mech.indd 1
17/04/14 9:26 PM
Seventh edition
GLOBAL EDITION
Critical Thinking and
Communication
The Use of Reason in Argument
Edward S. Inch
California State University, Sacramento
Kristen H. Tudor
California State University, Sacramento
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montréal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City São Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 1
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Editor in Chief: Ashley Dodge
Head of Learning Asset Acquisition, Global
Edition: Laura Dent
Senior Acquisitions Editor: Melissa Mashburn
Editorial Assistant: Courtney Turcotte
Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson
Executive Marketing Manager: Kelly May
Marketing Coordinator: Theresa Rotondo
Managing Editor: Denise Forlow
Program Manager: Maggie Brobeck
Senior Operations Supervisor: Mary Fischer
Publishing Administrator and Business Analyst,
Global Edition: Shokhi Shah Khandelwal
Acquisitions Editor, Global Edition: Sandhya
Ghoshal
Assistant Project Editor, Global Edition: Sinjita Basu
Senior Manufacturing Controller, Production,
Global Edition: Trudy Kimber
Operations Specialist: Mary Ann Gloriande
Manager, Central Design: Jayne Conte
Director of Digital Media: Brian Hyland
Digital Media Editor: Learning Mate Solutions, Ltd.
Digital Media Project Manager: Tina Gagliostro
Cover Designer: Suzanne Duda
Cover Photo: Shutterstock/art4all
Cover Printer: Clays-UK
Pearson Education Limited
Edinburgh Gate
Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE
England
and Associated Companies throughout the world
Visit us on the World Wide Web at:
www.pearsonglobaleditions.com
© Pearson Education Limited 2015
The rights of Edward S. Inch and Kristen H. Tudor to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted
by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Authorized adaptation from the United States edition, entitled Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument, 7th edition, ISBN 978-0-205-92577-3, by Edward S. Inch and Kristen H. Tudor, published by Pearson Education © 2014.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior
written permission of the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the
Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.The use of any trademark in this text does
not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such
trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.
ISBN 10: 1-292-05882-X
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-05882-5 (Print)
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-06761-2 (PDF)
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14 13 12 11 10
Typeset in 10/12, Janson Text by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.
Printed and bound by Clays-UK in the United Kingdom.
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 2
17/05/14 7:48 AM
TO OUR MOTHERS
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 3
17/05/14 7:48 AM
This page is intentionally left blank.
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 4
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Contents
Preface 11
Section I Developing a Conceptual Framework
for Argument 15
Chapter 1
Arguing Critically 16
Critical Thought 18
Argumentation and Argument 25
Argument Contexts 32
Using Argument Contexts 40
Summary 44
Exercises 45
Notes 48
Chapter 2
Co-orienting Argument 51
Perspectives 54
How Perspectives Are Used 58
Arguer-Based ArgumentS 59
A Co-Orientational Approach 71
Summary 82
Exercises 83
Notes 87
5
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 5
17/05/14 7:48 AM
6
Contents
Chapter 3
The Impact of Values and Culture on Argument 89
Culture and Argumentation 92
Values and Value Systems 102
Culture and Values 108
Summary 110
Exercises 111
Notes 115
Section II Parts 117
Chapter 4
Constructing Claims 118
Nature of Claims 121
Formulating Propositions 127
Classification 133
Summary 142
Exercises 143
Notes 145
Chapter 5
The Use of Evidence 147
Nature of Evidence 151
Types of Evidence 153
Evaluating Evidence 157
Evaluating Statistical Evidence 162
Presenting Evidence 165
Summary 169
Exercises 170
Notes 173
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 6
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Contents
7
Chapter 6
The Reasoned Argument 175
Role of the Advocate 178
Formal Logic and Practical Reasoning 179
Reasoning as Inference Making 180
Summary 199
Exercises 200
Notes 204
Section III Developing and Arguing Extended Cases 206
Chapter 7
Propositions in Argument 207
Arguing About Facts, Values, and Policies 210
Relating Facts, Values and Policies 219
Issue Mapping 221
Principles of Case Construction 225
Summary 231
Exercises 232
Notes 234
Chapter 8
Constructing the Case 236
Issues Brief 239
Stock Issues for Fact Cases 241
Stock Issues for Value Arguments 245
Stock Issues for Policy Arguments 251
Summary 266
Exercises 267
Notes 268
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 7
17/05/14 7:48 AM
8
Contents
Chapter 9
Refuting the Argument 270
Skills And Techniques 272
Strategies 281
Summary 291
Exercises 292
Notes 295
Section IV Communicating Arguments 296
Chapter 10
Persuasive Argument 297
Arguer And Recipient 300
Adapting Arguments 306
Persuasion Principles 314
Developing Persuasive Arguments 320
Summary 323
Exercises 324
Notes 327
Chapter 11
Responsible Reasoning 329
Language 332
Fallacies 345
Ethics 362
Summary 369
Exercises 371
Notes 376
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 8
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Contents
9
Appendix A
Answers to Selected Exercises 378
Appendix B
Glossary 390
Appendix C
Research Strategies http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com
Appendix D
Intercollegiate Debate http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com
IINDEX 400
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 9
17/05/14 7:48 AM
This page is intentionally left blank.
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 10
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Preface
The Seventh Edition of Critical Thinking and Communication reflects many current
developments in the teaching and learning of argumentation. During the past five years, the
field of argumentation has continued to adapt to the needs and interests of an increasingly
diverse society and interconnected world. This edition highlights the importance of culturally sensitive and co-orientational forms of argument. Although we have continued to focus
on a rhetorical perspective on argument, we do so in the context of building communities of
advocates who accept culturally diverse worldviews and practices. More and more, the traditional tools of argumentation are used to build connections, unite people, and build peace.
New to this Edition
We incorporated these themes into this edition by revising and updating with the following
features:
Redesigned chapters in cultural and collaborative argumentation consider how students
can adapt arguments to better align with hearers from diverse audiences. Focusing on
understanding cultural needs and expectations, the text guides students through ways
of designing and framing arguments that are appropriate to specific argument situations and expectations.
■ New chapters and approaches for building and refuting extended argument cases
develop a “co-orientational” approach. Using the “co-orientational” model, we explore
strategies for conversational argumentation focusing on critical listening, analysis, and
refutation.
■ This edition integrates opportunities to “Apply the Theory” in each chapter. We integrate process-based exercises with chapter discussions to provide students with opportunities to practice argumentation skills and critical thinking processes as they read the
theories.
■ New chapters in persuasion and responsibility explore how students can design messages, enhance credibility, and present arguments ethically. These are the final two
chapters in the text and serve to focus student argument skills into a framework that
stresses the audience and ethical requirements when an advocate seeks to change argument recipients.
■ New and revised argument case studies provide contemporary and “real” examples of
how arguments and argumentation are used in fields ranging from law to politics to
public protest. Each chapter begins with a case study that is integrated into the theoretical discussion in a way that explores how everyday arguments can be understood
and critically analyzed.
■
11
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 11
17/05/14 7:48 AM
12
Preface
■
New models, diagrams, and process illustrations were developed to better describe the
flow and connections of theory to practice. These models provide a strong connection
between the discussions in the text and ways of graphically understanding how argumentation theory can be applied.
Text Structure
The book is divided into four sections. The first section, Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument, focuses on a conceptual framework for argument. Chapter 1 e xamines
the relationship between argument and critical thought and explores how argumentation can
improve the ability to examine complex issues. The chapter introduces two significant theoretical constructs that are used throughout the rest of the book: argument spheres and fields.
Argument spheres are central to our understanding of how argument situations and contexts
develop and can be used to adapt and analyze arguments. Argument fields provide us with a
way of understanding the guiding rules and norms that can be used to shape arguments as
well as criticize them. The second chapter introduces a co-orientational model of argument.
It is developed along with traditional arguer-based models including formal logic and the
Toulmin Model. Chapter 3 concludes the section with an exploration of how values and culture shape argument contexts. As the world becomes more interconnected, there is a greater
need to develop cultural appreciation and sensitivity toward other approaches to argument.
These concepts are explored along with the important role values and value systems play
in how we understand and interact with arguments and cultures. It provides readers with
approaches for understanding how to argue in value-rich and culturally diverse situations.
Section II, Parts, parses the argumentation model developed in the first section to
examine how claims and propositions, evidence, and reasoning work together to form arguments. The chapters in this section consider the nature and function of each component,
provide approaches for using these components to construct arguments, and then offer tests
to ensure that each part is effectively designed. Chapter 4 looks at how claims and propositions can be developed, understood, and criticized. It introduces types of claims—fact, value,
and policy—as well as a consideration of how they function in different argument spheres.
Chapter 5 considers evidence and how claims are grounded. It provides readers with tools for
understanding and analyzing evidence quality as well as how to identify improper evidence
use. Chapter 6 surveys different approaches for reasoning and provides readers with tools
for understanding, analyzing, and evaluating the quality of reasoning. Argument analysis and
evaluation, themes developed in this section, are later used in Chapters 10 and 11 to help
readers understand quality and ethical discourse.
The focus of Section III, Developing and Arguing Extended Cases, is how advocates
can move from creating individual arguments to extended, well-developed argument cases.
Chapter 7 considers the process and principles associated with analyzing and approaching propositions. It explores the unique questions associated with each type of proposition
and introduces concepts related to proving propositions such as “presumption,” “burden of
proof,” and creating “prima facie” cases. Chapter 8, then, develops these concepts further by
examining how extended cases can be designed and argued. The stock issues associated with
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 12
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Preface
13
each proposition type are discussed, as are strategies for designing extended cases. Chapter 9
looks at the other side of the proposition and surveys methods of refutation. Analytic strategies are developed for each type of proposition and provide advocates with tools for disproving extended cases as well as the assumptions of the propositional arena.
The final section, Communicating Arguments, is about how arguers move from the
work of creating arguments and cases to the process of presenting them. Chapter 10 discusses
persuasion and how the argument context serves as a rhetorical situation in which arguers and recipients share an environment. We introduce the “narrative paradigm” as well as
persuasive strategies to help advocates and recipients interact effectively. The final chapter,
Responsibility, takes on the issues of what constitutes “good” argument. What is ethical or
not? What is appropriate for the argument context? The first part of the chapter considers
language choices then discusses how argument fallacies can be destructive forces. The final
section, then, works with the reader to develop a personal code of ethics.
We have provided many study tools in this book—lists of key concepts, answers to
selected exercises in Appendix A, chapter summaries, and exercises that require students to
apply chapter concepts. Appendix B contains a glossary of all the major concepts developed
in the text along with references to their location. Appendix C is devoted to Research Strategies and is intended to provide resources for students who want to learn about debate and,
perhaps, try attending a debate tournament. Appendix D, Intercollegiate Debate, is designed
as a starting point for finding strong evidence to support arguments. Both Appendixes C and
D can be accessed online at http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com. The book’s study aids
should enable students to review for exams, do further reading, and have handy references
when reading text material. We have used a variety of examples from law, education, ethics,
business, and other fields to illustrate the argument concepts introduced.
This text is available in a variety of formats—digital and print. To learn more about Pearson
programs, pricing options, and customization, visit http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com.
Acknowledgments
This textbook has been a part of my life for a long time and it is the result of many people
who worked very hard to make it a success. The most important of these is Barbara Warnick
of the University of Pittsburg. Her voice and ideas remain strong throughout the book.
Her abilities as a co-author, theorist, and focused colleague shaped the evolution of this
textbook over many years and editions. My new co-author, Kristen Tutor of California State
University-Sacramento, has done a wonderful job of introducing new ideas and approaches
for applying argument theories. And, our research assistant, Nickolas Vincent Fletcher from
Sacramento State, has worked many painstaking hours to support this project.
Finally, we would like to conclude by thanking individuals who have helped us with
the development of this textbook of many years. We would especially like to thank Susan
L. Kline of The Ohio State University and Joseph W. Wenzel of the University of Illinois,
whose assistance on the First and Second Editions of the book was extensive. We would
also like to acknowledge the reviewers for the Third Edition, whose comments and
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 13
17/05/14 7:48 AM
14
Preface
s uggestions were excellent: Beth M. Waggenspack, Virginia Tech University; Susan L. Kline,
The Ohio State University; Jim Vickrey, Troy State University; Ronald O. Wastyn, James
Madison University; Dale Herbeck, Boston College; Steven Schwarze, The University of
Iowa; and Mark A. Pollock, Loyola University, Chicago. We would like to acknowledge the
assistance of Solveig Robinson, Pacific Lutheran University, and Amanda Feller, Pacific
Lutheran University, on the Fourth Edition. We would also like to thank the reviewers of
the Fourth Edition: Raymie McKerrow, University of Ohio, and Chris Miller, California
State University–Sacramento. We would also like to thank the reviewers of the Fifth E
dition:
James David Paterson, Imperial Valley College, and Dr. Thomas Preston Jr., University of
Texas–Brownville, and all those who helped so much in its development, including Chipo
Chikara, Stephanie Christopher, Nigel Barron, Minerva Rios, and Leah Sprain. We are very
appreciative of the work Danielle Endres contributed to the Fifth Edition and the expertise
she brought to the project. In the Sixth Edition, we want to thank Katie Picket for the work
she did helping edit the text and researching some of the case studies. We would also like to
olytechnic State
acknowledge the reviewers for the Sixth Edition: Martin Mehl, California P
University; R. Blaine Davis, California State U
niversity–Sacramento; Jason Kemnitz, South
Dakota State University; Joshua Butcher, Texas A&M University; Catherine L. Langford,
Texas Tech University; and Mark Porrovecchio, Oregon State University. We would like to
thank the reviewers of the Seventh edition: Danielle Walker, Cerritos College; David Worth,
Rice University; Catherine egley Waggoner, Wittenberg University; and Nicki Michalski,
Lamar University.
Pearson wishes to thank and acknowledge the following people for their work on the
Global Edition:
Contributor:
Dr. Nuzhat Parveen Khan, Jamia Milia Islamia
Reviewers:
Sidharth Chauhan, National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)
Lovely Dasgupta, The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS)
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 14
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Section
I
Developing
a Conceptual
Framework
for Argument
Chapters
1. Arguing Critically
2. Co-orienting Argument
3. The Impact of Values and
Culture on Argument
15
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 15
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One
Arguing Critically
Chapter Outline
Critical Thought
Cycle of Critical Thought
Critical Thinking as a Skill
Argumentation and Argument
Process
Characteristics
Argument Contexts
Fields
Characteristics
Standards
Spheres
Technical
Personal
Public
Using Argument Contexts
Using Fields to Interpret Contexts
Using Spheres to Interpret Contexts
Summary
Exercises
Key Concepts
Argument (p. 27)
Argument contexts (p. 34)
Argument fields (p. 34)
Argument spheres (p. 37)
Argumentation (p. 18)
Assumptions (p. 21)
Claim (p. 28)
Concepts (p. 21)
Critical thinking (p. 18)
Evidence (p. 29)
Field-dependent standards (p. 37)
Field-invariant standards (p. 37)
Personal sphere (p. 39)
Public sphere (p. 39)
Reasoning (p. 30)
Technical sphere (p. 38)
Box 1.1 “Do Beauty Contests Harm Women?” illustrates how arguments can develop over
disagreements about an issue. Each day, we are faced with many issues—some small and others more significant. The need for argument arises from our desire to persuade or convince
others of a point of view or course of action. When we perceive that something should be
done or that others fail to understand our views, we may choose to advocate for our ideas and
beliefs—we make arguments to inspire change. When we advocate for significant change or
16
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 16
5/12/14 5:24 PM
17
chapter One Arguing Critically
Box 1.1
Do Beauty Contests Harm Women?
Each year, more than 2 billion people worldwide participate in and watch beauty contests. In
fact, beyond the many local and regional contests, there are more than fifty world beauty pageants held annually.1 Although Miss America, among other pageants, has experienced declining
audiences over the last thirty years, some pageants, such as Miss World, continue to attract
global attention and viewers. Additionally, youth pageants and television programs such as
Toddlers and Tiaras attract large audiences. Yet, despite their popularity, questions persist about
whether they harm girls and women. The following discussion between two students addresses
some of these concerns:2
Kaidren:
Beauty contests undermine women as people. They promote an ideal of female
beauty that is unrealistic, and very very few women can achieve it. Yet, this ideal
pressures all women to conform to it. This is harmful because it encourages women to diet excessively, contributes to eating disorders, and encourages risky cosmetic surgery. But the “beauty myth” is so powerful that women willingly risk their
health and even their lives to achieve what these contests promote.
Ramona:
Wait a minute. This argument makes it sound as though women are easily brainwashed and can’t figure out fact from fiction. There is nothing wrong with watching and admiring people who are fit, well proportioned, and healthy—in fact, these
kinds of messages are especially important when you consider the obesity epidemic.
We should strive for fitness. Anyway, both women and men enjoy beauty pageants;
more women watch them than men. Women freely choose to enter them. No one
is required to participate or watch—people get to make choices. Pageants haven’t
been forced on anyone and they don’t force anyone to make bad choices.
Kaidren: You are missing the point. Healthy lifestyles are important and we should be teaching about how to be healthy. But that is not what beauty pageants do. They single
out women as different from men. Women are judged on appearance rather than
any other quality. And, achieving the ideal often requires poor health habits such
as extreme dieting. Judging women—not men—on their looks subjugates women
because it establishes an ideal feminine form that does not include intellect or any
other ability. These contests set a standard of femininity that focuses almost exclusively on outward appearance at any cost.
Ramona:
What is wrong with judging people on physical appearance? We judge people on
particular attributes all the time. We evaluate professors on their ability to teach,
irrespective of other abilities. We judge athletes on physical abilities without any
concern for their intellect or emotional balance. We judge medical doctors on
their skill and not on whether they are nice people. We evaluate people all the
time based on physical, mental, or emotional attributes that are appropriate for the
situation. Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others and
that’s OK. Why would we exclude giving women recognition for outward appearance any more than we would exclude awarding a prize for best tattoo or the ability
to lift weights?
(continued)
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 17
5/12/14 5:24 PM
18 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Box 1.1 Continued
Consider the issues that emerged in this discussion. Both Kaidren and Ramona made
arguments for and against pageants. As you read through the arguments again, consider the following questions:
1. Which arguer did a better job—Kaidren or Ramona? Why? Is it because her arguments
support a position you already agree with? Or is it because she helped you understand
something new and different that convinced you?
