Now that you can identify the origins of western rhetorical tradition and began mapping a definition for what argument is, we

Chapter 2

A Claim with Reasons

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

2.1 Describe the key elements of classical argument.

2.2 Explain the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.

2.3 Distinguish between issue and information questions and between genuine and pseudo-arguments.

2.4 Describe the basic frame of an argument.

In Chapter 1 we explained that argument is best viewed not as a quarrel or as a pro-con debate, but rather as a conversation of reasonable stakeholders seeking the best solution to a shared problem or issue. As a conversation of stakehold- ers, argument is both a process and a product. The rest of Part One provides an overview of the parts of an argument along with the general principles that make arguments effective. This chapter focuses on the core of an argument, which is a structure of claim, reasons, and evidence. The remaining chapters of Part One cover the same territory with more elaboration and detail.

The Classical Structure of Argument 2.1 Describe the key elements of classical argument.

The core of an argument can best be understood by connecting it to the ancient pattern of classical argument revealed in the persuasive speeches of ancient Greek and Roman orators. Formalized by the Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian, the parts of the argument speech even had special names: the exordium, in which the speaker gets the audience's attention; the narratio, which provides needed background; the propositio, which is the speaker's claim or thesis; the partitio,

17

18 Chapter 2

which forecasts the main parts of the speech; the confirmatio, which presents the speaker's arguments supporting the claim; the confutatio, which summarizes and rebuts opposing views; and the peroratio, which concludes the speech by summing up the argument, calling for action, and leaving a strong, lasting impression. (Of course, you don't need to remember these tongue-twisting Latin terms. We cite them only to assure you that in writing a classical argument, you are joining a time-honored tradition that links back to the origins of democracy.)

Let's go over the same territory again using more contemporary terms. Figure 2.1 provides an organization plan showing the structure of a classical argu- ment, which typically includes these sections:

• The introduction. Writers of classical argument typically begin by connecting the audience to the issue by showing how it arises out of a current event or by using an illustrative story, memorable scene, or startling statistic some- thing that grabs the audience's attention. They continue the introduction by focusing the issue often by stating it directly as a question or by briefly

Figure 2.1 Organ ization p lan for an argument with c lassical structure Organization Plan for an Argument with a Classical Structure

• Exordium

• Narratio

• Propositio

• Partitio

• Confirmatio

• Confutatio

• Peroratio

Introduction (one to several paragraphs)

Presentation of writer· s position

Summary of opposing • VIews

Response to opposing • VIews

Conclusion

• Attention grabber (often a memorable scene)

• Explanation o f issue and needed backgroun d

• Writer's t hesis (claim)

• Forecasting passage

• Main body of essay

• Presents an d supports each reason in turn

• Each reason is tied to a value or belief h eld

by the audience

• Summary of views differing from writer's

(sh ould be fair and complete)

• Refutes or concedes to opposing views

• Shows weaknesses in opposing views

• May concede to some strength s

• Brings essay to closure

• Often sums up argument

• Leaves strong last impression

• Often calls for action or relates topic

to a larger context of issues

The Core of an Argument 19

summarizing opposing views and providing needed background and con- text. They conclude the introduction by p resenting their claim (thesis state- ment) and forecasting the argument's structure.

• The presentation of the writer's position. The presentation of the writer's own position is usually the longest part of a classical argument. Here writers present the reasons and evidence supporting their claims, typically choosing reasons that tie into their audience's values, beliefs, and assumptions. Usually each reason is developed in its own paragraph or sequence of paragraphs. When a paragraph introduces a new reason, writers state the reason directly and then support it with evidence or a chain of ideas. Along the way, writers guide their readers with appropriate transitions.

• The summary and critique of alternative views. When summarizing and responding to opposing views, writers have several options. If there are several opposing arguments, writers may summarize all of them together and then compose a single response, or they may summarize and respond to each argument in turn. As we explain in Chapter 6, writers may respond to opposing views either by refuting them or by conceding to their strengths and shifting to a different field of values.

• The conclusion. Finally, in their conclusion, writers sum up their argument, often restating the stakes in the argument and calling for some kind of action, thereby creating a sense of closure and leaving a strong final impression.

In this organization, the body of a classical argument has two major sections one presenting the writer's own position and the other summarizing and responding to alternative views. The organization plan in Figure 2.1, and the discussion that fo llows, have the writer's own position coming first, but it is possible to reverse that order.

