A rulebook for arguments anthony weston pdf

Book Reference

A Rulebook for Arguments

Weston, A. (2009). A rulebook for arguments (41h ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company

A Rulebook for

Arguments Fourth Edition

Anthony Weston

Preface

This book is a brief introduction to the art of making arguments. It sticks to the bare essentials. I have found that students and writers often need just such a list of reminders and rules, not lengthy introduc- tory explanations. This book is therefore organized around specific rules, illustrated and explained soundly but above all briefly. It is not a textbook but a rulebook.

Instructors too, I have found, often wish to assign such a rulebook, a treatment that students can consult and understand on their own and that therefore does not claim too much class time. Here again, it is important to be brief- the point is to help students get on with their actual argu- ments-but the rules must be stated with enough substance that an in- structor can simply refer a student to Rule 6 or Rule 16 rather than give an entire explanation each time it is needed. Brief but self-sufficient- that is the fine line I have tried to follow.

This rulebook also can be used in a course that gives critical attention to arguments. It will need to be supplemented with exercises and more examples, but many texts are already available that consist largely or wholly of such exercises and examples. Those texts, however, also need to be supplemented- with what this rule book offers: simple rules for put- ting good arguments together. We do not want our students to come out of critical thinking courses knowing only how to shoot down (or just at) selected fallacies . Critical thinking can be practiced in a far more con- structive spirit. This book is one attempt to suggest how.