2. If you were Kaidren, what would your next argument be if this conversation continued?
How do you think Ramona would respond?
3. Do you think these are good arguments? Are any issues or ideas missing? If you had been
in the conversation, what would you have added?
4. Did you find any arguments that were not very good? What made them weak? How
would you have strengthened them?
understanding of complex ideas, we may create many arguments and link them together to
support our ideas and positions.
Often, people assume that to argue is bad—that when we have an argument with someone we are having a problem with them. This view is limited. Arguments happen at national
and global levels over water rights, poverty, and health care to list just a few. But argumentation and advocacy are also regular features of our daily lives. We argue about which movie
to see with our friends, what school we want to attend, or where to go on vacation. We advocate when we negotiate over how much to pay for a car or a house. We create arguments
when we try to persuade people to think or behave differently.
Argumentation can be used for either good or bad, depending on the choices made
by the advocates. This book focuses on how to positively use the skills of argumentation to
(1) help others understand differing points of view, (2) explore ideas and alternatives, and
(3) convince others of a need to change or act. Consider, for instance, the exchange between
students in Box 1.1. This conversation presented a series of arguments that illustrate how
discussion and arguing can work productively in each of these three ways. The students used
arguments to help define the issues for discussion, clarify perceptions, and advocate for different points of view. Throughout the conversation, they engaged in the processes that will
be the focus of this book: critical thinking and argumentation.
Critical Thought
Many theorists have explored critical thinking and the role it plays in education, our understanding of the world, and our understanding of ourselves.3 Done well, critical thinking helps
us consider issues and problems systematically and rigorously. It is fundamental to our ability to learn and make sense of the world around us. Some, for instance, have described critical
thinking as the process whereby ordinary people apply the scientific method to the ordinary world.4
Critical thought requires the ability to analyze and evaluate conclusions based on a coherent
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 18
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
19
understanding of relevant issues. Theorist Joanne Kurfiss offered the following definition
for critical thinking:
an investigation whose purpose is to explore a situation, phenomenon, question, or problem
to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion about it that integrates all available information and
that therefore can be convincingly justified.5
Often, when confronted with a challenge or problem, people want to leap to a solution or find a quick resolution. Critical thinking asks us to pause. People who think critically
about issues will not settle for apparent or obvious solutions. They will suspend judgment
while seeking out relevant opinions, facts, and reasons that promote good decision-making.
Cycle of Critical Thought
Critical thought is a complex process and, if done well, it can help us examine and explore
intricate ideas to better understand both the issues at hand and the consequences of acting—
or not acting. As this book will explore, the world is systemically connected and decisions
about acting in one area will have effects in other areas. For instance, we know that exposure
to ultraviolet rays can cause skin cancer. Yet, as noted by the Skin Cancer Foundation, “most
people don’t apply enough” sunscreen and should use products with a Sun Protection Factor
(SPF) rating of 30 or higher.6 Concern over skin cancer and skin damage, over time, has led
to more people deciding to reduce their exposure to sunlight and, when in the sun, use high
SPF sunscreen for protection. This action makes sense given the risks associated with UV
rays. However, an important and seldom discussed side effect of this decision is that many
people, particularly children, do not get enough vitamin D.
Normally, sunlight causes the body to produce vitamin D, which is necessary for bone
growth and strength. Without enough UV exposure, people have to take steps to ensure
a sufficient intake of this vitamin. The point here is that the world is interconnected and
decisions often have consequences and implications beyond the immediate decision. A process of systematic critical thinking can help us uncover connections, evaluate options, and
inform actions.
Although there are many ways to understand critical thinking, it can generally be
considered as a cycle that moves through four interrelated steps: (1) Assess, (2) Explore,
(3) Evaluate, and (4) Integrate. These are illustrated in Figure 1.1, “Cycle of Critical
Thought.”7 Our ability to move through each of these steps effectively helps ensure quality
decision-making. And, although each step may appear relatively simple, they are actually complex. Each step asks us to consider a series of issues and questions so that we can
fully explore a given subject. The following text provides greater detail about how we move
through the critical thinking cycle and these four steps.
Step 1. Assess. When we assess, we work to clearly identify the problem or issue and then
discover the relevant information. Specifically, assessment includes the following questions:
■
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 19
What is the need? People reason and argue because a need arises. The need for argument can be anything from “Should I do my homework or go out with my friends?”
to “Should marijuana be legalized?” In the case of beauty pageants, the students chose
a topic for a classroom presentation: “Do beauty contests harm women?” They could
5/12/14 5:24 PM
20 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Integrate: What
is our best course
of action?
Assess: What are
the problems or
needs?
Evaluate:
What are the
most important
considerations?
Explore: What are
the primary
issues and
assumptions?
Figure 1.1 Cycle of Critical Thought
have spoken on any of a number of possible topics related to pageants. They might
have argued, “What should be done about beauty pageants?” Or, they could have asked,
“What topic will get us the best grade on this assignment?” The need for argument is
simply the impetus for critical thought and discussion. In Chapter 2, when we discuss
argument situations, we will talk about the need as the “exigence” for argument. The
need helps us frame the conversation so that we know what is included and what is
excluded from discussion. Why are we talking about this issue? What are we trying to
figure out?
■ What is the purpose? Purpose represents the goal of the discussion. It can be as simple
as understanding more about beauty pageants or as complicated as statistical analyses of how pageants and the “beauty myth” affect a group’s identity and feelings of
adequacy. The purpose of inquiry and argument does not need to focus on a particular
course of action or what decision should be reached, but it does need to identify the
goal of the inquiry: What do we hope to achieve? Why are we having this conversation? In Box 1.1, the purpose of the conversation was to reach an understanding
about the potential harms related to beauty contests. We need to emphasize here the
importance of understanding the purpose of arguing about a subject. Are we trying to
create understanding? Change beliefs? Motivate someone to action? And, even more
significantly, do all the people engaged in the argument share the same purpose? If
not, discussing and assessing the goals of those involved becomes a primary task. In
Chapter 5, we will discuss how propositions frame discussions and debates. They serve
to define what is talked about and for what purpose.
■ What information is needed? Answering questions and moving a conversation toward
an outcome requires appropriate information. With beauty contests, the students
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 20
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
21
needed to clearly understand what pageants are, how they work, and what their effects
are. The students also needed to figure out if beauty contests are different from other
kinds of events and contests in which people are judged for their appearance or a particular ability. Information can take many forms including statistical data, reports from
eyewitnesses, individual observations, or any number of other sources of material
that can help a person answer the question. Chapter 6, which focuses on evidence in
argument, considers how information can be found and used. Information provides
substance for thought. It is the material we draw upon to develop ideas and synthesize
new thoughts.
Step 2. Explore. Exploration examines the interpretations and connections that occur within
the issues, research, and other parts of the discussion. It includes an exploration of assumptions, biases, and the multiple points of view that affect how we understand and approach
issues and ideas. Specifically, this step includes:
What are the dominant concepts involved? Concepts are the theories, definitions, rules, and
laws that govern how we think and act. We know we should wear our seat belts—there are
laws as well as theories of accident survival that tell us this. We know that we have a theory
of fairness and equality. We have laws that protect minority rights while allowing majority rule. And we know that it is wrong to objectify or subjugate people. These concepts
provide support for decisions we make about child beauty pageants or other controversial
subjects. Concepts are constructs of the human mind.8 They represent a framework within which we think and act. People once believed that the sun revolved around the earth
and argued strongly against those who challenged that belief, such as Galileo, who in turn
argued based on observations and the evidence they collected. Concepts can be slow to
change and replacements may be difficult to accept because beliefs are deeply imbedded
in our understanding of the world and controversial subjects.
■ What assumptions shape the issues? Assumptions are the presuppositions and viewpoints we
take for granted. We assume, for instance, that people try to be fair. We assume that
we don’t want to subjugate people. And we also assume that people will watch beauty
pageants, which in turn will sell advertisers’ products and services. This is one of the
reasons contests such as Miss America and Miss World were started. It is important to
understand our assumptions because they represent a “baseline,” or starting point, for
thought, and if they are flawed or misunderstood, the reasoning that stems from them
can also be flawed. Often, assumptions are problematic because they are part of our
ways of thinking and are often unknown and unexplored by us. We assume the world is
round. We assume that most people will obey laws. And, we act on these assumptions
even if they are incorrect. Revealing, testing, and challenging our assumptions helps
us understand our own choices and make clearer, better arguments. The challenge, of
course, is in identifying them in the first place.
■ What points of view are involved? People reason and think from different points of
view. That is why, for instance, two people can see the same movie and have vastly
different opinions about its quality. Or why some people support and others oppose
beauty pageants. Our points of view come from our individual backgrounds, thoughts,
experiences, and attitudes. They help us frame issues and integrate them into our
■
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 21
5/12/14 5:24 PM
22 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
thinking. The students, talking about beauty pageants, illustrate this point. Two
educated people, with similar backgrounds, interpreted and understood the issues of
beauty contests differently. Whenever we work with other people, we encounter different points of view. Part of critical thought involves a process of interpreting and
understanding other views as well as our own.
Step 3. Evaluate. This step examines the quality of information and connections among possible solutions and considers how factors such as bias and points of view affect potential
outcomes. Based on this synthesis and integration, approaches for addressing issues emerge
and are evaluated until a preferred approach is found. This step includes:
What can we interpret and infer from our exploration? When we think, we blend new
information and ideas into our existing points of view, concepts, and assumptions. From
this combination of questioning, examining, researching, and understanding, we reason toward a conclusion. We interpret information and infer from it to reach our conclusions. With beauty pageants, for instance, based on what the students knew, their
research, and their conversations, they interpreted their data and inferred conclusions
from it. The process of interpretation and inference is one of making sense of data and
reasoning from it toward a goal.
■ What implications or consequences can we see? Our reasoning and thinking carry with
them implications and consequences. If we act on the conclusions we draw, what will
happen? If we change our beliefs and attitudes, what effect will that have on future decisions we might make? Even though we often consider in-class presentations as simply
another assignment, they have the potential to change attitudes and actions in c lassroom
audiences. If the two students convince a group of students to act—or not to act—to
boycott or support beauty pageants, there will be consequences. Critical thought is not
a self-contained entity. It carries with it potential outcomes from the process.
■
Step 4. Integrate. The final step in the critical thinking process involves selecting the preferred
alternative, monitoring its effectiveness, and developing strategies for continued understanding and evaluation of how well the solution solves the problem and the conditions that caused
it. This step, then, leads back to the first steps of assessing, exploring, evaluating, and integrating potential issues and problems. This final part of the cycle is important. Whatever solutions
advocates chose, they have consequences that will raise issues that need to be assessed, explored,
evaluated, and integrated. This is how the critical thinking cycle supports our decision-making
over many issues and long periods of time. Box 1.2, “Apply the Theory,” is designed to help
guide you through this process and apply the cycle of critical thought.
Using critical thinking skills effectively helps us understand alternatives and make
reasonable decisions. However, when we fail to work through the cycle and consider alternatives, we can make mistakes. Skipping steps or failing to examine our assumptions can
yield poor outcomes. Some barriers to critical thought are described in Box 1.3, “Barriers to
Effective Critical Thinking.”
Critical Thinking as a Skill
The critical thinking cycle we just explored is a powerful tool. It helps us define and focus on
a need, identify ways of thinking about the need, and then design approaches for addressing
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 22
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
23
Box 1.2
Apply the Theory: Thinking Critically
Consider the topic introduced in Box 1.1 and the implications for youth beauty pageants as well
as television programs such as Toddlers and Tiaras. Then, think through the parts of the critical
thinking cycle and answer the following questions:
Step 1. Assess
1. Is there a need to discuss this subject? What is the need? In a single sentence, describe it.
2. What is the purpose of discussing this subject? Write your purpose in a sentence. What is
the goal you seek? Awareness? Action?
3. What information can you find to support your purpose? Using any Internet search
engine, identify and paraphrase three sources that support your purpose.
Step 2. Explore
1. Identify and write down three concepts that support and three concepts that don’t support
youth beauty pageants.
2. For each concept, write down at least one assumption that supports the concept.
3. Brainstorm and write down the different points of view shaping the discussion. Identify
points of view that are different than your own.
Step 3. Evaluate and Interpret
1. Based on what you have read and what you have brainstormed, write down three conclusions you can reach.
2. Think about the implications of each conclusion you reached. Next, write down what you
think would occur if you acted on them.
3. What are the implications, both good and bad, of banning all beauty pageants?
Step 4. Integrate.
Each step you have completed has led you to a point where you can make a choice.
Considering the choices you have developed, which do you think is best? Why? The
answer to this question, why one choice is better than another, informs how we engage
and understand argument.
the need. This is why critical thinking is such a vital skill; it helps prevent people from
making bad decisions and helps them solve problems. It allows us to consider actions and
consequences in rational and systematic ways. This ability has applications far beyond classroom applications and homework assignments. Richard W. Paul and Gerald M. Nosich,
noted critical thinking theorists, observed:
The kind of “work” increasingly required in industry and business is “intellectual,” that
is, it requires workers to define goals and purposes clearly, seek out and organize relevant
data, conceptualize those data, consider alternative perspectives, adjust thinking to context,
question assumptions, modify thinking in light of the continual flood of new information, and
reason to legitimate conclusions. Furthermore, the intellectual work required must increasingly be coordinated with, and must profit from the critique of, fellow workers.9
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 23
5/12/14 5:24 PM
24 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Box 1.3
Barriers to Effective Critical Thinking
The ability to think critically is an important skill. However, most of us have developed habits
and thinking skills that inhibit our ability to effectively engage issues and problems creatively.10
These include:
1. The “Right Answer” Assumption. Most issues and problems have many possible answers.
Yet, much of our education has taught us to look for the one correct answer. Focusing
on finding a single right answer can obscure alternatives and we may miss opportunities. Instead, look for several “correct” approaches or answers and then evaluate which
is best.
2. Confirmation Bias. People tend to associate with others who are similar to them. We tend
to read books we like and listen to concerts featuring bands we like or go to movies we
think we will enjoy. Generally, these habits are not harmful until they influence our ability to think critically. When we only read research that supports own assumptions, when
we only read news stories that validate our political beliefs, we are confirming what we
already know but failing to explore all sides of an issue. When researching a subject, it is
important to ask yourself what someone taking the opposite side might read, research, or
argue. Understanding other points of view is central to effective critical thinking.
3. Accepting Authority without Question. One of the reasons we explore and research issues
is because we seek out experts who have more background and knowledge than we do.
We assume that because they have written books and articles, given public lectures, and
traveled “talk show” circuits, they are irrefutable authorities in their field. But this is not
always the case. Sometimes experts are wrong. For instance, Walter Lippmann, American
intellectual, writer, and commentator, once made the point that “Among the really difficult problems of the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the simplest and most
manageable.”11 Seek out more than one expert and understand the credentials and qualifications of those you use.
4. Rules and Logic Must be Followed. Rules and logic are important and they are part of critical
thinking. Rules allow us to live and work together and they are discussed later in this
chapter when we talk about spheres and fields. However, rules and logic can impose
restrictions on how we think because they tell us what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. An alternative is to assume there are no rules and use analogies to try to see relationships and connections among things that we might not otherwise perceive. Sometimes
creative and imaginative approaches can be best. Discovering alternative ways of seeing
issues can help open new approaches and ideas.
5. Being Practical Is Best. Sometimes people make a decision because they believe it is practical. They might say, “We need to buy a used laptop computer because that is what we can
afford.” This approach presumes a conclusion because of an assumed constraint without
considering alternatives. While issues of practicality ultimately may prevail, try imagining approaches irrespective of practical constraints. Consider what “should” be done as
opposed to the feasibility of what “could” be done.
6. Avoiding Ambiguity. Ambiguity can be frightening because it introduces uncertainty
and risk about decisions. Most people prefer certainty and strive for a clear, predictable
understanding of events and actions. If we don’t know for sure what will happen, we may
decide not to try. However, the gray areas imposed by ambiguity are where creativity and
(continued)
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 24
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
25
Box 1.3 Continued
i nnovative thinking exist. When you find ambiguity, try imagining the many possible outcomes associated with the issues or actions that are in the gray area.
7. Being Wrong Is Bad. Much of our upbringing and education imposes an assumption that
being wrong is bad. Wrong answers result in bad grades. Wrong behavior results in punishment. As a consequence, people grow to fear being wrong and work hard to avoid
it even though that approach may stifle creativity and inhibit finding alternatives. The
challenge about being wrong is a tendency to deny or move away from the decision. Or
sometimes we simply decide to do nothing out of fear of being wrong. Instead, work to
understand why a decision was wrong and what other alternatives existed that might have
improved the outcome.
Paul and Nosich go on to comment that supervisors and employers value workers who can
reason well and express themselves clearly.
Yet, as much as we claim to prize the value of critical thought and inquiry, we are
generally not very good at it. Critical thinking theorists Richard Paul, Linda Elder, and
Ted Bartell, for instance, examined thirty-eight public universities and twenty-eight private
universities to determine the level and quality of critical thinking instruction. They found
that although 89 percent of teachers claimed critical thinking was a primary component of
their instruction, only 19 percent could provide a clear explanation of what they taught that
was critical, and only 9 percent were actually teaching critical thought.12 Richard Arum and
Josipa Roksa in their book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses made the
point that forty-five percent or more of college students do not achieve statistically significant gains in their critical thinking and complex reasoning skills by the time they graduate
from a university with an undergraduate degree.13
Most of us recognize the importance of critical thought even if it is not always taught
effectively.14 And, as important as it is, critical thinking is not an easy skill to develop or use.
It requires time, discipline, and practice. As we think, develop ideas, and argue it is important to actively approach our questions with an intentional, critical lens. We should:
Refine generalizations and avoid oversimplification.
Generate and assess solutions to problems.
■ Compare perspectives, interpretations, and theories.
■ Read critically and seek out information that disagrees with our own perspectives.
15
■ Listen critically, seriously considering views with which we disagree.