For all its strengths, an argument with a classical structure may not always be your most persuasive strategy. In some cases, you may be more effective by delay- ing your thesis, by ignoring alternative views altogether, or by showing great sym- pathy for opposing views (see Chapter 6). In some cases, in fact, it may be better to abandon argument altogether and simply enter into a empathic conversation w ith others to bridge the gaps between opposing points of view (see Chapter 10 on col- laborative rhetoric as an alternative to classical argument). In most cases, however, the classical structure is a useful p lanning tool. By calling for a thesis statement and a forecasting statement in the introduction, it helps you see the whole of your argument in miniature. And by requiring you to summarize and consider oppos- ing views, the classical structure alerts you to the limits of your position and to the need for further reasons and evidence. As we w ill show, the classical structure is particularly persuasive when you address a neutral or undecided audience.

Classical Appeals and the etorical Triangle 2.2 Explain the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.

Besides developing a template or structure for an argument, classical rhetori- cians analyzed the ways that effective speeches persuaded their audiences. They identified three kinds of persuasive appeals, which they called logos, ethos, and

20 Chapter 2

Figure 2.2 The rhetorical triangle Message

LOGOS: How can I make the argument internally consistent and logical? How can I find the best reasons and support them with the best evidence?

Audience PATHOS: How can I make the reader open to my message? How can I best appeal to my reader's values and interests? How can I engage my reader emotionally and imaginatively?

Writer or Speaker ETHOS: How can I present myself effectively? How can I enhance my credibility and trustworthiness?

pathos. These appeals can be understood within a rhetorical context illustrated by a triangle with points labeled message, writer or speaker, and audience (Figure 2.2). Effective arguments pay attention to all three points on this rhetorical triangle.

As Figure 2.2 shows, each point on the triangle corresponds to one of the three persuasive appeals:

• Logos (Greek for "word") focuses attention on the quality of the message- that is, on the internal consistency and clarity of the argument itself and on the logic of its reasons and support. The impact of logos on an audience is referred to as its logical appeal.

• Ethos (Greek for "character") focuses attention on the writer's (or speaker's) character as it is projected in the message. It refers to the writer's credibility. Ethos is often conveyed through the writer's investment in his or her claim; through the fairness with which the writer considers alternative views; through the tone and style of the message; and even through the message's professional appearance on paper or screen, including correct grammar, flaw- less proofreading, and appropriate formats for citations and bibliography. In some cases, ethos is also a function of the writer's reputation for honesty and expertise independent of the message. The impact of ethos on an audience is referred to as the ethical appeal or appeal from credibility.

• Pathos (Greek for "suffering" or "experience") focuses attention on the val- ues and beliefs of the intended audience. It is often associated with emotional appeal. But pathos appeals more specifically to an audience's imaginative sympathies their capacity to feel and see what the writer feels and sees. Thus, when we turn the abstractions of logical discourse into a tangible and immediate story, we are making a pathetic appeal. Whereas appeals to logos

The Core of an Argument 21

and ethos can further an audience's intellectual assent to our claim, appeals to pathos engage the imagination and feelings, moving th e audience to a deeper ap preciation of the argument's significance.

A related rhetorical concept, connected to the appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos, is that of kairos, from the Greek word for "right time," "season," or "opp or- tunity." This concept suggests that for an argument to be persuasive, its timing must be effectively chosen and its tone and structure in right proportion or mea- sure. You may have had the experience of composing a contentious e-mail and then hesitating before clicking the "send" button. Is this the right moment to send this message? Is my audience ready to hear what I'm saying? Would my views be better received if I waited for a couple of days? If I send this message now, should I change its tone and content? Kairos refers to this attentiveness to the unfolding of time. We will return to this concept in Chapter 5, when we consider ethos and pathos in more depth.

Given this background on the classical appeals, let's turn now to logos the logic and structure of arguments.

Issue uestions as the Origins of Argument 2.3 Distinguish between issue and information questions and between

genuine and pseudo-arguments.

At the heart of any argument is an issue, which we can define as a controver- sial topic area (such as legalizing marijuana or building a wall between Mexico and the United States) that gives r ise to differing points of view and conflict- ing claims. A writer can usually focus an issue by asking an issue question that invites alternative answers. Within any complex issue for example, the issue of abortion there are usually a number of separate issue questions: What govern- mental restrictions should be placed on abortion? Should the federal government authorize Medicaid payments for abortions? When does a fetus become a human person? (At conception? At three months? At birth?) What would be the conse- quences of expanding or limiting a woman's right to an abortion? (One person might stress that legalized abortion leads to greater freedom for women. Another person might respond that it lessens a society's respect for human life.)