ix

J

1m

~~~==:===================~====~-----~-

X PREFACE

Note to the Fourth Edition

Logic doesn't change, but the times do. Today students are coming to college better prepared, and high schools and even middle schools are teaching critical thinking themselves. A rulebook of this sort, still very introductory, can ask more and go further than it did when I first wrote it twenty years ago.

This new edition therefore has been significantly overhauled. Three chapters on argumentative essays have been replaced by one chapter on extended arguments generally, one on argumentative essays proper, and a new chapter on oral arguments. Chapter V, on causal arguments, has a sharper and more practical focus. There is more on the use of numbers and a new section on Web sources, while a few themes that previously had a section of their own have been blended with others or have migrated to the appendixes. You'll also notice that the numbering of the rules is simplified: the rules are now numbered consecutively, from 1 to 45.

My warmest thanks once again go to so many colleagues, friends , and students for their support and encouragement. For especially close read- ings and much helpful feedback in the preparation of this fourth edition, special acknowledgment is due to three long-time users of this book: Ann Cahill, my colleague at Elon University; Charles Kay of Wofford Col- lege; and Debra Nails of Michigan State University. My gratitude also to Deborah Wilkes at Hackett Publishing Company for her deft oversight of the whole process, and to my partner Amy Halberstadt for showing me how the chapter on causal arguments could be so much more construc- tively framed. Criticisms and suggestions, as always, are welcome.

Anthony Weston Spring 2008

Introduction

What's the point of arguing?

M any people think that arguing is simply stating their prejudices in a new form. This is why many people also think that arguments are unpleasant and pointless. One dictionary definition for "argument" is "disputation." In this sense we sometimes say that two people "have an argument": a verbal fistfight. It happens often enough. But it is not what arguments really are.

In this book, "to give an argument" means to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion. Here an argument is not simply a statement of certain views, and it is not simply a dispute. Arguments are efforts to support certain views with reasons. Arguments in this sense are not pointless; in fact, they are essential.

Argument is essential, in the first place, because it is a way of finding out which views are better than others. Not all views are equal. Some con- clusions can be supported by good reasons. Others have much weaker support. But often we don' t know which are which. We need to give ar- guments for different conclusions and then assess those arguments to see how strong they really are.

Here argument is a means of inquiry. Some philosophers and activists have argued, for instance, that the factory farming of animals for meat causes immense suffering to animals and is therefore unjustified and im- moral. Are they right? We can't necessarily tell just by consulting our cur- rent opinions. Many issues are involved-we need to examine the arguments. Do we have moral obligations to other species, for instance, or is only human suffering really bad? How well can humans live with- out meat? Some vegetarians have lived to very old ages. Does this show

xi

r

Ja

xi i INTRODUCTION

that vegetarian diets are healthier? Or is it irrelevant when you consider that some nonvegetarians also have lived to very old ages? (You might make some progress by asking whether vegetarians live to old age at a higher rate.) Or might healthier people tend to become vegetarians, rather than vice versa? All of these questions need to be considered carefully, and the answers are not clear in advance.

Argument is essential for another reason too. Once we have arrived at a conclusion that is well supported by reasons, we use arguments to ex- plain and defend it. A good argument doesn' t merely repeat conclusions. Instead it offers reasons and evidence so that other people can make up their minds for themselves. If you become convinced that we should in- deed change the way we raise and use animals, for example, you must use arguments to explain how you arrived at your conclusion. That is how you will convince others : by offering the reasons and evidence that con- vinced you. It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else.

Argument grows on you

Typically we learn to "argue" by assertion. That is, we tend to start with our conclusions- our desires or opinions-without a whole lot to back them up. And it works, sometimes, at least when we're very young. What could be better?

Real argument, by contrast, takes time and practice. Marshaling our reasons, proportioning our conclusions to the actual evidence, consider- ing objections, and all the rest-these are acquired skills. We have to grow up a little. We have to put aside our desires and our opinions for a while and actually think.

School may help-or not. In courses concerned with teaching ever- larger sets of facts or techniques, students are seldom encouraged to ask the sorts of questions that arguments answer. Sure, our Constitution man- dates the Electoral College-that's a fact-but is it still a good idea? (For that matter, was it ever a good idea? What were the reasons for it, any- way?) Sure, many scientists believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe, but why? What's the argument? Reasons can be given for dif- ferent answers. In the end, ideally, you will not only learn some of those reasons but also learn how to weigh them up-and how to seek out more yourself.

Mostly, again, it takes time and practice. This book can help! More- over, the practice of argument turns out to have some attractions of its

-

INTRODUCTION x iii

own. Our minds become more flexible, open-ended, and alert. We come to appreciate how much difference our own critical thinking can really make. From everyday family life to politics, science, philosophy, and even religion, arguments are constantly offered to us for our considera- tion, and we may in turn offer back our own. Think of argument as a way to make your own place within these unfolding, ongoing dialogues. What could be better than that?

Outline of this book

This book begins by discussing fairly simple arguments and moves to ex- tended arguments and their use in essays and oral presentations at the end.

Chapters I- VI are about composing and assessing short arguments. Short arguments simply offer their reasons and evidence briefly, usually in a few sentences or a paragraph. We begin with short arguments for sev- eral reasons. First, they are common: in fact so common that they are part of every day's conversation. Second, longer arguments are usually elab- orations of short arguments, or a series of short arguments linked together. If you learn to write and assess short arguments first, then you can extend your skills to longer arguments in essays or presentations.