■
■
Argumentation and Argument
Argumentation engages us in the cycle of critical thought. Argumentation is the process of
making arguments intended to justify beliefs, attitudes, and values so as to influence others. We
see argumentation in media ads for products, campaign ads for candidates, newspaper editorials, Internet sites on public issues, business meetings where proposals are made, and
in many other places. Argumentation occurs everywhere, and we deal with it as readers,
listeners, writers, and speakers on a daily basis. In fact, argumentation is perhaps one of the
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 25
5/12/14 5:24 PM
26 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
most important skills we can develop. As participants in a world community and members
of democratic communities, argumentation is the means by which we engage in discussion
about our present and our future. It is the process by which we exercise democratic rights
and self-determination.
Hugh Heclo, a professor of public affairs at George Mason University, took the position that American politics has been transformed in recent decades to become hypersensitive
to public opinions and anxieties. Unprecedented access to information from homes using
smartphones and tablets as well as the ability to disseminate opinions freely through the
Internet and other media have made the individual voice and opinion more powerful than
ever.16 We have the ability to access the world’s information in an unprecedented way.
The importance of his observation should not be underestimated. We live in a time
where the role of argument, arguers, and recipients has tremendous potential power to shape
our world. Technology has allowed ideas and arguments to spread across the world quickly
and powerfully. The death of Neda Agha-Soltan provides a clear and tragic illustration of
this point. In 2009, following an angrily contested presidential election in Iran, Neda was
shot during one of the demonstrations. The event, captured on a mobile phone and uploaded
to the Internet, was arguably, as Time Magazine put it, “the most witnessed death in human
history.”17 Neda, which is the Persian word for “voice,” became a symbol for the opposition
and stark evidence for arguments about the political and personal outrage of a community.
The video was broadcast around the world and millions saw and heard a message of violence,
protest, and the struggle to have a voice. To participate globally, we need to fundamentally
understand how arguments are made and, just as importantly, how they are refuted.
Process
Argumentation is significant for the development and maintenance of a healthy society.
It can occur only when people are interested in hearing or reading what others have to
say and in seriously considering others’ proposals. When parties engage in argumentation, they agree to certain conventions and tacit principles. Communication theorist Susan
Shimanoff made the point that for people to communicate they must “agree on such matters
as how to take turns at speaking, how to be polite or how to insult, to greet, and so forth.
If every symbol user manipulated symbols at random, the result would be chaos rather than
communication.”18
Advocates agree to rules for conducting the discussion, they make contributions as
required, and they seek the approval of the other parties involved.19 They agree to what is
acceptable and not acceptable for the context, how long to speak, how to take turns, and
what the process for decision-making is. If people refuse even to listen to the other party,
argumentation cannot occur. One of the most common sets of rules for governing debates is
“Roberts Rules of Order,” which is described in Box 1.4, “Robert’s Rules of Order.”
Advocates begin by using the critical thinking cycle to generate arguments about the
topic being discussed. Argumentation is the process of selecting arguments from that set and
connecting them in ways that allow arguers to construct a compelling case for positions or to
address needs. For instance, lawyers study all the arguments available in a case, they examine
past cases and precedents, they select the best among those, and then connect the arguments
together to make a case for the prosecution or defense in courts of law. Legislators study
many arguments and then may select a series of arguments to support broad-based policies or
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 26
5/12/14 5:24 PM
27
chapter One Arguing Critically
Box 1.4
Robert’s Rules of Order
For argumentation to occur, participants need to agree on a set of rules or procedures to
govern the process. In personal conversations, these rules are often implicit and understood.
They include turn taking, no interrupting, and not shouting. In more formal contexts such as
government proceedings or community hearings, the rules tend to be more explicit and clearly
developed.
The most widely used rules for debating are Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.20 These
rules describe when someone can speak, for how long, and about what. They are designed to
keep arguers on task and focused on the questions being discussed. The rules are extensive and
are designed to ensure that all relevant voices are heard, the process for giving voice is fair and
complete, and the outcomes will support both critical thought and critical evaluation of ideas.21
political change. Businesses may consider many possible arguments for a product
or service, group the best individual arguments together, and advocate for their products
and services in marketing and public relations campaigns. A model of the process of argumentation can be found in Figure 1.2, “Model of Argumentation Process.” In this figure,
arguers use the four steps of the critical thinking cycle to develop issues into potential arguments (Steps 1 and 2). Some of those arguments will be more or less significant than others
(Step 3). By carefully selecting the best arguments to support the arguer’s overall completion, the process of argumentation seeks to integrate many ideas and issues into a single,
overall conclusion or position (Step 4).
Speeches, essays, group discussions, legislation, and political campaigns are all
platforms where argumentation can take place. Argumentation is composed of individual
arguments. An argument is a set of statements in which a claim is made, support is offered for it, and
there is an attempt to influence someone in a context of disagreement.
It is important to understand argument in this sense—a claim, plus support for it in
the form of reasoning and evidence—as distinguished from interpersonal arguments or
Individual Arguments
Figure 1.2 “Model of
Argumentation Process”
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 27
Arguer generates multiple,
potential arguments
Overall
Conclusion
Arguer selects a set of
arguments that best reach the
conclusion
5/12/14 5:24 PM
28 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
disputes.22 In this latter sense, “argument” is a kind of (usually unpleasant) interpersonal
exchange, as when we say, “John and Mary were having an argument.” Sometimes described
as “quarrels” or “squabbles,” these kinds of arguments usually involve two or more persons
engaged in extended overt disagreement with each other.
That is not the sort of argument with which this book is concerned. Arguments of the
kind described here occur when we say something like, “John made an argument in support
of his proposal for the new marketing plan.” This view considers whether an argument is
sound and effective; it emphasizes argument as a reasoning process and considers arguments
as units rather than as interactive processes.
Arguments are only one kind of communication. When we greet someone (“Hello,
how are you?”), issue commands (“Shut the door”), vent our emotions (“I hate it when
you do that!”), make promises (“I’ll return your book tomorrow”), and so forth, we do not
produce arguments. To clarify the differences between arguments and other forms of communication, we will describe the important features of argument according to our definition.
Characteristics
First, to be considered an argument, an arguer, generally, should make a claim. A claim is an
expressed opinion or a conclusion that the arguer wants accepted. In the beauty pageant discussion,
some claims were:
Beauty contests undermine women as people.
There is nothing wrong with watching and admiring people who are fit, well proportioned, and healthy.
Judging women on their looks subjugates them.
Claims take on different forms in various contexts; they function as claims in relation to the
support offered for them. As we will show in Chapter 5, claims in a given individual argument may themselves function as forms of support for the main claim, or thesis statement, of
an extended argument. Examples of main claims include in criminal law the charge brought
against the defendant by the prosecution; in the legislature the briefer version of a proposed
bill or piece of legislation; and in medicine the diagnosis and recommended treatment regimen. In argumentation and debate, these main claims are often called propositions or resolutions.
When someone makes a claim, he or she is expected to offer support for it in the form
of reasons and information. If we issue a command or make a promise (“I will pick you
up at 10”), we commit ourselves by making the statement, and no further proof is necessary.23 Likewise, pure description (“The setting sun was reflected in a rosy haze”), small talk
(“Things are so-so, could be better”), and other neutral statements generally do not make
claims—they do not advance statements on which there is disagreement.
Sometimes, we can decide whether a statement is a claim only by considering its context. Arguers often leave their evidence, reasoning, or claim unstated. Do the following
examples contain claims?
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Coors Light, ’cause coffee’s nasty after football.
Every time I’m nice to him, he ignores me.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 28
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
29
If we know that the first statement is a bumper sticker displayed by an opponent of gun
control, we can conclude that it is a claim. Spelled out, it would say, “making guns illegal
means that only those who circumvent the law will have guns.” Knowing that the second
statement occurred in a beer ad would indicate that the claim is “[Buy] Coors Light” and
that the remainder is a good reason for doing so. It is ambiguous whether the third statement
is a claim or not. Knowing more about the person’s relationship to her friend would help us
to determine whether it is a claim. Some claims can be recognized as claims only when we
know about the speaker’s intention, the claim’s relation to the other statements made along
with it, or the situational context in which a claim is made.
The second characteristic of an argument is that support is offered for the claim.
Claims are supported both by the evidence and reasoning or inferences that connect the evidence to the claim. Evidence comes in many forms, but it always functions as the foundation
for argument or the grounds on which arguments are based. When we make an argument,
we move from statements we believe our receivers will accept (evidence) to statements that
are in dispute (claims). Evidence consists of facts or conditions that are objectively observable, beliefs
or statements generally accepted as true by the recipients, or conclusions previously established.
Evidence does not consist only of objectively observable facts. From a rhetorical point
of view (i.e., that arguers seek acceptance for their claims from audiences), it makes sense to
regard any proposition, or belief accepted by everyone in the audience, as a starting point for
argument. There are many statements (“A person is innocent until proven guilty” or “One
ought to keep one’s promises”) that are not facts but that could function as evidence in relation to a claim because the hearers would accept them as reasonable assumptions. The nature
of evidence and how it functions in an argument will be discussed more fully in Chapter 5.
In the beauty contest discussion at the beginning of this chapter, statements viewed as
evidence by the speakers and accepted by others count as evidence. Examples of such statements include:
We have an obesity epidemic.
Both women and men enjoy beauty pageants.
We evaluate teachers, athletes, and professionals on particular attributes.
To be counted as evidence, statements should be accepted and viewed as relevant and true
by the parties in a dispute or audiences to whom arguments are addressed. (If only one
party—the arguer—accepts a statement, then it is a claim, not evidence.) So, for instance,
when Kaidren says that “the ‘beauty myth’ is so powerful that women willingly risk their
health and even their lives,” Ramona does not accept that as true and, therefore, it does not
function as evidence; rather it functions as a claim. If, however, Kaidren provided credible support from research, expert sources, or other trusted references that was accepted by
Ramona, then this statement could be used as evidence. In other words, if people in an argument agree to the statement, it is evidence.
The arguer who begins by establishing claims based on statements that are not
accepted will not get far. For statements to function as evidence and provide reliable grounds
for claims, they must be acceptable to the recipients. For instance, if Kaidren could show
specific examples of how pageants have been harmful or present credible support for how
they have eroded women’s rights, then Ramona’s statements about their positive attributes
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 29
5/12/14 5:24 PM
30 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
would not be able to function as evidence because they would be in dispute. The process of
argumentation begins with testing assumptions about what is true for the parties involved
and then building—argument by argument—until a conclusion is reached.
Claims are also supported by the link that the arguer makes between the evidence
and the claim. The part of the argument containing reasoning is frequently called the
inference. Reasoning can take various forms. Those that occur most frequently will be
described in Chapter 6, and you will become experienced at identifying them. Reasoning
constructs a rational link between the evidence and the claim and authorizes the step we make when
we draw a conclusion. Reasoning answers the question, “How did you get from the evidence
to the claim?”24 It consists of general principles that explain how the evidence and the
claim are connected.
The study of argument is made all the more interesting because arguers often do not
explicitly state their inferences. They provide evidence and make claims, but often one can
only guess how the link between the two was made. For example, if we study the evidence
presented by the pageant discussants along with their claims, we will find that some of their
inferences, all unstated, were functioning in the argument:
Women imitate beauty behavior seen in pageants and, as a result, engage in unhealthy
practices in an attempt to achieve an idealized view of beauty.
Because both women and men enjoy pageants, women choose the consequences as
opposed to having someone else impose a standard for beauty on them.
Judging people based on their physical beauty is the same thing as judging athletes and
doctors on their skills.
Inferences usually make explicit a link, which enables the arguer to connect evidence with
claims and thus construct an argument.
The third and last characteristic of arguments is that they are attempts to influence
someone in a context where people disagree with one another. The phrase “attempts to influence” is important because the arguer may or may not succeed. The recipient of the a rgument
is free not to agree with the expressed opinion of the arguer. The person to whom the argument is addressed may accept the claim, reject it, or continue to express doubts about it.
To say that arguments are “attempts to influence” means that there must be a recipient, or “arguee,” to whom the argument is addressed that is capable of responding to it.
Arguees must be open-minded and able to change their beliefs or actions because of the
argument. Furthermore, in choosing argument instead of command or coercion, arguers
recognize that the process of argument is reciprocal—that initiative and control pass back
and forth as arguers state their viewpoints and as recipients weigh their support and decide
whether to accept the argument or not.25
This reciprocal nature is especially important because sometimes recipients may decide
to accept or reject an argument because of the relationships they have with the arguer or
because the arguer fails to address important values or issues even if the argument is logical
and well constructed.
While listening to arguments, recipients retain the option of challenging, questioning,
criticizing, or countering the expressed opinions of the arguer. The influence that arguments
aim to bring about assumes many forms. Arguers may want recipients to become concerned
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 30
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
31
about an issue on which they are ambivalent or neutral, to shift favorable to unfavorable
attitudes or vice versa, or to change behavior.
Arguments are attempts to influence someone. An argument may be addressed to oneself, to another person, to a small group, to an audience, or to multiple audiences. Arguments
occur in writing, in conversation, in public speeches, and in all forms of communication.
Argument is a complex phenomenon that occurs in numerous forms and media of communication and that is addressed to many different kinds of audiences.
Finally, to say that argument occurs only when there is disagreement or the potential
for disagreement means that the topic addressed must be controversial, capable of inciting
opposing opinions from the parties involved. For example, consider the following dialogue:
John:
Mary:
John:
Mary:
John:
Should we go to a movie tonight?
Fine, what would you like to see?
How about Skyfall?
OK, do you want to go to the 7 o’clock showing?
Sure.
There is no argument here because there is no opposition. If Mary had rejected the whole
idea of going to the movies, or if she had proposed another film and given reasons for preferring it, argumentation would have occurred. But as long as parties to a discussion agree
with the opinions expressed, they will not produce arguments. Box 1.5, “Apply the Theory,”
provides you with an opportunity to work with argument characteristics.
Box 1.5
Apply the Theory: Prove This Is an Argument
As discussed in this section, arguments consist of three interrelated parts. First, arguments must
make a claim. The claim expresses what the arguer wants the recipient to do or think. Second,
arguments must have support. Support takes two forms: evidence and reasoning. And, finally,
arguments must attempt to influence someone. Non-controversial statements are not arguments—they are simply descriptions. Using these defining requirements, is the following an
argument?
Entertainment producers for television and film should be prohibited from depicting tobacco use
in any form. It shouldn’t be too hard to see why. We know how dangerous tobacco use is. That
has been known for decades. We also know that smoking in adults has declined in recent years—
but it has risen in teens and young adults. Cigarette advertisements are already largely prohibited
or restricted but because of gaps in legislation, tobacco companies have simply shifted their methods to using product placement in films and on TV. If you just look at what is being produced,
cigarettes can be seen everywhere. And they are seen most often in programs intended for teens.
It’s interesting that the American Lung Associate found that PG-13 movies have more tobacco
use than R-rated movies that are intended for adults.26 This should be stopped; we should protect
young people from these “hidden” ads for smoking.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 31
5/12/14 5:24 PM
32 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Argument Contexts
Arguments occur in response to a question or need for inquiry. They develop among arguers, recipients, and larger communities. This section focuses on argument contexts. It will
look at why members from different groups and situations interpret arguments differently
and how arguers can use their knowledge of contexts to craft better arguments. In the case
developed in Box 1.6, “Coffee Is Hot,” Liebeck and her advocates and McDonald’s and
its advocates were not alone exchanging claims and evidence. Public opinion was involved.
Congress became involved. Doctors and lawyers were involved. Each group that was party to
the argument had its own background, assumptions, and standards for evaluating the quality
and validity of the arguments produced. The types of arguments created by various advocates depended on the contexts for which they were used.
When most people hear of this case, they conclude that Liebeck represents another
person who “beat the system.” Coffee is hot—that is not McDonald’s fault. If people are
burned, that is their own fault. We live in a litigious society where examples such as this
illustrate the need to change the legal system. Sherman Joyce, president of the American
Tort Reform Association, argued that Liebeck’s case pointed out “a lot of the problems with
the system . . . It demonstrates that the system needs reform.”30 At the same time, Robert
H. Scott, the trial judge in the case, wanted to send McDonald’s a stern warning. He said
that it “was appropriate to punish and deter” McDonald’s given its history of burns.31 And
members of Congress moved quickly to pass legislation to reduce the amount of damages a
plaintiff could collect.
Liebeck’s case illustrates how a common set of facts—what happened to Stella
Liebeck—can be examined, reviewed, and debated among different groups of people who
arrive at very different conclusions. Members of the legal community thought that punitive
damages would deter McDonald’s from unsafe and unnecessary practices. Political lobbyists used the case to illustrate the need for reform and argued that the punitive award was
an abuse. Politicians looked for ways to act on the perceived abuses and wrote legislation to
minimize any future abuses.
Cases such as this are not all that uncommon. For instance, when two teenagers from the
Bronx sued McDonald’s for making them obese, many responded that it was preposterous to
hold a fast-food chain accountable for individual choice. Critics claimed that the girls were to
blame for their own ignorance and lack of willpower. And, some said, if anyone were to blame,
it should be their parents for failure to exercise reasonable control as well as family genetics.32
Although this case was dismissed, arguments about the unhealthy consequences of fast
food continue to make their way into the public sphere. When New York City’s mayor,
Michael Bloomberg, promoted legislation limiting the size of sugary beverages sold in the
city’s restaurants, sports venues, movie theatres, and street carts to 16 ounces, critics began
calling him “Nanny Bloomberg” and called for personal responsibility and not government
regulation.33 These are examples of how arguments about personal issues and responsibilities can move into the realm of public debate. Newspaper articles, books, and even an awardwinning documentary film, Super Size Me, made the very technical arguments of science,
medicine, court cases, and the role of government part of the public debate about health.
Manufacturers of fast food and snack food began to listen to arguments generated in
public contexts. Kraft Foods, producer of Oreo cookies, announced that it would reduce the
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 32
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
33
Box 1.6
Coffee Is Hot
The following story has become something of an urban legend—the story of the woman who
spilled hot coffee in her lap and sued McDonald’s because she was burned. Her judgment was
for $2.9 million dollars. Many people have heard of the case, and most think the verdict is an
indication of the decline of justice in the United States and how lawyers are beginning to make it
impossible for a business to manufacture anything without being sued. “Of course coffee is hot.
If you spill it on yourself, you will get burned,” people will say. Because of this case, most places
that serve coffee to go with plastic lids will have accompanying warnings that “Coffee is Hot.”