Difference between an Issue Question and an Infortnation Question Of course, not all questions are issue questions that can be answered reasonably in differing ways. Some questions ask for information rather than for arguments. Rhetoricians have traditionally distinguished between explication, which is writing that sets out to inform or explain, and argumentation, which sets out to change a reader's mind. The fo llowing example illustrates the difference between an issue question and an information question:

Issue question: Should health insurance policies be required to cover contra- ceptives? (Reasonable persons can disagree.)

22 Chapter 2

Information question: How does the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States compare with the rate in Sweden? (Reasonable persons assume that a "right answer" to this question is available.)

Although the difference between the two kinds of questions may seem simple, the distinction can become blurry. Suppose we asked "Why is the teenage preg- nancy rate in Sweden lower than in the United States?" Although this might seem to be an informative question with a right answer, we can also imagine disagree- ment. One writer might emphasize Sweden's practical, secular sex-education courses, leading to more consistent use of contraceptives among Swedish teenagers. Another writer might point to the higher use of birth-control pills among teenage girls in Sweden (partly a result of Sweden's generous national health program) and to less reliance on condoms for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Another might argue that moral decay in the United States or a breakdown of the traditional fam- ily is responsible for the higher teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. Thus, what initially looks like a simple information question becomes an issue question.

How to Identify an Issue Question You can generally tell whether a question is an information question or an issue question by determining whether your purpose is (1) to explain or teach some- thing to your audience or (2) to change their minds about something. Often the same question can be an information question in one context and an issue ques- tion in another. Let's look at the following examples:

• How does a diesel engine work? (This is an information question because rea- sonable people who know about diesel engines will agree on how they work. This question would be posed by an audience of new learners asking experts for an explanation.)

• Why is a diesel engine more fuel efficient than a gasoline engine? (This also seems to be an information question because experts will probably agree on the answer. Once again, the audience seems to be new learners, perhaps students in an automotive class.)

• What is the most cost-effective way to produce diesel fuel from crude oil? (This could be an information question if experts agree and you are addressing new learners. But if you are addressing engineers and one engineer says process X is the most cost-effective and another engineer argues for process Y, then the question is an issue question.)

• Should the present highway tax on diesel fuel be increased? (This is certainly an issue question. One person says yes; another says no; another offers a compromise.)

For Writing and Discussion Information Questions Versus Issue Questions Working as a class or in small groups, decide wh ich of the fo llowing questions are information questions and wh ich are issue questions. Many of them could be either, depending on the rhetorical context. For those questions, create hypothetical contexts to show your reasoning.

The Core of an Argument 23

1. What percentage of public schools in the United States are failing? 2. Which causes more t raff ic accidents, d runk driving or texting w hile driving? 3. What is the effect on chi ld ren of playing first-person-shooter video games? 4. What effect w ill the advent of self-d riving cars have on truck drivers? 5. Shou ld people get rid of t heir land lines and have only cell phones?

Difference between a Genuine Argum.ent and a Fseudo-Argum.ent Although every argument is sparked by an issue question w ith alternative answers, not every disp ute over answers constitutes a rational argument. Ratio- nal arguments require three additional factors: (1) reasonable participants who operate within the conventions of reasonable behavior; (2) potentially sharable assumptions that can serve as a starting place or foundation for the argument; (3) confidence that evidence used in an argument is verifiable. Lacking these con- ditions, disagreements remain stalled at the level of pseudo-arguments. Let's look at each of these conditions in turn.

PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOR Reasonable behavior in argument assumes the possibility of growth and change; disputants may modify their views as they acknowledge strengths in an alternative view or weaknesses in their own. Such growth becomes impossible and argument degenerates to pseudo-argument when disputants are so rigid ly committed to their positions that they can't imagine alternative views. Consider the case of the true believer and the fanatical skeptic.

From one perspective, true believers are admirable persons, guided by unwavering values and beliefs. True believers stand on solid rock, unwilling to compromise their principles or bend to the prevailing w inds. But from another perspective, true believers can seem rigidly fixed, incapable of growth or change. In Chapter 1, we mentioned that arguers can cling to sacred values either reli- gious or secular princip les that they consider absolute, inviolable, indisputable. When true believers from two clashing belief systems each with its own set of sacred values try to engage in dialogue with each other, a truth-seeking exchange of views becomes difficult. They talk past each other; dialogue is replaced by monologue from within isolated silos. Once true believers push each other's buttons on global warming, guns, health care, taxes, political cor- rectness, or some other issue, each disputant resorts to an endless replaying of the same prepackaged arguments based on absolute principles. Disagreeing with a true believer is like ordering the surf to quiet down. The only response is another crashing wave.