A third reason for beginning with short arguments is that they are the best illustrations both of the common argument forms and of the typical mistakes in arguments. In longer arguments, it can be harder to pick out the main points-and the main problems. Therefore, although some of the rules may seem obvious when first stated, remember that you have the benefit of a simple example. Other rules are hard enough to appreci- ate even in short arguments .

Chapter VII guides you into sketching and then elaborating an ex- tended argument, considering objections and alternatives as you do. Chapter VIII guides you from there into writing an argumentative essay. Chapter IX then adds rules specifically about oral presentation . Again, all of these chapters depend on Chapters 1-VI, since extended arguments like these essentially combine and elaborate the kinds of short arguments that Chapters I- VI discuss. Don't skip ahead to the later chapters, then, even if you come to this book primarily for help writing an essay or doing a presentation. The book is short enough that you can read it through from the beginning; if you do, when you arrive at those later chapters you will have the tools you need to use them well. Instructors might wish to as- sign Chapters I- VI early in the term and Chapters VII- IX when the time comes for essays and presentations.

x iv INTRODUCTION

Two appendixes close out the book. The first is a listing of fallacies: types of misleading arguments that are so tempting and common, they even have their own names. The second offers three rules for construct- ing and evaluating definitions. Use them when you need them!

Short Arguments: Some General Rules

Arguments begin by marshaling reasons and organizing them in a clear and fair way. Chapter I offers general rules for composing short argu- ments. Chapters II-VI discuss specific kinds of short arguments.

Identify premises and conclusion

The very first step in making an argument is to ask yourself what you are trying to prove. What is your conclusion? Remember that the conclusion is the statement for which you are giving reasons. The statements that give your reasons are your premises.

Consider these lines from Winston Churchill:

I am an optimist. It does not seem to be much use being anything else.

This is an argument- not just an amusing quip-because Churchill is giving a reason to be an optimist: his premise is that "It does not seem to be much use being anything else."

Premises and conclusion are not always so obvious. Sherlock Holmes has to explain one of his deductions in "The Adventure of Silver Blaze":

2 (. IDENTIFY PREMISES AND CONCLUSION

A dog was kept in the stables, and yet, though someone had been in and had fetched out a horse, [the dog] had not barked .... Obviously the ... visitor was someone whom the dog knew well. 1

Holmes has two premises. One is explicit: the dog did not bark at the vis- itor. The other is a general fact that Holmes assumes we know about dogs: dogs bark at strangers. Together these premises imply that the visitor was not a stranger. It turns out that this is the key to solving the mystery.

When you are using arguments as a means of inquiry, you sometimes may start with no more than the conclusion you wish to defend. State it clearly, first of all. Maybe you want to take Churchill a step further and argue that you and I should be optimists too. If so, say so explicitly. Then ask yourself what reasons you have for drawing that conclusion. What reasons can you give to prove that we should be optimists?

You could appeal to Churchill's authority. If Churchill recommends optimism, who are you or I to quibble? This appeal will not get you very far, however, since equally famous people have recommended pessi- mism. You need to think about the question on your own. Again, what is your reason for thinking that we should be optimists?

One reason could be that optimism boosts your energy to work for suc- cess, whereas if you feel defeated in advance you may never even try. Op- timists are more likely to succeed, to achieve their goals. (Maybe this is what Churchill meant as well.) If this is your premise, say so explicitly.

This book offers you a ready list of different forms that arguments can take. Use this list to develop your premises. To defend a generalization, for instance, check Chapter II. It will remind you that you need to give a series of examples as premises, and it will tell you what sorts of exam- ples to look for. If your conclusion requires a deductive argument like those explained in Chapter VI, the rules outlined in that chapter will tell you what types of premises you need. You may have to try several dif- ferent arguments before you find one that works well.

1 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of Silver Blaze," in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (Garden City, NY: Garden City Books, 1930), p. 199.

2. DEVELOP YOUR IDEAS IN A NATURAL ORDER 3

Develop your ideas ip a natural order

Short arguments are usually developed in one or two paragraphs. Put the conclusion first, followed by your reasons, or set out your premises first and draw the conclusion at the end. In any case, set out your ideas in an order that unfolds your line of thought most clearly for the reader.

Consider this short argument by Bertrand Russell:

The evils of the world are due to moral defects quite as much as to lack of intelligence. But the human race has not hitherto discovered any method of eradicating moral defects .... Intelligence, on the contrary, is easily improved by methods known to every competent educator. Therefore, until some method of teaching virtue has been discovered, progress will have to be sought by improvement of intelligence rather than of morals.2

Each sentence in this passage prepares the way for the next one, and then the next one steps smoothly up to bat. Russell begins by pointing out the two sources of evil in the world: "moral defects," as he puts it, and lack of intelligence. He then claims that we do not know how to correct "moral defects," but that we do know how to correct lack of intelligence. Therefore-notice that the word "therefore" clearly marks his conclusion -progress will have to come by improving intelligence.

Getting an argument to unfold in this smooth sort of way is a real ac- complishment. It's not easy to find just the right place for each part-and plenty of wrong places are available. Suppose Russell instead argued like this:

The evils of the world are due to moral defects quite as much as to lack of intelligence. Until some method of teaching virtue has been dis- covered, progress will have to be sought by improvement of intelli- gence rather than of morals. Intelligence is easily improved by methods known to every competent educator. The human race has not hitherto discovered any means of eradicating moral defects.

2 Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays (1935; reprint, London: Allen & Unwin, 1977), p. 127.

4 J. START FROM RELIABLE PREMISES