Although most people are probably aware of the case, they are probably not aware of
what happened. The account most people have heard does not tell the full story. In an effort to
clarify the issues and present a more complete accounting of events, filmmaker Susan Saladoff,
released her documentary Hot Coffee at the Sundance Film Festival in 2011.27 It explored the
case, the way in which arguments were made, and how they were interpreted. Some of the
details surrounding Stella Liebeck, McDonald’s, and hot coffee follow:
Stella Liebeck’s life changed dramatically on February 27, 1992. She was an active and energetic
79-year-old woman who had just retired from a long career as a department store cashier making
$5,000 per year.
That morning she did not have time for breakfast at her daughter’s house. Her son, Jim, was
catching an early flight out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and to get him to the airport on time,
she and her grandson, Chris, had to leave at dawn. Chris drove his Ford Probe and after dropping
Jim off, Stella and he went to a McDonald’s restaurant drive-through to buy breakfast.28
Chris pulled the car into a parking space so Stella could add cream and sugar to her coffee.
She had a difficult time getting the top off of the cup. “I took the cup and tried to get the top
off,” she later testified. She looked for a place to put the cup down, but the dashboard was slanted
and there was no cup-holder in the Probe. She described what happened next: “Both hands were
busy. I couldn’t hold it so I put it between my knees and tried to get the top off that way.” With
a strong tug the top came off and scalding coffee poured all over her lap. She screamed and tried
desperately to get her sweatpants off as the 185-degree-Fahrenheit coffee burned. By the time she
and Chris reached the emergency room, Stella had suffered second- and third-degree burns across
her buttocks, her thighs, and her labia. All she remembered was the pain.
Although the jury initially awarded her $2.9 million for pain, suffering, and injuries, a judge
later cut the amount to $640,000. Yet her case became one of the leading examples supporting
tort reform in Congress—an attempt to diminish runaway damage claims in lawsuits. Was her
case unjust? Was her case another example of lawyers trying to get all they can out of the system?
The answer may not be as clear as it at first seems.
Liebeck spent seven days in the hospital and then three more weeks recuperating at home.
During that time her movement was limited and she was in constant pain from the burns. She was
again hospitalized for skin grafts over the affected areas of her body and, while practically immobilized and in pain from the grafts, her body weight dropped from 20 to 83 pounds.
Initially she was not interested in suing. In a letter she wrote to McDonald’s, she asked that
they turn down the temperature of the coffee and requested $2,000—the amount of her out-ofpocket expenses. McDonald’s offered her $800. Upon further investigation, Liebeck discovered
that McDonald’s had been sued in the past for keeping its coffee too hot and that McDonald’s
had received more than 700 burn complaints over 10 years. In fact, beverages over 135 degrees
Fahrenheit are considered too hot for human consumption. Yet, the company continued to sell
coffee at the same 185-degree-Fahrenheit burning temperature.29
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 33
5/12/14 5:24 PM
34 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
size of its portions in single-serving packages. McDonald’s ended the super size meal option
and reduced the size of some of its servings. Frito-Lay decided to reduce or eliminate trans
fats from their foods because of possible health risks associated with them.34
People from different associations and groups often see different things in the world
around them. That is because all of us use our assumptions, beliefs, and experiences to help
frame our experiences. We talk of many different subjects and have our own rules of discourse. Lawyers, for instance, have very strict rules for what can serve as evidence for an
argument. In science, certain types of evidence and reasoning are considered superior to
others. For instance, scientists tend to look for cause and effect and tend not to reason from
analogy or personal feelings. For them, claims or hypotheses should be proven objectively.
Advocates do not present their arguments in a vacuum. They draw arguments from
their knowledge, background, and research in a particular topic and adapt their arguments
to an audience’s need and interest in that topic. From an arguer’s assessment of the connection between an audience and a message, arguments are formed. When scientists write about
their research in academic journals, they approach their audience differently than if they
were discussing the same research to a national audience on a late-night television program.
When arguing before their peers, physicists or astronomers tend to employ technical proofs
and reasons because the audience is expert in the field. In front of public audiences of nonexperts, the same scientists tend to employ different forms of evidence and reasoning so that
a general audience can understand the claims.
Arguments develop in an environment of advocacy that we refer to as argument context. Argument contexts grow out of the confluence of arguer, question or need, and audience. Just
as the physical environment influences how plants or animals will grow, argument contexts
influence how arguments are developed and communicated. This confluence, or relationship, among arguer, need, and recipients that creates arguments’ contexts can be described
and understood through two related concepts: argument fields and argument spheres.
Fields
When we discussed the cycle of critical thinking earlier, we noted how important it is for
advocates to explore and understand issues and subjects. Part of that process involved seeking out relevant authorities that could frame and inform argument development. Argument
fields focus on the context for expertise. An attorney can speak effectively about the law and
Liebeck’s legal standing. A doctor could talk about the severity of her burns. However, it is
unlikely that the physician would be able to effectively negotiate a legal settlement. Lawyers
and doctors are from different argument fields. Argument fields are sociological contexts for
arguments and are marked by patterns of communication that participants in argumentative disputes
can recognize.35
Fields provide arguers with a context for exploring and interpreting subjects, as well as
a framework for interpreting, creating, and evaluating arguments. Argument fields provide
field members with an understanding of the rules and conventions governing the development of arguments as well as their interpretation. Perhaps argumentation theorist Joseph
Wenzel put it best when he said to think of fields as representing “some sort of universe of
discourse.”36 Different professions—such as law, education, medicine, or politics—have a
language and set of rules for argument that govern how arguments are made and judged.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 34
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
35
These rules may be external to the arguers in the sphere, and they provide a basis by which
the arguments can be developed and evaluated.
The very fact that an argument takes place in a law court, a corporate boardroom,
a medical care setting, or an art class may influence the procedures that are used and the
standards that are applied to make arguments and judgments about arguments. Argument
fields define the rules for engagement and resolution. In other words, they determine what
kind of evidence and support will be considered appropriate for a claim. This is why attorneys, medical doctors, filmmakers, and Congress could all reach different conclusions about
whether Liebeck “scammed” the system or was a victim of corporate excess. Each used different standards and assumptions to frame their opinions. Some fields are highly defined
with rigid rules, whereas other fields are loosely defined with norms for arguing.
In The Uses of Argument and subsequent works, philosopher Stephen Toulmin emphasized the importance of argument fields in understanding and interpreting argument.37 The
arenas in which arguments are developed influence the forms of argument, the bases on
which inferences are made, and the means for deciding disputes. These fields are both social
and communicative phenomena. In other words, people, through interaction, make fields for
argument; they act as the source for the conventions and criteria used in conducting arguments, and they are an important feature of argumentation.38
Characteristics
Argument fields include such examples as law, ethics, medicine, science, and aesthetics. Furthermore, each of these fields has subfields (e.g., the subfields of law include tort
law, family law, criminal law) that function as fields for increasingly specific arguments.
Describing what fields exist at any given moment can be difficult because we are constantly
surrounded by and involved in many different fields. Nevertheless, the field in which arguments are produced affects the nature of the argument; as the field changes, so does the way
the argument is constructed. Robert Rowland made the point that it “seems obvious that
arguments vary by field.”39
Although they can be complex and difficult to isolate, generally fields share five common characteristics:
They are a human creation.40 This means that fields develop over time through social
interaction. People create them, shape them, and change them.
41
■ People with shared goals develop them.
People sustain interaction and develop fields
when they share objectives and purposes. In science, for example, the purpose is to
identify the laws of nature; in ethics, the purpose is to distinguish what is good and
morally right from what is not; and in medicine, the purpose is to promote health by
preventing and curing illness.
42
■ They develop specialized language and rules.
When people converse to achieve their
objectives, there are certain rules of conduct as well as language that facilitate their
objectives. We may call such specialized language jargon, but for the members of a
field, the language carries unique meanings.
43
■ People may belong to many fields.
Humans share many different objectives and
adhere to many different sets of rules. There are, for instance, attorneys to abide by
■
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 35
5/12/14 5:24 PM
36 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
the rules of the legal profession who also teach and follow those rules. They may also
belong to a political party and follow the ideology of the organization. Any single
person may belong to and practice the standards of many different fields. We can be
members of as many fields as serve our interests or objectives.
■ Fields survive only as long as they serve the common purpose of their members and
as long as they can adapt to changing objectives.44 When a field no longer serves its
members and cannot adapt to meet their needs, it will disappear.
These five dimensions can describe any field. For example, if we look at the field of
law, we would say first that law is a human creation. Lawyers were not needed until human
beings began developing rules and laws for governance and discovered a need to have a
group of people interpret and apply the rules. Second, the legal field consists of people with
shared goals. Lawyers and judges work to apply the law in civil and criminal matters to
punish wrongdoers and seek justice. Third, members of the legal field develop their own
specialized language to describe activities and directions in their field. They talk about
writs (any legal documents used for court action), habeas corpus (a type of document used
to release someone from unlawful imprisonment because of lack of due process), praecipe
(writs that command a defendant to do the thing required or show just reason why he or
she cannot), and estoppel (a document that prevents someone from acting in contradictory
ways to the detriment of another party), among many other terms. A field develops a unique
language that unites and binds its members and gives them a language within a language (in
this case a legal language within English) that identifies them as members of a community or
field. Fourth, members of the legal fields may also belong to many other fields. For instance,
many politicians are either practicing or former attorneys and judges. Some lawyers move
into education and teach at law schools. Finally, lawyers need to be able to adapt to changing
conditions and times for the field to survive. As new laws are passed, members of the legal
community need to remain current so that the correct rules and precedents are applied to
their cases. As laws become more complex, attorneys often find themselves in specialized
areas within the field. They may, for instance, specialize in laws pertaining to intellectual
property or the preservation of the environment, among many other areas. Failure to adapt
to changing rules and laws can lead to individual members of the field being disbarred or to
the dissolution of the field itself. Box 1.7, “Apply the Theory,” guides you through a process
of understanding how fields work.
Box 1.7
Apply the Theory: What Is Your Field?
As this section pointed out, we all belong to many fields. And, as we discussed, fields can be
defined along five dimensions: human creation, specialized language and rules, membership in
multiple fields, and common purpose. Using these categories:
1. Can you demonstrate that “higher education” is a field?
2. Identify an example that illustrates how the field of higher education “fits” in each category.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 36
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
37
Standards
Argument fields are important for arguers and critics alike because they provide us
with a means of understanding and interpreting arguments. When we evaluate arguments to
determine whether they are true or false, good or bad, valid or invalid, we apply two sets of
tests: field-dependent standards and field-invariant standards.45 Field-dependent standards are
the rules, norms, and prescriptions guiding the production of arguments in a particular field. These
are the standards that the particular field identifies as appropriate for evaluating arguments.
Therefore, legal standards pertaining to hearsay evidence applied to legal arguments would
constitute field-dependent standards. Most arguments in the technical sphere rely on fielddependent standards.
Field-invariant standards apply generally, regardless of the field of argument. Regardless of
the field in which an argument is presented, there are certain standards that apply regardless
of the particular contexts. For instance, an advocate should not attempt to deceive recipients.
Arguers should not seek to undermine or diminish other advocates. Arguments should be
presented that have all the required parts of an argument: claim, evidence, reasoning, and an
attempt to influence.
The notion of an argument field is valuable because understanding fields helps arguers
understand many of the rules and conventions for judging between competing claims in a
controversy. They define the assumptions used by advocates in the situation. Depending on
which standards from which fields are applied to arguments, the results can be very different.
This is why it is important for advocates to be aware of the fields from which they argue and
to learn as much about the field for argument as the subject of argument.
Spheres
The concept of argument spheres provides us with a way of understanding argument situations by considering the elements of arguer, recipient, and message. Argument spheres are
social constructs that guide how arguments are produced and evaluated. Thomas B. Farrell and G.
Thomas Goodnight, in their discussion of argument spheres, suggest that argument contexts
can be described as belonging to one of three types—personal, technical, and public.46 This
sounds very similar to the discussion about fields with an important difference. While fields
focus on the expertise of the members, argument spheres are broader and consider how the
relationship among arguer, recipient, and situation intersect.
Personal sphere arguments are made and evaluated by people who are engaged in
a personal relationship. Technical sphere arguments are made among people who are
experts in their respective fields. Public sphere arguments are arguments made to general
audiences that are evaluated using standards created by the general audiences. They are
intended to be understood and evaluated using the general tools and abilities of larger,
public audiences. Of the three spheres, the technical sphere is the one most rigidly
defined by fields.
Figure 1.3, “The Three Argument Spheres,” illustrates the connections among the
three types. It is important to note that the three spheres can overlap. That is because sometimes technical arguments become personal and that personal arguments may become public.
And, as we have discussed with Liebeck’s case, some technical arguments can become public.
All three spheres interact with one another.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 37
5/12/14 5:24 PM
38 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Public Sphere
Recipients are general public
Arguments are evaluated by
general public
Technical Sphere
Recipients are
specialized members of
field
Arguments are evaluated
by field standards
Personal Sphere
Recipients are members
of relationships
Arguments are evaluated
by members in that
relationship.
Figure 1.3 The Three
Argument Spheres
The variables of arguer, audience, and message are influenced by the sphere in which
the arguments take place. Whereas some audiences, such as a legal judge, require precise
reasoning from specific kinds of evidence, other audiences may be moved more personally
by their passions and feelings toward issues such as gun control or abortion and may apply
very different standards to judge the value of the argument. The context for the argument
informs the advocate of the rules, conventions, and constraints that should govern the development of the arguments.
Liebeck’s case provides some important clues as to how argument contexts function.
Liebeck’s experience defined a central set of issues around which arguments for and against
tort reform were debated. Although tort reform had been an issue for several years, her
case provided an opportunity to bring the debate into the open. Further, it showed a clash
between two powerful communities of people: lawyers and politicians. Many members of
the legal profession saw this as an example of how well the justice system works in America.
A single, elderly woman can beat a giant corporation when the corporation does something
wrong. The political community, however, saw this case as another abuse of legal power.
Technical
The technical sphere contains arguments that adhere to rules that are more formalized
and rigorous and tend to be generated by particular groups of people, such as doctors or lawyers.
Arguments in this sphere might include the arguments made in academic papers and essays,
legal arguments, scientific arguments, and religious arguments. They tend to be specialized and focused toward a particular audience in a particular field. Field-based, technical
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 38
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
39
arguments tend to influence arguments in the other spheres because when we research a
subject and evaluate the quality of evidence we locate, we tend to rely on authority and
expert opinions, which are grounded in the technical sphere.
Perhaps our most common exposure to technical argument is in the workplace,
where people develop a language and set of rules that are unique to their own profession
and interests. Professionals in any given field, from law, to medicine, to construction and
manufacturing, share an understanding of what is a reasonable or unreasonable argument.
Consequently, arguments that are coherent and well argued by the members of that field
may be meaningless to other recipients who are not members of that field.
This is what happened in Liebeck’s case. Once attorneys became involved, the
arguments shifted from the personal experience of being burned and in pain to the legal
implications of damage and liability. The arguments moved toward a focus on law and
legal precedent, and different rules for arguing applied to the more specialized arguers and
recipients. The language of the arguments changed, as did rules of evidence, reasoning, and
presentation of argument. Unlike personal arguments, the community of people that uses
the standards of the community evaluates these arguments. Arguments in this sphere are
most often judged using field-dependent standards.
Personal
The personal sphere contains the relatively informal arguments among people in typically
casual settings. Personal arguments are those among friends and family governed by the interpersonal rules for arguments generated in the relationship. Typically, personal arguments
do not pay careful attention to evidence, reasoning, or well-framed claims. The rules and
procedures for personal arguments are determined by the relationship and not by external
forces.47 For instance, when Liebeck and her daughter discussed how to arrange for in-home
care while she recovered from her burns, the arguments were personal and based on a private
understanding of the relationship and its needs. Personal sphere arguments are best understood by the participants because of the nature of their relationship with one another. And,
therefore, personal sphere arguments are evaluated using the standards set by the members
of the relationship and field-invariant standards.
Public
The public sphere contains arguments that are intended for public or general audiences. These
arguments are evaluated by publicly understood and accepted standards for criticism and
analysis. Public arguments include the kinds of arguments politicians might make or that
a public relations officer for a corporation might present. Editorials in newspapers typically are written for the public sphere. Whereas the public sphere has relatively formalized
rules for appropriateness (e.g., one cannot make slanderous comments about another), the
rules are understood and used by a broader public than those of the technical sphere, which
focuses on a particular community of people. Most often, then, they are evaluated through
field-invariant standards.
The concept of the public sphere, as opposed to either the technical or personal
spheres, has a dual meaning. First, the term public suggests that it is open and available for
inspection by others. Second, public matters are those that affect a community of individuals;
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 39
5/12/14 5:24 PM
40 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
they are issues of common concern that are the subject of much public discourse. Politics is
an example of public discourse, as is consumer product safety and foreign trade agreements.
The public sphere is also a blend of issues related to personal, technical, and public
concerns. Individual values are often debated in the public arena; for example, we experience
arguments over the need for gun control or the legalization of certain controlled substances.
These might typically be seen as personal arguments about personal choices, yet these
arguments find their way into the public arena as a means to create a social agenda and to promote certain values. Similarly, technical arguments become the substance for extended public
debates. The causes of cancer or AIDS that are systematically studied and researched by scientists become the subject of public debates about policies and programs to remedy the diseases.
The public sphere provides an important venue for arguers. It offers them opportunities to extend knowledge and to focus on the plights or successes of others. People working
in technical spheres may highlight issues for the public sphere by creating “events” that
elevate issues to a public level. John W. Delicath and Kevin Michael Deluca offered an
example of this when they wrote of the possibiliti…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
![Description
Write a brief (800-1000 words) report of a one Chapter that you choose from the book Critical Thinking and Communication.Critical Thinking and Communication
Critical Thinking and
Communication
The Use of Reason in Argument
SEVENTH edition
Edward S. Inch
Kristen H. Tudor
SEVENTH
edition
Inch
Tudor
This is a special edition of an established
title widely used by colleges and universities
throughout the world. Pearson published this
exclusive edition for the benefit of students
outside the United States and Canada. If you
purchased this book within the United States
or Canada you should be aware that it has
been imported without the approval of the
Publisher or Author.
