1.3 Arguments: The Raw Material of Critical Reasoning

For most people, an “argument” is a disagreement about something. But that isn’t how we use the term in studying logic and rhetoric. In our course, we will define an “argument” as a set of two kinds of statements. The first kind of statement is “premises,” and the premises support the other kind of statement, the “conclusion.” The “conclusion” is what you’re arguing for. The “premises” are the reasons why you think the conclusion is true.

Representing Arguments Clearly

We’ll learn a lot about arguments and how they work later on. For now, let’s imagine that Stefan, one of your other developers, emails you with a thought about the upcoming software update. Here’s the message he sends:

Stefan has given you a new point to consider, and he’s done so by providing you with an argument. As we’ll discuss more in-depth later, one good way to represent arguments is with numbered statements to separate the premises from the conclusion. We can do that with Stefan’s argument, like this:

• 1. If we improve your product’s efficiency by 50 percent, you’ll be able to make a web-based version.

• 2. A web-based version of the software would reach an entirely new customer base.

• 3. Therefore, you should improve your product’s efficiency by 50 percent.

We’ve numbered each statement in this argument in order to easily identify them. Statements 1 and 2 are premises in this argument because they are the reasons in favor of the conclusion. The conclusion is statement 3, which is Stefan’s opinion that you should focus on the product’s efficiency.

Modifying Arguments to Add Information

Arguments are the raw material of reasoning, and they’ll be the foundation of this course. We’ll build them, evaluate them, critique them, and use them to communicate with and persuade others. In fact, arguments are the foundation of all logic, and rhetoric is just the study of persuasion by means of good logical techniques. We’ll see many examples later on of arguments, and we’ll learn the rules that govern them and how they can succeed or fail.

The argument we’ve given for your software update may feel a little stripped down, like we’re missing some information. You might wonder why you can’t make a web-based version of the product now. We can supplement the argument with another premise:

• 4. The current product is so inefficient that it can’t run in certain web browsers.

Premise 4 gives us more information about why premise 1 is true. Many arguments are like the original one we set up, where some of the important information isn’t explicitly stated, as we can see from premises 1 and 2. A key part of critical reasoning is learning how to tell what information is missing and how to fill in the blanks to make an argument more complete and convincing. You could continue doing so in this example, perhaps by giving more details about why your current product isn’t reaching a new customer base, as mentioned in premise 2.

But even without extra premises, the argument with the first three premises is pretty strong. The possibility of new customers and a new way of reaching them is enticing. And the more you think about it, the more you become convinced that improving efficiency is the way to go. You message the developers back and thank them for their insights, and you look over your list of pros and cons one more time. It’s still a tough decision, and the choice isn’t perfect, but you find yourself swayed by the argument in favor of improving efficiency.