These are the same premises and conclusion, but they are in a different order, and the word "therefore" has been omitted before the conclusion. Now the argument is much harder to understand, and therefore also much less persuasive. The premises do not fit together naturally, and you have to read the passage twice just to figure out what the conclusion is. Don't count on your readers to be so patient.

Expect to rearrange your argument several times to find the most nat- ural order. The rules discussed in this book should help. You can use them to figure out not only what kinds of premises you need but also how to arrange them in the best order.

Start from reliabl.e premises

No matter how well you argue from ;premises to conclusion, your con- 1 . '11 b k 'f 4 " . . -1 / ak c us1on w1 e wea 1 your prerrilses are we .

Nobody in the world today is really happy. Therefore, it seems that hu- man beings are just not made for happiness. Why should we expect what we can never find?

The premise of this argument is the statement that nobody in the world today is really happy. Sometimes, on certain rainy afternoons or in cer- tain moods, this may almost seem true. But ask yourself if this premise really is plausible. Is nobody in the world today really happy? Ever? At the very least, this premise needs some serious defense, and very likely it is just not true. This argument cannot show, then, that human beings are not made for happiness or that you or I should not expect to be happy.

Sometimes it is easy to start from reliable premises. You may have well-known examples at hand or reliable sources that are clearly in agree- ment. Other times it is harder. If you are not sure about the reliability of a premise, you may need to do some research and/or give an argument for the premise itself (see Rule 31 for more on this point).lf you find you cannot argue adequately for your premise(s), then, of course, you need to try some other premise!

5, BUILD ON SUBSTANCE, NOT OVERTON£ 5

Be concr,ete arid concise J .. ~.

Avoid abstract, vague, and general tenus. "We hiked for hours in the sun" is a hundred times better than "It was . .anextended period of laborious ex- ertion." Be concise too. Airy elaboration just loses everyone in a fog of words.

NO:

For those whose roles primarily involved the performance of services, as distinguished from assumption of leadership responsibilities, the main pattern seems to have been a response to the leadership's invok- ing obligations that were concomitants of the status of membership in the societal community and various of its segmental units. The closest modem analogy is the military service performed by an ordinary citi- zen, except that the leader of the Egyptian bureaucracy did not need a special emergency to invoke legitimate obligations.3

YES:

In ancient Egypt the common people were liable to be conscripted for work.

Build on subsJance, not overtone \

Offer actual reasons; don' t jus

NO:

Having so disgracefully allowed her once-proud passenger railroads to fade into obscurity, America is honor bound to restore them now!

This is supposed to be an argument for restoring (more) passenger rail service. But it offers no evidence for this conclusion whatsoever, just

3 Talcott Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966), p. 56. I owe the quotation and the rewrit- ten version that follows to Stanislas Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972), Chapter 6.

6 6. UsE CONSISTENT TERMS

some emotionally loaded words-shopworn words, too, like a politician on automatic . Did passenger rail "fade" because of something "America" did or didn't do? What was "disgraceful" about this? Many "once-proud" institutions outlive their times, after all- we're not obliged to restore them all. What does it mean to say America is "honor bound" to do this? Have promises been made and broken? By whom?

Much can be said for restoring passenger rail, especially in this era when the ecological and economic costs of highways are becoming enor- mous. The problem is that this argument does not say it. It lets the emo- tional charge of the words do all the work, and therefore really does no work at all. We're left exactly where we started. Overtones may some- times persuade even when they shouldn't, of course- but remember, here we are looking for actual, concrete evidence.

Likewise, do not try to make your argument look good by using emo- tionally loaded words to label the other side. Generally, people advocate a position for serious and sincere reasons. Try to figure out their view- try to understand their reasons- even if you disagree entirely. For ex- ample, people who question a new technology are probably not in favor of"going back to the caves." (What are they in favor of? Maybe you need to ask.) Likewise, a person who believes in evolution is not claiming that her grandparents were monkeys. (And again: what does she think?) In general, if you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are at- tacking, you probably just don't understand it yet.

Use consistent terms

Short arguments normally have a single theme or thread. They carry one idea through several steps. Therefore, couch that idea in clear and care- fully chosen terms, and mark each new step by using those very same terms again.

NO:

When you learn about other cultures, you start to realize the variety of human customs. This new understanding of the diversity of social practices may give you a new appreciation of other ways of life. There- fore, studying anthropology tends to make you more tolerant.

--

6. USE CONSISTENT TERMS

YES:

When you learn about other cultures, you start to realize the variety of human customs. When you start to realize the variety of human cus- toms, you tend to become more tolerant. Therefore, when you learn about other cultures, you tend to become more tolerant.

7

The "Yes" version might not be stylish, but it is crystal clear, whereas the "No" version hardly seems like the same argument. One simple fea- ture makes the difference: the "Yes" argument repeats its key terms, while the "No" version uses a new phrase for each key idea every time the idea recurs. For example, "learning about other cultures" is redescribed in the "No" version's conclusion as "studying anthropology." The result is that the connection between premises and conclusion is lost in the under- brush. It's interesting underbrush, maybe, but you are still liable to get stuck in it.

Re-using the same key phrases can feel repetitive, of course, so you may be tempted to reach for your thesaurus. Don't go there! The logic de- pends on clear connections between premises and between premises and conclusion. It remains essential to use a consistent term for each idea. If you are concerned about style- as sometimes you should be, of course- then go for the tightest argument, not the most flowery.

MOST CONCISE:

When you learn about other cultures, you start to realize the variety of human customs, a realization that in turn tends to make you more tolerant.

You can talk about studying anthropology and the like, if you wish, as you explain each step in tum.