Lesson 3- argumentation

Lesson 3b

Argumentation: Application of Inferential Thinking

            Argumentation is a type of discourse in speech or writing that develops or debates a topic in a logical or persuasive way or an appeal predominantly to logic and reason. It deals with complex issues that can be debated. It is the rational practice, which seeks to resolve conflict or disagreement by appeal to universally recognizable principles. 

 It is also a speech or writing intended to convince by establishing truth. Most argumentation begins with a statement of an idea or opinion, which is then supported with logical evidence. Another technique of argumentation is the anticipation and rebuttal of opposing views

Identifying features of an argumentation

1. Argumentation is the use of language with its own rules, procedures and criteria of appropriateness.

2. The rules, procedures and criteria of appropriateness specific to argumentation presuppose controversy: argumentation makes sense only if disagreement is at least possible.

3. The facts and principles appealed to in argumentation are always subject-matter and audience specific: through argumentation we seek to reach agreement about claims by appealing to facts and principles which are not controversial for a particular audience.

4. The aim of argumentation is to win assent through rational persuasion (as opposed to threat, coercion, authority etc. Please see Fallacies on chapter 11). Rational persuasion occurs when an audience assents to a claim, makes that claim its own, upon understanding that the claim rests on facts and principles already assented to.

Arguments

            Arguments are form of inferential thinking often expressed in syllogistic forms. It normally presents a claim supported by evidence or data which warrants and backs the rational accent to the claim.

SAMPLE ARGUMENT NO. 1

Dr. Garcia: "The infection was carried by food-service equipment."
Dr. Santos: "How do you know?"
Dr. Garcia: "Our tests ruled out everything else, and we finally located a defect in the canteen washing equipment."
Dr. Santos: " Is defective dish-washing equipment the sort of thing that could account for an epidemic of this proportion? Don’t you need to tell us something more about the food-service problem?”
Dr. Garcia: "Sure, I can give you a fuller account of what supports our conclusion about the food-service equipment; it’s a technical matter of bacteriology and epidemiology—but let me discuss them as briefly as I can. . ."

SAMPLE ARGUMENT NO. 2.

Susan: "Suffering patients who have little chance to survive must be allowed to choose to die."

Lucy: “Why is that?"

Susan: "You see, prolonging their agony is inhuman, add to this are the emotional and the financial burden incurred by relatives of these patients who will die anyway. Bills file up to the point that even the financial security of the relatives is endangered"

Lucy: "That doesn’t strike me as much of an argument—surely, life is more precious than

Financial security. Furthermore, suffering may serve a positive purpose that we maybe now we may not know of aside from this, nurses and doctors have the obligation to save life, we just could not really tell when a person will die"

Susan: "but please remember that the obligation to preserve life involves only ordinary means and not extra-ordinary means. The preservation of life must also be seen in a larger context and that is, how will it affect the lives of others? "

Lucy: “but then again, you said, there was a chance of survival and no matter how little, don’t you think that it is morally sound to try all the possible means?”

SAMPLE ARGUMENT NO. 3

Mark: " Ginebra is surely going to be the conference champion in this year’s all-Filipino cup at the PBA."
Rick: "What makes you think so?"
Mark: "Just compare them with the opposition. None of the other teams has such a combination of offensive and defensive strengths."
Rick: "I get what you’re saying about Ginebra, and there’s certainly something in it. But is a combination of offense and defense really the crucial thing to look for in a championship team?"
Mark: "Your hesitation about Ginebra shows that you haven’t learned the lessons of  history; in fact, every single all-Filipino champion has had a well-balanced mixture of offense and defense."

Remember that in argumentation we present an argument.