The Use of Reason in Argument
For these Global Editions, the editorial team at Pearson has
collaborated with educators across the world to address a
wide range of subjects and requirements, equipping students
with the best possible learning tools. This Global Edition
preserves the cutting-edge approach and pedagogy of the
original, but also features alterations, customization and
adaptation from the North American version.
Global
edition
Global
edition
Global
edition
Pearson Global Edition
INCH_129205882X_mech.indd 1
17/04/14 9:26 PM
Seventh edition
GLOBAL EDITION
Critical Thinking and
Communication
The Use of Reason in Argument
Edward S. Inch
California State University, Sacramento
Kristen H. Tudor
California State University, Sacramento
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montréal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City São Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 1
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Editor in Chief: Ashley Dodge
Head of Learning Asset Acquisition, Global
Edition: Laura Dent
Senior Acquisitions Editor: Melissa Mashburn
Editorial Assistant: Courtney Turcotte
Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson
Executive Marketing Manager: Kelly May
Marketing Coordinator: Theresa Rotondo
Managing Editor: Denise Forlow
Program Manager: Maggie Brobeck
Senior Operations Supervisor: Mary Fischer
Publishing Administrator and Business Analyst,
Global Edition: Shokhi Shah Khandelwal
Acquisitions Editor, Global Edition: Sandhya
Ghoshal
Assistant Project Editor, Global Edition: Sinjita Basu
Senior Manufacturing Controller, Production,
Global Edition: Trudy Kimber
Operations Specialist: Mary Ann Gloriande
Manager, Central Design: Jayne Conte
Director of Digital Media: Brian Hyland
Digital Media Editor: Learning Mate Solutions, Ltd.
Digital Media Project Manager: Tina Gagliostro
Cover Designer: Suzanne Duda
Cover Photo: Shutterstock/art4all
Cover Printer: Clays-UK
Pearson Education Limited
Edinburgh Gate
Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE
England
and Associated Companies throughout the world
Visit us on the World Wide Web at:
www.pearsonglobaleditions.com
© Pearson Education Limited 2015
The rights of Edward S. Inch and Kristen H. Tudor to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted
by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Authorized adaptation from the United States edition, entitled Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument, 7th edition, ISBN 978-0-205-92577-3, by Edward S. Inch and Kristen H. Tudor, published by Pearson Education © 2014.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior
written permission of the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the
Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.The use of any trademark in this text does
not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such
trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.
ISBN 10: 1-292-05882-X
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-05882-5 (Print)
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-06761-2 (PDF)
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14 13 12 11 10
Typeset in 10/12, Janson Text by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.
Printed and bound by Clays-UK in the United Kingdom.
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 2
17/05/14 7:48 AM
TO OUR MOTHERS
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 3
17/05/14 7:48 AM
This page is intentionally left blank.
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 4
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Contents
Preface 11
Section I Developing a Conceptual Framework
for Argument 15
Chapter 1
Arguing Critically 16
Critical Thought 18
Argumentation and Argument 25
Argument Contexts 32
Using Argument Contexts 40
Summary 44
Exercises 45
Notes 48
Chapter 2
Co-orienting Argument 51
Perspectives 54
How Perspectives Are Used 58
Arguer-Based ArgumentS 59
A Co-Orientational Approach 71
Summary 82
Exercises 83
Notes 87
5
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 5
17/05/14 7:48 AM
6
Contents
Chapter 3
The Impact of Values and Culture on Argument 89
Culture and Argumentation 92
Values and Value Systems 102
Culture and Values 108
Summary 110
Exercises 111
Notes 115
Section II Parts 117
Chapter 4
Constructing Claims 118
Nature of Claims 121
Formulating Propositions 127
Classification 133
Summary 142
Exercises 143
Notes 145
Chapter 5
The Use of Evidence 147
Nature of Evidence 151
Types of Evidence 153
Evaluating Evidence 157
Evaluating Statistical Evidence 162
Presenting Evidence 165
Summary 169
Exercises 170
Notes 173
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 6
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Contents
7
Chapter 6
The Reasoned Argument 175
Role of the Advocate 178
Formal Logic and Practical Reasoning 179
Reasoning as Inference Making 180
Summary 199
Exercises 200
Notes 204
Section III Developing and Arguing Extended Cases 206
Chapter 7
Propositions in Argument 207
Arguing About Facts, Values, and Policies 210
Relating Facts, Values and Policies 219
Issue Mapping 221
Principles of Case Construction 225
Summary 231
Exercises 232
Notes 234
Chapter 8
Constructing the Case 236
Issues Brief 239
Stock Issues for Fact Cases 241
Stock Issues for Value Arguments 245
Stock Issues for Policy Arguments 251
Summary 266
Exercises 267
Notes 268
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 7
17/05/14 7:48 AM
8
Contents
Chapter 9
Refuting the Argument 270
Skills And Techniques 272
Strategies 281
Summary 291
Exercises 292
Notes 295
Section IV Communicating Arguments 296
Chapter 10
Persuasive Argument 297
Arguer And Recipient 300
Adapting Arguments 306
Persuasion Principles 314
Developing Persuasive Arguments 320
Summary 323
Exercises 324
Notes 327
Chapter 11
Responsible Reasoning 329
Language 332
Fallacies 345
Ethics 362
Summary 369
Exercises 371
Notes 376
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 8
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Contents
9
Appendix A
Answers to Selected Exercises 378
Appendix B
Glossary 390
Appendix C
Research Strategies http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com
Appendix D
Intercollegiate Debate http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com
IINDEX 400
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 9
17/05/14 7:48 AM
This page is intentionally left blank.
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 10
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Preface
The Seventh Edition of Critical Thinking and Communication reflects many current
developments in the teaching and learning of argumentation. During the past five years, the
field of argumentation has continued to adapt to the needs and interests of an increasingly
diverse society and interconnected world. This edition highlights the importance of culturally sensitive and co-orientational forms of argument. Although we have continued to focus
on a rhetorical perspective on argument, we do so in the context of building communities of
advocates who accept culturally diverse worldviews and practices. More and more, the traditional tools of argumentation are used to build connections, unite people, and build peace.
New to this Edition
We incorporated these themes into this edition by revising and updating with the following
features:
Redesigned chapters in cultural and collaborative argumentation consider how students
can adapt arguments to better align with hearers from diverse audiences. Focusing on
understanding cultural needs and expectations, the text guides students through ways
of designing and framing arguments that are appropriate to specific argument situations and expectations.
■ New chapters and approaches for building and refuting extended argument cases
develop a “co-orientational” approach. Using the “co-orientational” model, we explore
strategies for conversational argumentation focusing on critical listening, analysis, and
refutation.
■ This edition integrates opportunities to “Apply the Theory” in each chapter. We integrate process-based exercises with chapter discussions to provide students with opportunities to practice argumentation skills and critical thinking processes as they read the
theories.
■ New chapters in persuasion and responsibility explore how students can design messages, enhance credibility, and present arguments ethically. These are the final two
chapters in the text and serve to focus student argument skills into a framework that
stresses the audience and ethical requirements when an advocate seeks to change argument recipients.
■ New and revised argument case studies provide contemporary and “real” examples of
how arguments and argumentation are used in fields ranging from law to politics to
public protest. Each chapter begins with a case study that is integrated into the theoretical discussion in a way that explores how everyday arguments can be understood
and critically analyzed.
■
11
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 11
17/05/14 7:48 AM
12
Preface
■
New models, diagrams, and process illustrations were developed to better describe the
flow and connections of theory to practice. These models provide a strong connection
between the discussions in the text and ways of graphically understanding how argumentation theory can be applied.
Text Structure
The book is divided into four sections. The first section, Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument, focuses on a conceptual framework for argument. Chapter 1 e xamines
the relationship between argument and critical thought and explores how argumentation can
improve the ability to examine complex issues. The chapter introduces two significant theoretical constructs that are used throughout the rest of the book: argument spheres and fields.
Argument spheres are central to our understanding of how argument situations and contexts
develop and can be used to adapt and analyze arguments. Argument fields provide us with a
way of understanding the guiding rules and norms that can be used to shape arguments as
well as criticize them. The second chapter introduces a co-orientational model of argument.
It is developed along with traditional arguer-based models including formal logic and the
Toulmin Model. Chapter 3 concludes the section with an exploration of how values and culture shape argument contexts. As the world becomes more interconnected, there is a greater
need to develop cultural appreciation and sensitivity toward other approaches to argument.
These concepts are explored along with the important role values and value systems play
in how we understand and interact with arguments and cultures. It provides readers with
approaches for understanding how to argue in value-rich and culturally diverse situations.
Section II, Parts, parses the argumentation model developed in the first section to
examine how claims and propositions, evidence, and reasoning work together to form arguments. The chapters in this section consider the nature and function of each component,
provide approaches for using these components to construct arguments, and then offer tests
to ensure that each part is effectively designed. Chapter 4 looks at how claims and propositions can be developed, understood, and criticized. It introduces types of claims—fact, value,
and policy—as well as a consideration of how they function in different argument spheres.
Chapter 5 considers evidence and how claims are grounded. It provides readers with tools for
understanding and analyzing evidence quality as well as how to identify improper evidence
use. Chapter 6 surveys different approaches for reasoning and provides readers with tools
for understanding, analyzing, and evaluating the quality of reasoning. Argument analysis and
evaluation, themes developed in this section, are later used in Chapters 10 and 11 to help
readers understand quality and ethical discourse.
The focus of Section III, Developing and Arguing Extended Cases, is how advocates
can move from creating individual arguments to extended, well-developed argument cases.
Chapter 7 considers the process and principles associated with analyzing and approaching propositions. It explores the unique questions associated with each type of proposition
and introduces concepts related to proving propositions such as “presumption,” “burden of
proof,” and creating “prima facie” cases. Chapter 8, then, develops these concepts further by
examining how extended cases can be designed and argued. The stock issues associated with
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 12
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Preface
13
each proposition type are discussed, as are strategies for designing extended cases. Chapter 9
looks at the other side of the proposition and surveys methods of refutation. Analytic strategies are developed for each type of proposition and provide advocates with tools for disproving extended cases as well as the assumptions of the propositional arena.
The final section, Communicating Arguments, is about how arguers move from the
work of creating arguments and cases to the process of presenting them. Chapter 10 discusses
persuasion and how the argument context serves as a rhetorical situation in which arguers and recipients share an environment. We introduce the “narrative paradigm” as well as
persuasive strategies to help advocates and recipients interact effectively. The final chapter,
Responsibility, takes on the issues of what constitutes “good” argument. What is ethical or
not? What is appropriate for the argument context? The first part of the chapter considers
language choices then discusses how argument fallacies can be destructive forces. The final
section, then, works with the reader to develop a personal code of ethics.
We have provided many study tools in this book—lists of key concepts, answers to
selected exercises in Appendix A, chapter summaries, and exercises that require students to
apply chapter concepts. Appendix B contains a glossary of all the major concepts developed
in the text along with references to their location. Appendix C is devoted to Research Strategies and is intended to provide resources for students who want to learn about debate and,
perhaps, try attending a debate tournament. Appendix D, Intercollegiate Debate, is designed
as a starting point for finding strong evidence to support arguments. Both Appendixes C and
D can be accessed online at http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com. The book’s study aids
should enable students to review for exams, do further reading, and have handy references
when reading text material. We have used a variety of examples from law, education, ethics,
business, and other fields to illustrate the argument concepts introduced.
This text is available in a variety of formats—digital and print. To learn more about Pearson
programs, pricing options, and customization, visit http://www.pearsonglobaleditions.com.
Acknowledgments
This textbook has been a part of my life for a long time and it is the result of many people
who worked very hard to make it a success. The most important of these is Barbara Warnick
of the University of Pittsburg. Her voice and ideas remain strong throughout the book.
Her abilities as a co-author, theorist, and focused colleague shaped the evolution of this
textbook over many years and editions. My new co-author, Kristen Tutor of California State
University-Sacramento, has done a wonderful job of introducing new ideas and approaches
for applying argument theories. And, our research assistant, Nickolas Vincent Fletcher from
Sacramento State, has worked many painstaking hours to support this project.
Finally, we would like to conclude by thanking individuals who have helped us with
the development of this textbook of many years. We would especially like to thank Susan
L. Kline of The Ohio State University and Joseph W. Wenzel of the University of Illinois,
whose assistance on the First and Second Editions of the book was extensive. We would
also like to acknowledge the reviewers for the Third Edition, whose comments and
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 13
17/05/14 7:48 AM
14
Preface
s uggestions were excellent: Beth M. Waggenspack, Virginia Tech University; Susan L. Kline,
The Ohio State University; Jim Vickrey, Troy State University; Ronald O. Wastyn, James
Madison University; Dale Herbeck, Boston College; Steven Schwarze, The University of
Iowa; and Mark A. Pollock, Loyola University, Chicago. We would like to acknowledge the
assistance of Solveig Robinson, Pacific Lutheran University, and Amanda Feller, Pacific
Lutheran University, on the Fourth Edition. We would also like to thank the reviewers of
the Fourth Edition: Raymie McKerrow, University of Ohio, and Chris Miller, California
State University–Sacramento. We would also like to thank the reviewers of the Fifth E
dition:
James David Paterson, Imperial Valley College, and Dr. Thomas Preston Jr., University of
Texas–Brownville, and all those who helped so much in its development, including Chipo
Chikara, Stephanie Christopher, Nigel Barron, Minerva Rios, and Leah Sprain. We are very
appreciative of the work Danielle Endres contributed to the Fifth Edition and the expertise
she brought to the project. In the Sixth Edition, we want to thank Katie Picket for the work
she did helping edit the text and researching some of the case studies. We would also like to
olytechnic State
acknowledge the reviewers for the Sixth Edition: Martin Mehl, California P
University; R. Blaine Davis, California State U
niversity–Sacramento; Jason Kemnitz, South
Dakota State University; Joshua Butcher, Texas A&M University; Catherine L. Langford,
Texas Tech University; and Mark Porrovecchio, Oregon State University. We would like to
thank the reviewers of the Seventh edition: Danielle Walker, Cerritos College; David Worth,
Rice University; Catherine egley Waggoner, Wittenberg University; and Nicki Michalski,
Lamar University.
Pearson wishes to thank and acknowledge the following people for their work on the
Global Edition:
Contributor:
Dr. Nuzhat Parveen Khan, Jamia Milia Islamia
Reviewers:
Sidharth Chauhan, National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)
Lovely Dasgupta, The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS)
A01_INCH8825_07_GE_FM.indd 14
17/05/14 7:48 AM
Section
I
Developing
a Conceptual
Framework
for Argument
Chapters
1. Arguing Critically
2. Co-orienting Argument
3. The Impact of Values and
Culture on Argument
15
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 15
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One
Arguing Critically
Chapter Outline
Critical Thought
Cycle of Critical Thought
Critical Thinking as a Skill
Argumentation and Argument
Process
Characteristics
Argument Contexts
Fields
Characteristics
Standards
Spheres
Technical
Personal
Public
Using Argument Contexts
Using Fields to Interpret Contexts
Using Spheres to Interpret Contexts
Summary
Exercises
Key Concepts
Argument (p. 27)
Argument contexts (p. 34)
Argument fields (p. 34)
Argument spheres (p. 37)
Argumentation (p. 18)
Assumptions (p. 21)
Claim (p. 28)
Concepts (p. 21)
Critical thinking (p. 18)
Evidence (p. 29)
Field-dependent standards (p. 37)
Field-invariant standards (p. 37)
Personal sphere (p. 39)
Public sphere (p. 39)
Reasoning (p. 30)
Technical sphere (p. 38)
Box 1.1 “Do Beauty Contests Harm Women?” illustrates how arguments can develop over
disagreements about an issue. Each day, we are faced with many issues—some small and others more significant. The need for argument arises from our desire to persuade or convince
others of a point of view or course of action. When we perceive that something should be
done or that others fail to understand our views, we may choose to advocate for our ideas and
beliefs—we make arguments to inspire change. When we advocate for significant change or
16
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 16
5/12/14 5:24 PM
17
chapter One Arguing Critically
Box 1.1
Do Beauty Contests Harm Women?
Each year, more than 2 billion people worldwide participate in and watch beauty contests. In
fact, beyond the many local and regional contests, there are more than fifty world beauty pageants held annually.1 Although Miss America, among other pageants, has experienced declining
audiences over the last thirty years, some pageants, such as Miss World, continue to attract
global attention and viewers. Additionally, youth pageants and television programs such as
Toddlers and Tiaras attract large audiences. Yet, despite their popularity, questions persist about
whether they harm girls and women. The following discussion between two students addresses
some of these concerns:2
Kaidren:
Beauty contests undermine women as people. They promote an ideal of female
beauty that is unrealistic, and very very few women can achieve it. Yet, this ideal
pressures all women to conform to it. This is harmful because it encourages women to diet excessively, contributes to eating disorders, and encourages risky cosmetic surgery. But the “beauty myth” is so powerful that women willingly risk their
health and even their lives to achieve what these contests promote.
Ramona:
Wait a minute. This argument makes it sound as though women are easily brainwashed and can’t figure out fact from fiction. There is nothing wrong with watching and admiring people who are fit, well proportioned, and healthy—in fact, these
kinds of messages are especially important when you consider the obesity epidemic.
We should strive for fitness. Anyway, both women and men enjoy beauty pageants;
more women watch them than men. Women freely choose to enter them. No one
is required to participate or watch—people get to make choices. Pageants haven’t
been forced on anyone and they don’t force anyone to make bad choices.
Kaidren: You are missing the point. Healthy lifestyles are important and we should be teaching about how to be healthy. But that is not what beauty pageants do. They single
out women as different from men. Women are judged on appearance rather than
any other quality. And, achieving the ideal often requires poor health habits such
as extreme dieting. Judging women—not men—on their looks subjugates women
because it establishes an ideal feminine form that does not include intellect or any
other ability. These contests set a standard of femininity that focuses almost exclusively on outward appearance at any cost.
Ramona:
What is wrong with judging people on physical appearance? We judge people on
particular attributes all the time. We evaluate professors on their ability to teach,
irrespective of other abilities. We judge athletes on physical abilities without any
concern for their intellect or emotional balance. We judge medical doctors on
their skill and not on whether they are nice people. We evaluate people all the
time based on physical, mental, or emotional attributes that are appropriate for the
situation. Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others and
that’s OK. Why would we exclude giving women recognition for outward appearance any more than we would exclude awarding a prize for best tattoo or the ability
to lift weights?