In contrast to the true believer, the fanatical skeptic d ismisses the possibility of ever believing anything. Skeptics often demand proof where no proof is pos- sible. So what if the sun has risen every day of recorded history? That's no proof that it will rise tomorrow. Short of absolute proof, which never exists, fanatical skeptics accept nothing. In a world where the most we can hope for is increased audience adherence to our ideas, the skeptic demands an ironclad, logical dem- onstration of our claim's rightness.

24 Chapter 2

PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY LACK OF SHARED ASSUMPTIONS As we have seen, reasonable argument degenerates to pseudo-argument when there is no possibility for listening, learning, growth, or change. In this section, we look more closely at a cause of unreasonableness in argument: lack of shared assumptions.

A lack of shared assumptions necessarily dooms arguments about purely personal opinions for example, someone's claim that opera is boring or that pizza tastes better than nachos. Of course, a pizza-versus-nachos argument might be possible if the disputants assume a shared criterion about nutrition. For example, a nutritionist could argue that a vegetable-laden pizza is better than nachos because pizza provides more balanced nutrients per calorie than nachos do. But if one of the disputants responds, "Nah, nachos are better than pizza because nachos taste better," then he makes a different assumption "My sense of taste is better than your sense of taste." This is a wholly personal standard, an assumption that others are unable to share.

Lack of shared assumptions can also doom arguments when the disputants have different ideologies, as we saw in the discussion of true believers. Ideology is an academic word for belief systems or world views. We all have our own ideolo- gies. We all look at the world through a lens shaped by our life's experiences. Our beliefs and values are shaped by our family background, our friends, our culture, our particular time in history, our race or ethnicity, our gender or sexual orienta- tion, our social class, our religion, our education, and so forth. Because we tend to think that our particular lens for looking at the world is natural and universal rather than specific to ourselves, we must be aware that persons who disagree with us may not share our deepest assumptions and beliefs.

This lack of shared assumptions is evident in many disputes concerning poli- tics or religion. For example, consider differences over how to interpret the Bible within communities identifying as Christian. Some Christian groups choose a straightforward, literal interpretation of the Bible as God's inerrant word, some- times quoting Biblical passages as "proof texts" to support their stand on civic issues. Others believe the Bible is divinely inspired, meant to lead humans to a relationship with God, but transmitted through human authors. Other groups tend to read the Bible metaphorically or mythically, focusing on the paradoxes, historical contexts, and interpretive complexities of the Bible. Still other Christian groups read it as an ethical call for social justice. Members of these different Christian groups may not be able to argue rationally about, say, evolution or gay marriage because they have very different ways of reading Biblical passages and invoking the Bible's authority. Similarly, within other religious traditions, believers may also differ about the meaning and applicability of their sacred texts to scientific issues and social problems.

Similar disagreements about assumptions occur in the political arena as well. Our point is that certain religious or political beliefs or texts cannot be evoked for evidence or authority when an audience does not assume the belief's truth or does not agree on the way that a given text should be read or interpreted.

PSEUDO-ARGUMENTS CAUSED BY LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN EVIDENCE Finally, pseudo-arguments arise when disputants can't agree about the trustwor- thiness of particular evidence or about the possibility of trustworthy evidence existing at all, as if all facts are relative an especially troublesome problem in

The Core of an Argument 25

an era where many have raised concern s about "fake news" and "alternative facts." Reasonable arguments must be grounded in evidence that can be verified and trusted. Sometimes unethical writers invent facts and data to create propa- ganda, advance a conspiracy theory, or make money from the sale of fake stories. Scientific fraud has also occasionally occurred wherein scientists have fudged their data or even made up data to support a claim. Tabloids and fringe news sites are notorious for spreading fake news, often in their attention-grabbing but bizarre headlines ("Farmer shoots 23-pound grasshopper").

For disputants with different ideologies, pseudo-arguments may even occur w ith issues grounded in science. Liberals may distrust scientific data about the safety of genetically modified organisms, whereas conservatives may distrust the scientific data about climate change. Genuine argument can emerge only when all sides of the dispute agree that any given evidence derives from verifiable facts or data. We don't mean that reasonable disputants must use the same facts: Arguers necessarily and always select and frame their evidence to support their points (see the discussion of angle of vision in Chapter 4). But no matter what evidence is chosen, disputants must agree that the evidence is verifiable that it is real news or evidence, not fake news or evidence.