An argument is not a report, an explanation, an illustration, a descriptive passage, a warning, a piece of advice, a statement of belief or opinion, a conditional statement

Elements and Structure of Arguments

            The examples above illustrate the different elements and structure of an argument. These are:

CLAIM: The proposition—sometimes a proposition for belief, sometimes a recommendation for action—put forward publicly for acceptance by the audience. Ex: the infection was carried by food-service equipment

GROUND(S): The specific fact(s) relied on to support a given claim. Ex. “Our tests ruled out everything else and we finally located a defect in the canteen washing equipment”

WARRANT: The principle, rule or general procedure on which the inference from ground to claim is based. Ex. A defective canteen washing equipment will have a high probability of transmitting infection

BACKING: The substantive factual support for the validity and applicability of the warrant. Ex. Facts from bacteriology and epidemiology.

The Premise Indicators As, given that, because, seeing that, in as much, since, as indicated by, for this reason, for that reason, for, on the basis of this, in that, owing to, based on the, may be inferred from, due to this

The Conclusion Indicators Hence, therefore, implies that, entails that, wherefore, accordingly, whence, we may conclude that, consequently, thus, we may infer that, it follows that, so, It must be the case that as, a result

Evaluating and Criticizing an Argument

Teachers must learn how to evaluate and critically examine different arguments in order to be effective in their chosen profession. The following steps may be employed in evaluating the soundness and validity of arguments:

Step 1: Analyze clearly the meaning of the terms used in the claim and grounds: are any terms equivocal or ambiguous? If so ask/ look for a definition of that term

Step 2: Examine the ground(s) advanced in support of the claim: Is the ground both independent of the claim and directly relevant to the substance of the claim? In other words, does the ground really offer support or evidence for the claim?

Step 3: Examine the strength of the claim in the light of the ground(s) provided: Does the ground present enough evidence to justify the claim or is more evidence needed?

Step 4: Examine the warrant or principle appealed or assumed in the inference from ground to claim: Is the warrant both supportable and applicable to the case at hand?

Sample of Warrant in an Argument

 

We already have one distinction to start with between the claim or conclusion (Michael is a Filipino) whose merits we are seeking to establish (C) and the facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim (Michael was born to Filipino parents)-what we shall refer to as our data (D). If our challenger's question is, 'What is your proof that Michael is a Filipino?', producing the data or information on which the claim is based may serve to answer him; but this is only one of the ways in which our  conclusion may be challenged. Even after we have produced our data, we may find ourselves being asked further questions of another kind. We may now be required not to add more factual information to that which we have already provided, but rather to indicate the bearing on our conclusion of the data already produced. Colloquially, the question may now be, not 'What evidence do you have to go on?', but 'How do you get there? Or by what principle do you say that being born with a Filipino parents means being Filipino?'. To present a particular set of data as the basis for some specified conclusion commits us to a certain step; and the question is now one about the nature and justification of these steps.

Suppose we encounter this fresh challenge, we must bring forward not further data, for about these the same query may immediately be raised again, but propositions of a rather different kind: rules, principles, inference-licenses instead of additional items of information. Our task is no longer to strengthen the ground on which our argument is constructed, but is rather to show that, taking these data as a starting point, the step to the original claim or conclusion is an appropriate and legitimate one. At this point, therefore, what are needed are general, hypothetical statements, which can act as bridges, and authorize the sort of step to which our particular argument commits us. These may normally be written very briefly (in the form 'If D, then C'); but they can profitably be expanded, and made more explicit: 'Data such as D entitle one to draw conclusions, or make claims, such as C', or alternatively 'Given data D, one may take it that C.'

Propositions of this kind we shall call warrants (W), to distinguish them from both conclusions and data. The knowledge that Mike is alive entitles us to set aside any suggestion that he is dead.'  The very triviality of this warrant is connected with the fact that we are concerned here as much with a counter-assertion as with an argument.

Sample Analyses of arguments

           Suppose we have the arguments with the following claims:

 

The fact that Michael is a Filipino may be relevant to the question of his being an Asian for, as we should probably put it, 'A Filipino can be taken almost certainly to be an Asian.' (The step involved here is not trivial, so the warrant is not self-authenticating.) Likewise in the second case: our warrant will now be some such statement as that 'A man who is proved to have driven at more than 100 km/h. in a built-up area can be found to have committed an offense against the Traffic rules.'

