Rule Book for Arguments

Rulebook for Arguments:

I.                Composing a Short Argument: Some General Rules.

a.     Distinguish premises and conclusion.

b.     Present your ideas in a natural order.

c.     Start from reliable premises.

d.     Be concrete and concise.

e.     Avoid loaded language.

f.      Stick to one meaning for each term.

II.              Arguments by Example.

a.     Give more than one example.

b.     Use representative examples.

c.     Background information is crucial.

d.     Consider counterexamples.

III.             Arguments by Analogy.

a.     Analogy requires a relevantly similar example.

IV.            Arguments from Authority.

a.     Sources should be cited.

b.     Seek informed sources.

c.     Seek impartial sources.

d.     Cross-check sources.

e.     Personal attacks do not disqualify a source.

V.              Deductive Arguments

a.     Modus Ponens:  If p, then q.

b.     Modus Tollens:  If p, then q;  Not q, therefore not p.

c.     Hypothetical Syllogism:  If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.

d.     Disjunctive Syllogism:  p or q, not p, therefore q.

e.     Dilemma:  P or q; if p then r; if q then s; therefore, r or s.  Usually a choice between to options both of which have bad consequences.

f.      Reductio ad absurdum:  Arguments that establish their conclusion by showing that assuming the opposite leads to absurdity (usually contradictory or a silly result.)

VI.            Composing an Argumentative Essay:  Exploring the Issue.

a.     Explore the arguments on all sides of the issue.

b.     Question and defend each argument’s premises.

c.     Revise and rethink arguments as they emerge.

VII.           Composing an Argumentative Essay:  Main Points of the Essay.

a.     Explain the question.

b.     Make a definite claim or proposal.

c.     Develop your arguments carefully.

d.     Consider objections.

e.     Consider alternatives.

VIII.         Composing an Argumentative Essay: Writing

a.     Follow your outline.

b.     Keep the introduction brief.

c.     Give your arguments one at a time.

d.     Clarify, clarify, clarify.

e.     Support objections with arguments.

f.      Don’t claim more than you have shown.

IX.            Fallacies

a.     Drawing conclusions from too little evidence.

b.     Overlooking alternatives.

c.     Ad Hominem:  Attacking the person of an authority rather than his or her qualifications.

d.     Ad Ignorantiam:  Arguing a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false.

e.     Ad Misericordian:  Appealing to pity.

f.      Ad Populum:  Appealing to emotions.

g.     Affirming the consequent:  A deductive fallacy, if p, then q; q, then p.

h.     Begging the question:  Implicitly using your conclusion as a premise.

i.      Complex Question:  Posing a question or issue in such a way that people cannot agree or disagree with you without committing themselves to some other claim you wish to prove.

j.      Denying the Antecedent:  If p, then q; not p, therefore not q.

k.     False Cause:  Generic term for a questionable conclusion about cause and effect.

l.      False Dilemma:  Reducing the options you consider to just two, often sharply opposed positions when many alternatives exist.

m.   Non-Sequitur:  Drawing a conclusion that does not follow, that is, a conclusion that is not a reasonable inference from the evidence.  A bad argument.

n.     Persuasive definition:  Defining a term in a way that appears to be straightforward but that in fact is loaded.

o.     Poisoning the well:  Using loaded language to disparage an argument before even mentioning it.