(continued)
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 17
5/12/14 5:24 PM
18 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Box 1.1 Continued
Consider the issues that emerged in this discussion. Both Kaidren and Ramona made
arguments for and against pageants. As you read through the arguments again, consider the following questions:
1. Which arguer did a better job—Kaidren or Ramona? Why? Is it because her arguments
support a position you already agree with? Or is it because she helped you understand
something new and different that convinced you?
2. If you were Kaidren, what would your next argument be if this conversation continued?
How do you think Ramona would respond?
3. Do you think these are good arguments? Are any issues or ideas missing? If you had been
in the conversation, what would you have added?
4. Did you find any arguments that were not very good? What made them weak? How
would you have strengthened them?
understanding of complex ideas, we may create many arguments and link them together to
support our ideas and positions.
Often, people assume that to argue is bad—that when we have an argument with someone we are having a problem with them. This view is limited. Arguments happen at national
and global levels over water rights, poverty, and health care to list just a few. But argumentation and advocacy are also regular features of our daily lives. We argue about which movie
to see with our friends, what school we want to attend, or where to go on vacation. We advocate when we negotiate over how much to pay for a car or a house. We create arguments
when we try to persuade people to think or behave differently.
Argumentation can be used for either good or bad, depending on the choices made
by the advocates. This book focuses on how to positively use the skills of argumentation to
(1) help others understand differing points of view, (2) explore ideas and alternatives, and
(3) convince others of a need to change or act. Consider, for instance, the exchange between
students in Box 1.1. This conversation presented a series of arguments that illustrate how
discussion and arguing can work productively in each of these three ways. The students used
arguments to help define the issues for discussion, clarify perceptions, and advocate for different points of view. Throughout the conversation, they engaged in the processes that will
be the focus of this book: critical thinking and argumentation.
Critical Thought
Many theorists have explored critical thinking and the role it plays in education, our understanding of the world, and our understanding of ourselves.3 Done well, critical thinking helps
us consider issues and problems systematically and rigorously. It is fundamental to our ability to learn and make sense of the world around us. Some, for instance, have described critical
thinking as the process whereby ordinary people apply the scientific method to the ordinary world.4
Critical thought requires the ability to analyze and evaluate conclusions based on a coherent
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 18
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
19
understanding of relevant issues. Theorist Joanne Kurfiss offered the following definition
for critical thinking:
an investigation whose purpose is to explore a situation, phenomenon, question, or problem
to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion about it that integrates all available information and
that therefore can be convincingly justified.5
Often, when confronted with a challenge or problem, people want to leap to a solution or find a quick resolution. Critical thinking asks us to pause. People who think critically
about issues will not settle for apparent or obvious solutions. They will suspend judgment
while seeking out relevant opinions, facts, and reasons that promote good decision-making.
Cycle of Critical Thought
Critical thought is a complex process and, if done well, it can help us examine and explore
intricate ideas to better understand both the issues at hand and the consequences of acting—
or not acting. As this book will explore, the world is systemically connected and decisions
about acting in one area will have effects in other areas. For instance, we know that exposure
to ultraviolet rays can cause skin cancer. Yet, as noted by the Skin Cancer Foundation, “most
people don’t apply enough” sunscreen and should use products with a Sun Protection Factor
(SPF) rating of 30 or higher.6 Concern over skin cancer and skin damage, over time, has led
to more people deciding to reduce their exposure to sunlight and, when in the sun, use high
SPF sunscreen for protection. This action makes sense given the risks associated with UV
rays. However, an important and seldom discussed side effect of this decision is that many
people, particularly children, do not get enough vitamin D.
Normally, sunlight causes the body to produce vitamin D, which is necessary for bone
growth and strength. Without enough UV exposure, people have to take steps to ensure
a sufficient intake of this vitamin. The point here is that the world is interconnected and
decisions often have consequences and implications beyond the immediate decision. A process of systematic critical thinking can help us uncover connections, evaluate options, and
inform actions.
Although there are many ways to understand critical thinking, it can generally be
considered as a cycle that moves through four interrelated steps: (1) Assess, (2) Explore,
(3) Evaluate, and (4) Integrate. These are illustrated in Figure 1.1, “Cycle of Critical
Thought.”7 Our ability to move through each of these steps effectively helps ensure quality
decision-making. And, although each step may appear relatively simple, they are actually complex. Each step asks us to consider a series of issues and questions so that we can
fully explore a given subject. The following text provides greater detail about how we move
through the critical thinking cycle and these four steps.
Step 1. Assess. When we assess, we work to clearly identify the problem or issue and then
discover the relevant information. Specifically, assessment includes the following questions:
■
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 19
What is the need? People reason and argue because a need arises. The need for argument can be anything from “Should I do my homework or go out with my friends?”
to “Should marijuana be legalized?” In the case of beauty pageants, the students chose
a topic for a classroom presentation: “Do beauty contests harm women?” They could
5/12/14 5:24 PM
20 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Integrate: What
is our best course
of action?
Assess: What are
the problems or
needs?
Evaluate:
What are the
most important
considerations?
Explore: What are
the primary
issues and
assumptions?
Figure 1.1 Cycle of Critical Thought
have spoken on any of a number of possible topics related to pageants. They might
have argued, “What should be done about beauty pageants?” Or, they could have asked,
“What topic will get us the best grade on this assignment?” The need for argument is
simply the impetus for critical thought and discussion. In Chapter 2, when we discuss
argument situations, we will talk about the need as the “exigence” for argument. The
need helps us frame the conversation so that we know what is included and what is
excluded from discussion. Why are we talking about this issue? What are we trying to
figure out?
■ What is the purpose? Purpose represents the goal of the discussion. It can be as simple
as understanding more about beauty pageants or as complicated as statistical analyses of how pageants and the “beauty myth” affect a group’s identity and feelings of
adequacy. The purpose of inquiry and argument does not need to focus on a particular
course of action or what decision should be reached, but it does need to identify the
goal of the inquiry: What do we hope to achieve? Why are we having this conversation? In Box 1.1, the purpose of the conversation was to reach an understanding
about the potential harms related to beauty contests. We need to emphasize here the
importance of understanding the purpose of arguing about a subject. Are we trying to
create understanding? Change beliefs? Motivate someone to action? And, even more
significantly, do all the people engaged in the argument share the same purpose? If
not, discussing and assessing the goals of those involved becomes a primary task. In
Chapter 5, we will discuss how propositions frame discussions and debates. They serve
to define what is talked about and for what purpose.
■ What information is needed? Answering questions and moving a conversation toward
an outcome requires appropriate information. With beauty contests, the students
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 20
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
21
needed to clearly understand what pageants are, how they work, and what their effects
are. The students also needed to figure out if beauty contests are different from other
kinds of events and contests in which people are judged for their appearance or a particular ability. Information can take many forms including statistical data, reports from
eyewitnesses, individual observations, or any number of other sources of material
that can help a person answer the question. Chapter 6, which focuses on evidence in
argument, considers how information can be found and used. Information provides
substance for thought. It is the material we draw upon to develop ideas and synthesize
new thoughts.
Step 2. Explore. Exploration examines the interpretations and connections that occur within
the issues, research, and other parts of the discussion. It includes an exploration of assumptions, biases, and the multiple points of view that affect how we understand and approach
issues and ideas. Specifically, this step includes:
What are the dominant concepts involved? Concepts are the theories, definitions, rules, and
laws that govern how we think and act. We know we should wear our seat belts—there are
laws as well as theories of accident survival that tell us this. We know that we have a theory
of fairness and equality. We have laws that protect minority rights while allowing majority rule. And we know that it is wrong to objectify or subjugate people. These concepts
provide support for decisions we make about child beauty pageants or other controversial
subjects. Concepts are constructs of the human mind.8 They represent a framework within which we think and act. People once believed that the sun revolved around the earth
and argued strongly against those who challenged that belief, such as Galileo, who in turn
argued based on observations and the evidence they collected. Concepts can be slow to
change and replacements may be difficult to accept because beliefs are deeply imbedded
in our understanding of the world and controversial subjects.
■ What assumptions shape the issues? Assumptions are the presuppositions and viewpoints we
take for granted. We assume, for instance, that people try to be fair. We assume that
we don’t want to subjugate people. And we also assume that people will watch beauty
pageants, which in turn will sell advertisers’ products and services. This is one of the
reasons contests such as Miss America and Miss World were started. It is important to
understand our assumptions because they represent a “baseline,” or starting point, for
thought, and if they are flawed or misunderstood, the reasoning that stems from them
can also be flawed. Often, assumptions are problematic because they are part of our
ways of thinking and are often unknown and unexplored by us. We assume the world is
round. We assume that most people will obey laws. And, we act on these assumptions
even if they are incorrect. Revealing, testing, and challenging our assumptions helps
us understand our own choices and make clearer, better arguments. The challenge, of
course, is in identifying them in the first place.
■ What points of view are involved? People reason and think from different points of
view. That is why, for instance, two people can see the same movie and have vastly
different opinions about its quality. Or why some people support and others oppose
beauty pageants. Our points of view come from our individual backgrounds, thoughts,
experiences, and attitudes. They help us frame issues and integrate them into our
■
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 21
5/12/14 5:24 PM
22 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
thinking. The students, talking about beauty pageants, illustrate this point. Two
educated people, with similar backgrounds, interpreted and understood the issues of
beauty contests differently. Whenever we work with other people, we encounter different points of view. Part of critical thought involves a process of interpreting and
understanding other views as well as our own.
Step 3. Evaluate. This step examines the quality of information and connections among possible solutions and considers how factors such as bias and points of view affect potential
outcomes. Based on this synthesis and integration, approaches for addressing issues emerge
and are evaluated until a preferred approach is found. This step includes:
What can we interpret and infer from our exploration? When we think, we blend new
information and ideas into our existing points of view, concepts, and assumptions. From
this combination of questioning, examining, researching, and understanding, we reason toward a conclusion. We interpret information and infer from it to reach our conclusions. With beauty pageants, for instance, based on what the students knew, their
research, and their conversations, they interpreted their data and inferred conclusions
from it. The process of interpretation and inference is one of making sense of data and
reasoning from it toward a goal.
■ What implications or consequences can we see? Our reasoning and thinking carry with
them implications and consequences. If we act on the conclusions we draw, what will
happen? If we change our beliefs and attitudes, what effect will that have on future decisions we might make? Even though we often consider in-class presentations as simply
another assignment, they have the potential to change attitudes and actions in c lassroom
audiences. If the two students convince a group of students to act—or not to act—to
boycott or support beauty pageants, there will be consequences. Critical thought is not
a self-contained entity. It carries with it potential outcomes from the process.
■
Step 4. Integrate. The final step in the critical thinking process involves selecting the preferred
alternative, monitoring its effectiveness, and developing strategies for continued understanding and evaluation of how well the solution solves the problem and the conditions that caused
it. This step, then, leads back to the first steps of assessing, exploring, evaluating, and integrating potential issues and problems. This final part of the cycle is important. Whatever solutions
advocates chose, they have consequences that will raise issues that need to be assessed, explored,
evaluated, and integrated. This is how the critical thinking cycle supports our decision-making
over many issues and long periods of time. Box 1.2, “Apply the Theory,” is designed to help
guide you through this process and apply the cycle of critical thought.
Using critical thinking skills effectively helps us understand alternatives and make
reasonable decisions. However, when we fail to work through the cycle and consider alternatives, we can make mistakes. Skipping steps or failing to examine our assumptions can
yield poor outcomes. Some barriers to critical thought are described in Box 1.3, “Barriers to
Effective Critical Thinking.”
Critical Thinking as a Skill
The critical thinking cycle we just explored is a powerful tool. It helps us define and focus on
a need, identify ways of thinking about the need, and then design approaches for addressing
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 22
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
23
Box 1.2
Apply the Theory: Thinking Critically
Consider the topic introduced in Box 1.1 and the implications for youth beauty pageants as well
as television programs such as Toddlers and Tiaras. Then, think through the parts of the critical
thinking cycle and answer the following questions:
Step 1. Assess
1. Is there a need to discuss this subject? What is the need? In a single sentence, describe it.
2. What is the purpose of discussing this subject? Write your purpose in a sentence. What is
the goal you seek? Awareness? Action?
3. What information can you find to support your purpose? Using any Internet search
engine, identify and paraphrase three sources that support your purpose.
Step 2. Explore
1. Identify and write down three concepts that support and three concepts that don’t support
youth beauty pageants.
2. For each concept, write down at least one assumption that supports the concept.
3. Brainstorm and write down the different points of view shaping the discussion. Identify
points of view that are different than your own.
Step 3. Evaluate and Interpret
1. Based on what you have read and what you have brainstormed, write down three conclusions you can reach.
2. Think about the implications of each conclusion you reached. Next, write down what you
think would occur if you acted on them.
3. What are the implications, both good and bad, of banning all beauty pageants?
Step 4. Integrate.
Each step you have completed has led you to a point where you can make a choice.
Considering the choices you have developed, which do you think is best? Why? The
answer to this question, why one choice is better than another, informs how we engage
and understand argument.
the need. This is why critical thinking is such a vital skill; it helps prevent people from
making bad decisions and helps them solve problems. It allows us to consider actions and
consequences in rational and systematic ways. This ability has applications far beyond classroom applications and homework assignments. Richard W. Paul and Gerald M. Nosich,
noted critical thinking theorists, observed:
The kind of “work” increasingly required in industry and business is “intellectual,” that
is, it requires workers to define goals and purposes clearly, seek out and organize relevant
data, conceptualize those data, consider alternative perspectives, adjust thinking to context,
question assumptions, modify thinking in light of the continual flood of new information, and
reason to legitimate conclusions. Furthermore, the intellectual work required must increasingly be coordinated with, and must profit from the critique of, fellow workers.9
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 23
5/12/14 5:24 PM
24 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Box 1.3
Barriers to Effective Critical Thinking
The ability to think critically is an important skill. However, most of us have developed habits
and thinking skills that inhibit our ability to effectively engage issues and problems creatively.10
These include:
1. The “Right Answer” Assumption. Most issues and problems have many possible answers.
Yet, much of our education has taught us to look for the one correct answer. Focusing
on finding a single right answer can obscure alternatives and we may miss opportunities. Instead, look for several “correct” approaches or answers and then evaluate which
is best.
2. Confirmation Bias. People tend to associate with others who are similar to them. We tend
to read books we like and listen to concerts featuring bands we like or go to movies we
think we will enjoy. Generally, these habits are not harmful until they influence our ability to think critically. When we only read research that supports own assumptions, when
we only read news stories that validate our political beliefs, we are confirming what we
already know but failing to explore all sides of an issue. When researching a subject, it is
important to ask yourself what someone taking the opposite side might read, research, or
argue. Understanding other points of view is central to effective critical thinking.
3. Accepting Authority without Question. One of the reasons we explore and research issues
is because we seek out experts who have more background and knowledge than we do.
We assume that because they have written books and articles, given public lectures, and
traveled “talk show” circuits, they are irrefutable authorities in their field. But this is not
always the case. Sometimes experts are wrong. For instance, Walter Lippmann, American
intellectual, writer, and commentator, once made the point that “Among the really difficult problems of the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the simplest and most
manageable.”11 Seek out more than one expert and understand the credentials and qualifications of those you use.
4. Rules and Logic Must be Followed. Rules and logic are important and they are part of critical
thinking. Rules allow us to live and work together and they are discussed later in this
chapter when we talk about spheres and fields. However, rules and logic can impose
restrictions on how we think because they tell us what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. An alternative is to assume there are no rules and use analogies to try to see relationships and connections among things that we might not otherwise perceive. Sometimes
creative and imaginative approaches can be best. Discovering alternative ways of seeing
issues can help open new approaches and ideas.
5. Being Practical Is Best. Sometimes people make a decision because they believe it is practical. They might say, “We need to buy a used laptop computer because that is what we can
afford.” This approach presumes a conclusion because of an assumed constraint without
considering alternatives. While issues of practicality ultimately may prevail, try imagining approaches irrespective of practical constraints. Consider what “should” be done as
opposed to the feasibility of what “could” be done.
6. Avoiding Ambiguity. Ambiguity can be frightening because it introduces uncertainty
and risk about decisions. Most people prefer certainty and strive for a clear, predictable
understanding of events and actions. If we don’t know for sure what will happen, we may
decide not to try. However, the gray areas imposed by ambiguity are where creativity and
(continued)
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 24
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
25
Box 1.3 Continued
i nnovative thinking exist. When you find ambiguity, try imagining the many possible outcomes associated with the issues or actions that are in the gray area.
7. Being Wrong Is Bad. Much of our upbringing and education imposes an assumption that
being wrong is bad. Wrong answers result in bad grades. Wrong behavior results in punishment. As a consequence, people grow to fear being wrong and work hard to avoid
it even though that approach may stifle creativity and inhibit finding alternatives. The
challenge about being wrong is a tendency to deny or move away from the decision. Or
sometimes we simply decide to do nothing out of fear of being wrong. Instead, work to
understand why a decision was wrong and what other alternatives existed that might have
improved the outcome.
Paul and Nosich go on to comment that supervisors and employers value workers who can
reason well and express themselves clearly.
Yet, as much as we claim to prize the value of critical thought and inquiry, we are
generally not very good at it. Critical thinking theorists Richard Paul, Linda Elder, and
Ted Bartell, for instance, examined thirty-eight public universities and twenty-eight private
universities to determine the level and quality of critical thinking instruction. They found
that although 89 percent of teachers claimed critical thinking was a primary component of
their instruction, only 19 percent could provide a clear explanation of what they taught that
was critical, and only 9 percent were actually teaching critical thought.12 Richard Arum and
Josipa Roksa in their book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses made the
point that forty-five percent or more of college students do not achieve statistically significant gains in their critical thinking and complex reasoning skills by the time they graduate
from a university with an undergraduate degree.13
Most of us recognize the importance of critical thought even if it is not always taught
effectively.14 And, as important as it is, critical thinking is not an easy skill to develop or use.
It requires time, discipline, and practice. As we think, develop ideas, and argue it is important to actively approach our questions with an intentional, critical lens. We should:
Refine generalizations and avoid oversimplification.