The question will at once be asked, how absolute is this distinction between data, on the one hand, and warrants, on the other. Will it always be clear whether a man who challenges an assertion is calling for the production of his adversary's data, or for the warrants authorizing his steps? Can one, in other words, draw any sharp distinction between the forces of the two questions, 'What evidence do you have to go on?' and 'How do you get there?'? By grammatical tests alone, the distinction may appear far from absolute, and the same English sentence may serve a double function: it may be uttered, that is, in one situation to convey a piece of information, in another to authorize a step in an argument, and even perhaps in some contexts to do both these things at once. All these possibilities should be considered. For the moment, the important thing is not to be too cut-and-dried in our treatment of the subject, nor to commit ourselves in advance to a rigid terminology. At any rate we shall find it possible in some situations to distinguish clearly two different logical functions; and the nature of this distinction is seen if one contrasts the two sentences, 'Whenever A, one has found that B' and 'Whenever A, one may take it that B.' or ‘Whenever a person who is driving with a BAC 13 at 100 Km/h figures in a collision then that person caused the accident and will certainly caused the injury’ or ‘ When a person is born to Filipino parents, one may take it that that person is an Asian’

Backing Argument 2

Backing 1:        a. The Philippine Constitution provides that those born to Filipino parents are Filipinos (Jus Sanguines)

b. Traffic Code: drunk driving at .10 BAC and common law doctrine of negligence per se,  that is a man driving at 100 km/h in a closed in area is an act of negligence. 

Backing 2:        a. The Philippines is geographically located in Asia

b. Emergency medical records at St. Luke’s Hospital indicate that a collision at this speed will result in serious condition.

 Now let us analyze the argument:                                      

Claim:              a. Michael is a Filipino and he is Asian

b. Ben caused the car accident and Maria was seriously injured.

Argument Fields: a. Claim 1: Law, Claim 2. Geographical

b. Claim 1: Law, Claim 2: Medical

Data:

a. 1) Michael’s birth certificate showed that one of his parents was a

Filipino

 2) Michael was born in Virac, Catanduanes, Philippines

b.1) Ben’s BAC was .13.
2) Maria was unconscious and bleeding.

3) Ben’s speech was slurred.
4) Maria had the right of way

Each piece of data must have a warrant to back it up…

Warrant 1:

a. Since a man born to a Filipino parent is presumed to be Filipino

b. Since an intoxicated driver is generally presumed to be at fault in an accident….

Warrant 2:

a. Since a Filipino is presumed to be Asian

b.Since the impact of a 1000kg. Car moving at 100 km/h on a human will generally cause serious injury…

Qualifier: So, presumably

Reservation:

a. unless Michael became a naturalized citizen of another country and rejected his Filipino citizenship or unless Michael was born before the ratification of the 1935 constitution

b. Unless Maria was also intoxicated…

Conclusion(claim):

a. Michael is Filipino and an Asian

b. Ben caused the accident and Maria was seriously injured.

Thus there are sufficient ground, backing and warrant for the claim. The two arguments, therefore, are found to be sound. The arguments deserve rational assent

Benefits of Argumentation:

1. Argumentation promotes rational autonomy. Argumentation implies respect for the autonomy and equality of its participants. Since persons desire this respect, argumentation, even when it fails to achieve agreement, forges bonds of friendship and loyalty.

2. It elicits rational assent. Argumentation seeks to win rational assent on the basis of principles held in common. By its very nature, therefore, it seeks to build and reinforce a sense of community and an ethos of cooperation.

3. It affords a critical examination of different perspectives. Argumentation requires participants to understand sympathetically opposing points of view and thereby to regard their own positions from within critical perspectives. As a means of inquiry and decision-making, argumentation thus leads participants to explore many sides of an issue, making it more likely that the conclusions and decisions reached are the best possible.