For Writing and Discussion Reasonable Arguments Versus Pseudo-Arguments

Individual task: Which of the following questions wil l lead to reasonable arguments, and which wil l lead only to pseudo- arguments? Explain your reasoning.

1. Are the Star Wars films good science fiction? 2. Is it ethically justifiable to capture dolphins or orca whales and train them for human entertainment? 3. Should cities subsidize professional sports venues? 4. Is this abstract oil painting created by a monkey smearing paint on a canvas a true work of art? 5. Are nose rings and tongue studs attractive?

Group task: Working in pairs, small groups, or as a class, share your reasoning about these questions with classmates.

Frame of an Argument: A Claim Supported by Reasons 2.4 Describe the basic frame of an argument.

We said earlier that an argument originates in an issue question, which by defini- tion is any question that provokes disagreement about the best answer. When you w rite an argument, your task is to take a position on the issue and to support it w ith reasons and evidence. The claim of your essay is the position you want your

26 Chapter 2

audience to accept. To put it another way, your claim is your essay's thesis state- ment, a one-sentence summary answer to your issue question. Your task, then, is to make a claim and support it with reasons.

What Is a Reason? A reason (also called a premise) is a claim used to support another claim. In speaking or writing, a reason is usually linked to the claim with a connecting word such as because, since, for, so, thus, consequently, or therefore, indicating that the claim follows logically from the reason.

Let us take an example of a controversial issue that frequently gets reported in the news the public debate over keeping large sea mammals such as dol- phins, porpoises, and orcas (killer whales) in captivity in marine parks where they entertain large crowds with their performances. This issue has many dimen- sions, including safety concerns for both the animals and their human trainers, as well as moral, scientific, legal, and economic concerns. Popular documentary films have heightened the public's awareness of the dangers of captivity to both the animals and the humans who work with them. For example, The Cove (2009) exposes the gory dolphin hunts in Japan in which fishermen kill dolphins en masse, capturing some for display in shows around the world. Blackfish (2013) tells the history of the orca Tilikum, who in 2010 killed his trainer, Dawn Blancheau, at Sea World in Orlando, Florida. The death of Tilikum in 2017 resparked public debates about treatment of marine animals in captivity. Recently a flurry of legal efforts to release the captive orca Lolita back into the wild has also contributed to the larger battle among advocacy, governmental, scientific, and commercial groups over the value of marine parks.

In one of our recent classes, students heatedly debated the ethics of capturing wild dolphins and training them to perform in marine parks. One student cited his sister's internship at Sea World San Diego, where she worked on sea mammal rescue and rehabilitation, one of the marine park's worthy projects. In response, another student mentioned the millions of dollars these marine parks make on their dolphin and orca shows as well as on the stuffed animals, toys, magnets, T-shirts, and hundreds of other lucrative marine park souvenirs. Here are the frameworks the class developed for two alternative positions on this public issue:

One View

CLAIM: The public should not support marine parks.

REASON 1: Marine parks inhumanely separate dolphins and orcas from their natural habitats.

REASON 2: The education these parks claim to offer about marine mammals is just a series of artificial, exploitive tricks taught through behavior modification.

REASON 3: These parks are operated by big business with the goal of mak- ing large profits.

REASON 4: Marine parks encourage artificial breeding programs and cruel hunts and captures.

REASON 5: Marine parks promote an attitude of human dominance over animals.

The Core of an Argument 27

Alternative View

CLAIM: The public should continue to enjoy marine parks.

REASON 1: These parks observe accreditation standards for animal welfare, h ealth, and nutrition.

REASON 2: These marine p arks enable scientists and veterinarians to study animal behavior in ways not possible w ith field studies in the wild.

REASON 3: These marine parks provide environmental education and memorable entertainment.

REASON 4: Marine parks use some of their profits to support research, conservation, and rescue and rehabilitation programs.

REASON 5: In their training of dolphins and orcas, these marine parks reinforce natural behaviors, exercise the animals' intelligence, and promote beneficial bonding with humans.

Formulating a list of reasons in this way breaks your argumentative task into a series of subtasks. It gives you a frame for building your argument in parts. In this example, the frame for the argument opposing commercial use of sea mammals suggests five different lines of reasoning a writer might pursue. You might use all five reasons or select only two or three, depending on which reasons would most persuade the intended audience. Each line of reasoning would be developed in its own separate section of the argument. For example, you m …

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431