Generate and assess solutions to problems.
■ Compare perspectives, interpretations, and theories.
■ Read critically and seek out information that disagrees with our own perspectives.
15
■ Listen critically, seriously considering views with which we disagree.
■
■
Argumentation and Argument
Argumentation engages us in the cycle of critical thought. Argumentation is the process of
making arguments intended to justify beliefs, attitudes, and values so as to influence others. We
see argumentation in media ads for products, campaign ads for candidates, newspaper editorials, Internet sites on public issues, business meetings where proposals are made, and
in many other places. Argumentation occurs everywhere, and we deal with it as readers,
listeners, writers, and speakers on a daily basis. In fact, argumentation is perhaps one of the
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 25
5/12/14 5:24 PM
26 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
most important skills we can develop. As participants in a world community and members
of democratic communities, argumentation is the means by which we engage in discussion
about our present and our future. It is the process by which we exercise democratic rights
and self-determination.
Hugh Heclo, a professor of public affairs at George Mason University, took the position that American politics has been transformed in recent decades to become hypersensitive
to public opinions and anxieties. Unprecedented access to information from homes using
smartphones and tablets as well as the ability to disseminate opinions freely through the
Internet and other media have made the individual voice and opinion more powerful than
ever.16 We have the ability to access the world’s information in an unprecedented way.
The importance of his observation should not be underestimated. We live in a time
where the role of argument, arguers, and recipients has tremendous potential power to shape
our world. Technology has allowed ideas and arguments to spread across the world quickly
and powerfully. The death of Neda Agha-Soltan provides a clear and tragic illustration of
this point. In 2009, following an angrily contested presidential election in Iran, Neda was
shot during one of the demonstrations. The event, captured on a mobile phone and uploaded
to the Internet, was arguably, as Time Magazine put it, “the most witnessed death in human
history.”17 Neda, which is the Persian word for “voice,” became a symbol for the opposition
and stark evidence for arguments about the political and personal outrage of a community.
The video was broadcast around the world and millions saw and heard a message of violence,
protest, and the struggle to have a voice. To participate globally, we need to fundamentally
understand how arguments are made and, just as importantly, how they are refuted.
Process
Argumentation is significant for the development and maintenance of a healthy society.
It can occur only when people are interested in hearing or reading what others have to
say and in seriously considering others’ proposals. When parties engage in argumentation, they agree to certain conventions and tacit principles. Communication theorist Susan
Shimanoff made the point that for people to communicate they must “agree on such matters
as how to take turns at speaking, how to be polite or how to insult, to greet, and so forth.
If every symbol user manipulated symbols at random, the result would be chaos rather than
communication.”18
Advocates agree to rules for conducting the discussion, they make contributions as
required, and they seek the approval of the other parties involved.19 They agree to what is
acceptable and not acceptable for the context, how long to speak, how to take turns, and
what the process for decision-making is. If people refuse even to listen to the other party,
argumentation cannot occur. One of the most common sets of rules for governing debates is
“Roberts Rules of Order,” which is described in Box 1.4, “Robert’s Rules of Order.”
Advocates begin by using the critical thinking cycle to generate arguments about the
topic being discussed. Argumentation is the process of selecting arguments from that set and
connecting them in ways that allow arguers to construct a compelling case for positions or to
address needs. For instance, lawyers study all the arguments available in a case, they examine
past cases and precedents, they select the best among those, and then connect the arguments
together to make a case for the prosecution or defense in courts of law. Legislators study
many arguments and then may select a series of arguments to support broad-based policies or
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 26
5/12/14 5:24 PM
27
chapter One Arguing Critically
Box 1.4
Robert’s Rules of Order
For argumentation to occur, participants need to agree on a set of rules or procedures to
govern the process. In personal conversations, these rules are often implicit and understood.
They include turn taking, no interrupting, and not shouting. In more formal contexts such as
government proceedings or community hearings, the rules tend to be more explicit and clearly
developed.
The most widely used rules for debating are Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.20 These
rules describe when someone can speak, for how long, and about what. They are designed to
keep arguers on task and focused on the questions being discussed. The rules are extensive and
are designed to ensure that all relevant voices are heard, the process for giving voice is fair and
complete, and the outcomes will support both critical thought and critical evaluation of ideas.21
political change. Businesses may consider many possible arguments for a product
or service, group the best individual arguments together, and advocate for their products
and services in marketing and public relations campaigns. A model of the process of argumentation can be found in Figure 1.2, “Model of Argumentation Process.” In this figure,
arguers use the four steps of the critical thinking cycle to develop issues into potential arguments (Steps 1 and 2). Some of those arguments will be more or less significant than others
(Step 3). By carefully selecting the best arguments to support the arguer’s overall completion, the process of argumentation seeks to integrate many ideas and issues into a single,
overall conclusion or position (Step 4).
Speeches, essays, group discussions, legislation, and political campaigns are all
platforms where argumentation can take place. Argumentation is composed of individual
arguments. An argument is a set of statements in which a claim is made, support is offered for it, and
there is an attempt to influence someone in a context of disagreement.
It is important to understand argument in this sense—a claim, plus support for it in
the form of reasoning and evidence—as distinguished from interpersonal arguments or
Individual Arguments
Figure 1.2 “Model of
Argumentation Process”
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 27
Arguer generates multiple,
potential arguments
Overall
Conclusion
Arguer selects a set of
arguments that best reach the
conclusion
5/12/14 5:24 PM
28 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
disputes.22 In this latter sense, “argument” is a kind of (usually unpleasant) interpersonal
exchange, as when we say, “John and Mary were having an argument.” Sometimes described
as “quarrels” or “squabbles,” these kinds of arguments usually involve two or more persons
engaged in extended overt disagreement with each other.
That is not the sort of argument with which this book is concerned. Arguments of the
kind described here occur when we say something like, “John made an argument in support
of his proposal for the new marketing plan.” This view considers whether an argument is
sound and effective; it emphasizes argument as a reasoning process and considers arguments
as units rather than as interactive processes.
Arguments are only one kind of communication. When we greet someone (“Hello,
how are you?”), issue commands (“Shut the door”), vent our emotions (“I hate it when
you do that!”), make promises (“I’ll return your book tomorrow”), and so forth, we do not
produce arguments. To clarify the differences between arguments and other forms of communication, we will describe the important features of argument according to our definition.
Characteristics
First, to be considered an argument, an arguer, generally, should make a claim. A claim is an
expressed opinion or a conclusion that the arguer wants accepted. In the beauty pageant discussion,
some claims were:
Beauty contests undermine women as people.
There is nothing wrong with watching and admiring people who are fit, well proportioned, and healthy.
Judging women on their looks subjugates them.
Claims take on different forms in various contexts; they function as claims in relation to the
support offered for them. As we will show in Chapter 5, claims in a given individual argument may themselves function as forms of support for the main claim, or thesis statement, of
an extended argument. Examples of main claims include in criminal law the charge brought
against the defendant by the prosecution; in the legislature the briefer version of a proposed
bill or piece of legislation; and in medicine the diagnosis and recommended treatment regimen. In argumentation and debate, these main claims are often called propositions or resolutions.
When someone makes a claim, he or she is expected to offer support for it in the form
of reasons and information. If we issue a command or make a promise (“I will pick you
up at 10”), we commit ourselves by making the statement, and no further proof is necessary.23 Likewise, pure description (“The setting sun was reflected in a rosy haze”), small talk
(“Things are so-so, could be better”), and other neutral statements generally do not make
claims—they do not advance statements on which there is disagreement.
Sometimes, we can decide whether a statement is a claim only by considering its context. Arguers often leave their evidence, reasoning, or claim unstated. Do the following
examples contain claims?
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Coors Light, ’cause coffee’s nasty after football.
Every time I’m nice to him, he ignores me.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 28
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
29
If we know that the first statement is a bumper sticker displayed by an opponent of gun
control, we can conclude that it is a claim. Spelled out, it would say, “making guns illegal
means that only those who circumvent the law will have guns.” Knowing that the second
statement occurred in a beer ad would indicate that the claim is “[Buy] Coors Light” and
that the remainder is a good reason for doing so. It is ambiguous whether the third statement
is a claim or not. Knowing more about the person’s relationship to her friend would help us
to determine whether it is a claim. Some claims can be recognized as claims only when we
know about the speaker’s intention, the claim’s relation to the other statements made along
with it, or the situational context in which a claim is made.
The second characteristic of an argument is that support is offered for the claim.
Claims are supported both by the evidence and reasoning or inferences that connect the evidence to the claim. Evidence comes in many forms, but it always functions as the foundation
for argument or the grounds on which arguments are based. When we make an argument,
we move from statements we believe our receivers will accept (evidence) to statements that
are in dispute (claims). Evidence consists of facts or conditions that are objectively observable, beliefs
or statements generally accepted as true by the recipients, or conclusions previously established.
Evidence does not consist only of objectively observable facts. From a rhetorical point
of view (i.e., that arguers seek acceptance for their claims from audiences), it makes sense to
regard any proposition, or belief accepted by everyone in the audience, as a starting point for
argument. There are many statements (“A person is innocent until proven guilty” or “One
ought to keep one’s promises”) that are not facts but that could function as evidence in relation to a claim because the hearers would accept them as reasonable assumptions. The nature
of evidence and how it functions in an argument will be discussed more fully in Chapter 5.
In the beauty contest discussion at the beginning of this chapter, statements viewed as
evidence by the speakers and accepted by others count as evidence. Examples of such statements include:
We have an obesity epidemic.
Both women and men enjoy beauty pageants.
We evaluate teachers, athletes, and professionals on particular attributes.
To be counted as evidence, statements should be accepted and viewed as relevant and true
by the parties in a dispute or audiences to whom arguments are addressed. (If only one
party—the arguer—accepts a statement, then it is a claim, not evidence.) So, for instance,
when Kaidren says that “the ‘beauty myth’ is so powerful that women willingly risk their
health and even their lives,” Ramona does not accept that as true and, therefore, it does not
function as evidence; rather it functions as a claim. If, however, Kaidren provided credible support from research, expert sources, or other trusted references that was accepted by
Ramona, then this statement could be used as evidence. In other words, if people in an argument agree to the statement, it is evidence.
The arguer who begins by establishing claims based on statements that are not
accepted will not get far. For statements to function as evidence and provide reliable grounds
for claims, they must be acceptable to the recipients. For instance, if Kaidren could show
specific examples of how pageants have been harmful or present credible support for how
they have eroded women’s rights, then Ramona’s statements about their positive attributes
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 29
5/12/14 5:24 PM
30 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
would not be able to function as evidence because they would be in dispute. The process of
argumentation begins with testing assumptions about what is true for the parties involved
and then building—argument by argument—until a conclusion is reached.
Claims are also supported by the link that the arguer makes between the evidence
and the claim. The part of the argument containing reasoning is frequently called the
inference. Reasoning can take various forms. Those that occur most frequently will be
described in Chapter 6, and you will become experienced at identifying them. Reasoning
constructs a rational link between the evidence and the claim and authorizes the step we make when
we draw a conclusion. Reasoning answers the question, “How did you get from the evidence
to the claim?”24 It consists of general principles that explain how the evidence and the
claim are connected.
The study of argument is made all the more interesting because arguers often do not
explicitly state their inferences. They provide evidence and make claims, but often one can
only guess how the link between the two was made. For example, if we study the evidence
presented by the pageant discussants along with their claims, we will find that some of their
inferences, all unstated, were functioning in the argument:
Women imitate beauty behavior seen in pageants and, as a result, engage in unhealthy
practices in an attempt to achieve an idealized view of beauty.
Because both women and men enjoy pageants, women choose the consequences as
opposed to having someone else impose a standard for beauty on them.
Judging people based on their physical beauty is the same thing as judging athletes and
doctors on their skills.
Inferences usually make explicit a link, which enables the arguer to connect evidence with
claims and thus construct an argument.
The third and last characteristic of arguments is that they are attempts to influence
someone in a context where people disagree with one another. The phrase “attempts to influence” is important because the arguer may or may not succeed. The recipient of the a rgument
is free not to agree with the expressed opinion of the arguer. The person to whom the argument is addressed may accept the claim, reject it, or continue to express doubts about it.
To say that arguments are “attempts to influence” means that there must be a recipient, or “arguee,” to whom the argument is addressed that is capable of responding to it.
Arguees must be open-minded and able to change their beliefs or actions because of the
argument. Furthermore, in choosing argument instead of command or coercion, arguers
recognize that the process of argument is reciprocal—that initiative and control pass back
and forth as arguers state their viewpoints and as recipients weigh their support and decide
whether to accept the argument or not.25
This reciprocal nature is especially important because sometimes recipients may decide
to accept or reject an argument because of the relationships they have with the arguer or
because the arguer fails to address important values or issues even if the argument is logical
and well constructed.
While listening to arguments, recipients retain the option of challenging, questioning,
criticizing, or countering the expressed opinions of the arguer. The influence that arguments
aim to bring about assumes many forms. Arguers may want recipients to become concerned
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 30
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
31
about an issue on which they are ambivalent or neutral, to shift favorable to unfavorable
attitudes or vice versa, or to change behavior.
Arguments are attempts to influence someone. An argument may be addressed to oneself, to another person, to a small group, to an audience, or to multiple audiences. Arguments
occur in writing, in conversation, in public speeches, and in all forms of communication.
Argument is a complex phenomenon that occurs in numerous forms and media of communication and that is addressed to many different kinds of audiences.
Finally, to say that argument occurs only when there is disagreement or the potential
for disagreement means that the topic addressed must be controversial, capable of inciting
opposing opinions from the parties involved. For example, consider the following dialogue:
John:
Mary:
John:
Mary:
John:
Should we go to a movie tonight?
Fine, what would you like to see?
How about Skyfall?
OK, do you want to go to the 7 o’clock showing?
Sure.
There is no argument here because there is no opposition. If Mary had rejected the whole
idea of going to the movies, or if she had proposed another film and given reasons for preferring it, argumentation would have occurred. But as long as parties to a discussion agree
with the opinions expressed, they will not produce arguments. Box 1.5, “Apply the Theory,”
provides you with an opportunity to work with argument characteristics.
Box 1.5
Apply the Theory: Prove This Is an Argument
As discussed in this section, arguments consist of three interrelated parts. First, arguments must
make a claim. The claim expresses what the arguer wants the recipient to do or think. Second,
arguments must have support. Support takes two forms: evidence and reasoning. And, finally,
arguments must attempt to influence someone. Non-controversial statements are not arguments—they are simply descriptions. Using these defining requirements, is the following an
argument?
Entertainment producers for television and film should be prohibited from depicting tobacco use
in any form. It shouldn’t be too hard to see why. We know how dangerous tobacco use is. That
has been known for decades. We also know that smoking in adults has declined in recent years—
but it has risen in teens and young adults. Cigarette advertisements are already largely prohibited
or restricted but because of gaps in legislation, tobacco companies have simply shifted their methods to using product placement in films and on TV. If you just look at what is being produced,
cigarettes can be seen everywhere. And they are seen most often in programs intended for teens.
It’s interesting that the American Lung Associate found that PG-13 movies have more tobacco
use than R-rated movies that are intended for adults.26 This should be stopped; we should protect
young people from these “hidden” ads for smoking.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 31
5/12/14 5:24 PM
32 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Argument Contexts
Arguments occur in response to a question or need for inquiry. They develop among arguers, recipients, and larger communities. This section focuses on argument contexts. It will
look at why members from different groups and situations interpret arguments differently
and how arguers can use their knowledge of contexts to craft better arguments. In the case
developed in Box 1.6, “Coffee Is Hot,” Liebeck and her advocates and McDonald’s and
its advocates were not alone exchanging claims and evidence. Public opinion was involved.
Congress became involved. Doctors and lawyers were involved. Each group that was party to
the argument had its own background, assumptions, and standards for evaluating the quality
and validity of the arguments produced. The types of arguments created by various advocates depended on the contexts for which they were used.
When most people hear of this case, they conclude that Liebeck represents another
person who “beat the system.” Coffee is hot—that is not McDonald’s fault. If people are
burned, that is their own fault. We live in a litigious society where examples such as this
illustrate the need to change the legal system. Sherman Joyce, president of the American
Tort Reform Association, argued that Liebeck’s case pointed out “a lot of the problems with
the system . . . It demonstrates that the system needs reform.”30 At the same time, Robert
H. Scott, the trial judge in the case, wanted to send McDonald’s a stern warning. He said
that it “was appropriate to punish and deter” McDonald’s given its history of burns.31 And
members of Congress moved quickly to pass legislation to reduce the amount of damages a
plaintiff could collect.
Liebeck’s case illustrates how a common set of facts—what happened to Stella
Liebeck—can be examined, reviewed, and debated among different groups of people who
arrive at very different conclusions. Members of the legal community thought that punitive
damages would deter McDonald’s from unsafe and unnecessary practices. Political lobbyists used the case to illustrate the need for reform and argued that the punitive award was
an abuse. Politicians looked for ways to act on the perceived abuses and wrote legislation to
minimize any future abuses.
Cases such as this are not all that uncommon. For instance, when two teenagers from the
Bronx sued McDonald’s for making them obese, many responded that it was preposterous to
hold a fast-food chain accountable for individual choice. Critics claimed that the girls were to
blame for their own ignorance and lack of willpower. And, some said, if anyone were to blame,
it should be their parents for failure to exercise reasonable control as well as family genetics.32
Although this case was dismissed, arguments about the unhealthy consequences of fast
food continue to make their way into the public sphere. When New York City’s mayor,
Michael Bloomberg, promoted legislation limiting the size of sugary beverages sold in the
city’s restaurants, sports venues, movie theatres, and street carts to 16 ounces, critics began
calling him “Nanny Bloomberg” and called for personal responsibility and not government
regulation.33 These are examples of how arguments about personal issues and responsibilities can move into the realm of public debate. Newspaper articles, books, and even an awardwinning documentary film, Super Size Me, made the very technical arguments of science,
medicine, court cases, and the role of government part of the public debate about health.
Manufacturers of fast food and snack food began to listen to arguments generated in
public contexts. Kraft Foods, producer of Oreo cookies, announced that it would reduce the
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 32
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
33
Box 1.6
Coffee Is Hot
The following story has become something of an urban legend—the story of the woman who
spilled hot coffee in her lap and sued McDonald’s because she was burned. Her judgment was
for $2.9 million dollars. Many people have heard of the case, and most think the verdict is an
indication of the decline of justice in the United States and how lawyers are beginning to make it
impossible for a business to manufacture anything without being sued. “Of course coffee is hot.
If you spill it on yourself, you will get burned,” people will say. Because of this case, most places
that serve coffee to go with plastic lids will have accompanying warnings that “Coffee is Hot.”
Although most people are probably aware of the case, they are probably not aware of
what happened. The account most people have heard does not tell the full story. In an effort to
clarify the issues and present a more complete accounting of events, filmmaker Susan Saladoff,
released her documentary Hot Coffee at the Sundance Film Festival in 2011.27 It explored the
case, the way in which arguments were made, and how they were interpreted. Some of the
details surrounding Stella Liebeck, McDonald’s, and hot coffee follow:
Stella Liebeck’s life changed dramatically on February 27, 1992. She was an active and energetic
79-year-old woman who had just retired from a long career as a department store cashier making
$5,000 per year.
That morning she did not have time for breakfast at her daughter’s house. Her son, Jim, was
catching an early flight out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and to get him to the airport on time,
she and her grandson, Chris, had to leave at dawn. Chris drove his Ford Probe and after dropping
Jim off, Stella and he went to a McDonald’s restaurant drive-through to buy breakfast.28
Chris pulled the car into a parking space so Stella could add cream and sugar to her coffee.
She had a difficult time getting the top off of the cup. “I took the cup and tried to get the top
off,” she later testified. She looked for a place to put the cup down, but the dashboard was slanted
and there was no cup-holder in the Probe. She described what happened next: “Both hands were
busy. I couldn’t hold it so I put it between my knees and tried to get the top off that way.” With
a strong tug the top came off and scalding coffee poured all over her lap. She screamed and tried
desperately to get her sweatpants off as the 185-degree-Fahrenheit coffee burned. By the time she
and Chris reached the emergency room, Stella had suffered second- and third-degree burns across
her buttocks, her thighs, and her labia. All she remembered was the pain.
Although the jury initially awarded her $2.9 million for pain, suffering, and injuries, a judge
later cut the amount to $640,000. Yet her case became one of the leading examples supporting
tort reform in Congress—an attempt to diminish runaway damage claims in lawsuits. Was her
case unjust? Was her case another example of lawyers trying to get all they can out of the system?
The answer may not be as clear as it at first seems.
Liebeck spent seven days in the hospital and then three more weeks recuperating at home.
During that time her movement was limited and she was in constant pain from the burns. She was
again hospitalized for skin grafts over the affected areas of her body and, while practically immobilized and in pain from the grafts, her body weight dropped from 20 to 83 pounds.
Initially she was not interested in suing. In a letter she wrote to McDonald’s, she asked that
they turn down the temperature of the coffee and requested $2,000—the amount of her out-ofpocket expenses. McDonald’s offered her $800. Upon further investigation, Liebeck discovered
that McDonald’s had been sued in the past for keeping its coffee too hot and that McDonald’s
had received more than 700 burn complaints over 10 years. In fact, beverages over 135 degrees
Fahrenheit are considered too hot for human consumption. Yet, the company continued to sell
coffee at the same 185-degree-Fahrenheit burning temperature.29
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 33
5/12/14 5:24 PM
34 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
size of its portions in single-serving packages. McDonald’s ended the super size meal option
and reduced the size of some of its servings. Frito-Lay decided to reduce or eliminate trans
fats from their foods because of possible health risks associated with them.34
People from different associations and groups often see different things in the world
around them. That is because all of us use our assumptions, beliefs, and experiences to help
frame our experiences. We talk of many different subjects and have our own rules of discourse. Lawyers, for instance, have very strict rules for what can serve as evidence for an
argument. In science, certain types of evidence and reasoning are considered superior to
others. For instance, scientists tend to look for cause and effect and tend not to reason from
analogy or personal feelings. For them, claims or hypotheses should be proven objectively.
Advocates do not present their arguments in a vacuum. They draw arguments from
their knowledge, background, and research in a particular topic and adapt their arguments
to an audience’s need and interest in that topic. From an arguer’s assessment of the connection between an audience and a message, arguments are formed. When scientists write about
their research in academic journals, they approach their audience differently than if they
were discussing the same research to a national audience on a late-night television program.
When arguing before their peers, physicists or astronomers tend to employ technical proofs
and reasons because the audience is expert in the field. In front of public audiences of nonexperts, the same scientists tend to employ different forms of evidence and reasoning so that
a general audience can understand the claims.
Arguments develop in an environment of advocacy that we refer to as argument context. Argument contexts grow out of the confluence of arguer, question or need, and audience. Just
as the physical environment influences how plants or animals will grow, argument contexts
influence how arguments are developed and communicated. This confluence, or relationship, among arguer, need, and recipients that creates arguments’ contexts can be described
and understood through two related concepts: argument fields and argument spheres.
Fields
When we discussed the cycle of critical thinking earlier, we noted how important it is for
advocates to explore and understand issues and subjects. Part of that process involved seeking out relevant authorities that could frame and inform argument development. Argument
fields focus on the context for expertise. An attorney can speak effectively about the law and
Liebeck’s legal standing. A doctor could talk about the severity of her burns. However, it is
unlikely that the physician would be able to effectively negotiate a legal settlement. Lawyers
and doctors are from different argument fields. Argument fields are sociological contexts for
arguments and are marked by patterns of communication that participants in argumentative disputes
can recognize.35
Fields provide arguers with a context for exploring and interpreting subjects, as well as
a framework for interpreting, creating, and evaluating arguments. Argument fields provide
field members with an understanding of the rules and conventions governing the development of arguments as well as their interpretation. Perhaps argumentation theorist Joseph
Wenzel put it best when he said to think of fields as representing “some sort of universe of
discourse.”36 Different professions—such as law, education, medicine, or politics—have a
language and set of rules for argument that govern how arguments are made and judged.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 34
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
35
These rules may be external to the arguers in the sphere, and they provide a basis by which
the arguments can be developed and evaluated.
The very fact that an argument takes place in a law court, a corporate boardroom,
a medical care setting, or an art class may influence the procedures that are used and the
standards that are applied to make arguments and judgments about arguments. Argument
fields define the rules for engagement and resolution. In other words, they determine what
kind of evidence and support will be considered appropriate for a claim. This is why attorneys, medical doctors, filmmakers, and Congress could all reach different conclusions about
whether Liebeck “scammed” the system or was a victim of corporate excess. Each used different standards and assumptions to frame their opinions. Some fields are highly defined
with rigid rules, whereas other fields are loosely defined with norms for arguing.
In The Uses of Argument and subsequent works, philosopher Stephen Toulmin emphasized the importance of argument fields in understanding and interpreting argument.37 The
arenas in which arguments are developed influence the forms of argument, the bases on
which inferences are made, and the means for deciding disputes. These fields are both social
and communicative phenomena. In other words, people, through interaction, make fields for
argument; they act as the source for the conventions and criteria used in conducting arguments, and they are an important feature of argumentation.38
Characteristics
Argument fields include such examples as law, ethics, medicine, science, and aesthetics. Furthermore, each of these fields has subfields (e.g., the subfields of law include tort
law, family law, criminal law) that function as fields for increasingly specific arguments.
Describing what fields exist at any given moment can be difficult because we are constantly
surrounded by and involved in many different fields. Nevertheless, the field in which arguments are produced affects the nature of the argument; as the field changes, so does the way
the argument is constructed. Robert Rowland made the point that it “seems obvious that
arguments vary by field.”39
Although they can be complex and difficult to isolate, generally fields share five common characteristics:
They are a human creation.40 This means that fields develop over time through social
interaction. People create them, shape them, and change them.
41
■ People with shared goals develop them.
People sustain interaction and develop fields
when they share objectives and purposes. In science, for example, the purpose is to
identify the laws of nature; in ethics, the purpose is to distinguish what is good and
morally right from what is not; and in medicine, the purpose is to promote health by
preventing and curing illness.
42
■ They develop specialized language and rules.
When people converse to achieve their
objectives, there are certain rules of conduct as well as language that facilitate their
objectives. We may call such specialized language jargon, but for the members of a
field, the language carries unique meanings.
43
■ People may belong to many fields.
Humans share many different objectives and
adhere to many different sets of rules. There are, for instance, attorneys to abide by
■
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 35
5/12/14 5:24 PM
36 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
the rules of the legal profession who also teach and follow those rules. They may also
belong to a political party and follow the ideology of the organization. Any single
person may belong to and practice the standards of many different fields. We can be
members of as many fields as serve our interests or objectives.
■ Fields survive only as long as they serve the common purpose of their members and
as long as they can adapt to changing objectives.44 When a field no longer serves its
members and cannot adapt to meet their needs, it will disappear.
These five dimensions can describe any field. For example, if we look at the field of
law, we would say first that law is a human creation. Lawyers were not needed until human
beings began developing rules and laws for governance and discovered a need to have a
group of people interpret and apply the rules. Second, the legal field consists of people with
shared goals. Lawyers and judges work to apply the law in civil and criminal matters to
punish wrongdoers and seek justice. Third, members of the legal field develop their own
specialized language to describe activities and directions in their field. They talk about
writs (any legal documents used for court action), habeas corpus (a type of document used
to release someone from unlawful imprisonment because of lack of due process), praecipe
(writs that command a defendant to do the thing required or show just reason why he or
she cannot), and estoppel (a document that prevents someone from acting in contradictory
ways to the detriment of another party), among many other terms. A field develops a unique
language that unites and binds its members and gives them a language within a language (in
this case a legal language within English) that identifies them as members of a community or
field. Fourth, members of the legal fields may also belong to many other fields. For instance,
many politicians are either practicing or former attorneys and judges. Some lawyers move
into education and teach at law schools. Finally, lawyers need to be able to adapt to changing
conditions and times for the field to survive. As new laws are passed, members of the legal
community need to remain current so that the correct rules and precedents are applied to
their cases. As laws become more complex, attorneys often find themselves in specialized
areas within the field. They may, for instance, specialize in laws pertaining to intellectual
property or the preservation of the environment, among many other areas. Failure to adapt
to changing rules and laws can lead to individual members of the field being disbarred or to
the dissolution of the field itself. Box 1.7, “Apply the Theory,” guides you through a process
of understanding how fields work.
Box 1.7
Apply the Theory: What Is Your Field?
As this section pointed out, we all belong to many fields. And, as we discussed, fields can be
defined along five dimensions: human creation, specialized language and rules, membership in
multiple fields, and common purpose. Using these categories:
1. Can you demonstrate that “higher education” is a field?
2. Identify an example that illustrates how the field of higher education “fits” in each category.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 36
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
37
Standards
Argument fields are important for arguers and critics alike because they provide us
with a means of understanding and interpreting arguments. When we evaluate arguments to
determine whether they are true or false, good or bad, valid or invalid, we apply two sets of
tests: field-dependent standards and field-invariant standards.45 Field-dependent standards are
the rules, norms, and prescriptions guiding the production of arguments in a particular field. These
are the standards that the particular field identifies as appropriate for evaluating arguments.
Therefore, legal standards pertaining to hearsay evidence applied to legal arguments would
constitute field-dependent standards. Most arguments in the technical sphere rely on fielddependent standards.
Field-invariant standards apply generally, regardless of the field of argument. Regardless of
the field in which an argument is presented, there are certain standards that apply regardless
of the particular contexts. For instance, an advocate should not attempt to deceive recipients.
Arguers should not seek to undermine or diminish other advocates. Arguments should be
presented that have all the required parts of an argument: claim, evidence, reasoning, and an
attempt to influence.
The notion of an argument field is valuable because understanding fields helps arguers
understand many of the rules and conventions for judging between competing claims in a
controversy. They define the assumptions used by advocates in the situation. Depending on
which standards from which fields are applied to arguments, the results can be very different.
This is why it is important for advocates to be aware of the fields from which they argue and
to learn as much about the field for argument as the subject of argument.
Spheres
The concept of argument spheres provides us with a way of understanding argument situations by considering the elements of arguer, recipient, and message. Argument spheres are
social constructs that guide how arguments are produced and evaluated. Thomas B. Farrell and G.
Thomas Goodnight, in their discussion of argument spheres, suggest that argument contexts
can be described as belonging to one of three types—personal, technical, and public.46 This
sounds very similar to the discussion about fields with an important difference. While fields
focus on the expertise of the members, argument spheres are broader and consider how the
relationship among arguer, recipient, and situation intersect.
Personal sphere arguments are made and evaluated by people who are engaged in
a personal relationship. Technical sphere arguments are made among people who are
experts in their respective fields. Public sphere arguments are arguments made to general
audiences that are evaluated using standards created by the general audiences. They are
intended to be understood and evaluated using the general tools and abilities of larger,
public audiences. Of the three spheres, the technical sphere is the one most rigidly
defined by fields.
Figure 1.3, “The Three Argument Spheres,” illustrates the connections among the
three types. It is important to note that the three spheres can overlap. That is because sometimes technical arguments become personal and that personal arguments may become public.
And, as we have discussed with Liebeck’s case, some technical arguments can become public.
All three spheres interact with one another.
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 37
5/12/14 5:24 PM
38 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
Public Sphere
Recipients are general public
Arguments are evaluated by
general public
Technical Sphere
Recipients are
specialized members of
field
Arguments are evaluated
by field standards
Personal Sphere
Recipients are members
of relationships
Arguments are evaluated
by members in that
relationship.
Figure 1.3 The Three
Argument Spheres
The variables of arguer, audience, and message are influenced by the sphere in which
the arguments take place. Whereas some audiences, such as a legal judge, require precise
reasoning from specific kinds of evidence, other audiences may be moved more personally
by their passions and feelings toward issues such as gun control or abortion and may apply
very different standards to judge the value of the argument. The context for the argument
informs the advocate of the rules, conventions, and constraints that should govern the development of the arguments.
Liebeck’s case provides some important clues as to how argument contexts function.
Liebeck’s experience defined a central set of issues around which arguments for and against
tort reform were debated. Although tort reform had been an issue for several years, her
case provided an opportunity to bring the debate into the open. Further, it showed a clash
between two powerful communities of people: lawyers and politicians. Many members of
the legal profession saw this as an example of how well the justice system works in America.
A single, elderly woman can beat a giant corporation when the corporation does something
wrong. The political community, however, saw this case as another abuse of legal power.
Technical
The technical sphere contains arguments that adhere to rules that are more formalized
and rigorous and tend to be generated by particular groups of people, such as doctors or lawyers.
Arguments in this sphere might include the arguments made in academic papers and essays,
legal arguments, scientific arguments, and religious arguments. They tend to be specialized and focused toward a particular audience in a particular field. Field-based, technical
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 38
5/12/14 5:24 PM
chapter One Arguing Critically
39
arguments tend to influence arguments in the other spheres because when we research a
subject and evaluate the quality of evidence we locate, we tend to rely on authority and
expert opinions, which are grounded in the technical sphere.
Perhaps our most common exposure to technical argument is in the workplace,
where people develop a language and set of rules that are unique to their own profession
and interests. Professionals in any given field, from law, to medicine, to construction and
manufacturing, share an understanding of what is a reasonable or unreasonable argument.
Consequently, arguments that are coherent and well argued by the members of that field
may be meaningless to other recipients who are not members of that field.
This is what happened in Liebeck’s case. Once attorneys became involved, the
arguments shifted from the personal experience of being burned and in pain to the legal
implications of damage and liability. The arguments moved toward a focus on law and
legal precedent, and different rules for arguing applied to the more specialized arguers and
recipients. The language of the arguments changed, as did rules of evidence, reasoning, and
presentation of argument. Unlike personal arguments, the community of people that uses
the standards of the community evaluates these arguments. Arguments in this sphere are
most often judged using field-dependent standards.
Personal
The personal sphere contains the relatively informal arguments among people in typically
casual settings. Personal arguments are those among friends and family governed by the interpersonal rules for arguments generated in the relationship. Typically, personal arguments
do not pay careful attention to evidence, reasoning, or well-framed claims. The rules and
procedures for personal arguments are determined by the relationship and not by external
forces.47 For instance, when Liebeck and her daughter discussed how to arrange for in-home
care while she recovered from her burns, the arguments were personal and based on a private
understanding of the relationship and its needs. Personal sphere arguments are best understood by the participants because of the nature of their relationship with one another. And,
therefore, personal sphere arguments are evaluated using the standards set by the members
of the relationship and field-invariant standards.
Public
The public sphere contains arguments that are intended for public or general audiences. These
arguments are evaluated by publicly understood and accepted standards for criticism and
analysis. Public arguments include the kinds of arguments politicians might make or that
a public relations officer for a corporation might present. Editorials in newspapers typically are written for the public sphere. Whereas the public sphere has relatively formalized
rules for appropriateness (e.g., one cannot make slanderous comments about another), the
rules are understood and used by a broader public than those of the technical sphere, which
focuses on a particular community of people. Most often, then, they are evaluated through
field-invariant standards.
The concept of the public sphere, as opposed to either the technical or personal
spheres, has a dual meaning. First, the term public suggests that it is open and available for
inspection by others. Second, public matters are those that affect a community of individuals;
M01_INCH8825_07_GE_C01.indd 39
5/12/14 5:24 PM
40 section I Developing a Conceptual Framework for Argument
they are issues of common concern that are the subject of much public discourse. Politics is
an example of public discourse, as is consumer product safety and foreign trade agreements.
The public sphere is also a blend of issues related to personal, technical, and public
concerns. Individual values are often debated in the public arena; for example, we experience
arguments over the need for gun control or the legalization of certain controlled substances.
These might typically be seen as personal arguments about personal choices, yet these
arguments find their way into the public arena as a means to create a social agenda and to promote certain values. Similarly, technical arguments become the substance for extended public
debates. The causes of cancer or AIDS that are systematically studied and researched by scientists become the subject of public debates about policies and programs to remedy the diseases.
The public sphere provides an important venue for arguers. It offers them opportunities to extend knowledge and to focus on the plights or successes of others. People working
in technical spheres may highlight issues for the public sphere by creating “events” that
elevate issues to a public level. John W. Delicath and Kevin Michael Deluca offered an
example of this when they wrote of the possibiliti…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment]()
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.