The Aims of Argument - Crusius & Channel

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENT, RHETORIC, AND MATURE REASONING

2 key concepts:

ARGUMENT and RHETORIC

Argument and rhetoric are often used in a negative sense: argument = disagreement; rhetoric =
empty words that sound good.

However, Crusius and Chanell, in their Aims of Argument, focus on the earlier, fuller, and
positive sense: argument and rhetoric are the language and art of mature reasoning.

What is Argument?

Argument = mature reasoning

mature = an attitude and approach to argument.It means worked out fully in the mind, carefully
considered.

reasoning = an opinion PLUS a reason or reasons for holding that opinion.

Good argument begins with these, but require more (developed with evidence like specific facts
and examples).

You should remember that when you read an argument, you are looking at an opinion with the
reasons for holding it, developed by facts/logic/statistics/etc.All of these "pieces" are subject to
analysis.

When you write an argument, you are showing an opinion with the reasons for holding it,
developed by facts/logic/statistics/etc.All of these "pieces" are subject to revision, and criticism
by the reader.

What is Rhetoric?

A common, popular meaning of the term is empty words, the art of sounding impressive while
saying little, or the art of verbal deception.

However, you need to look at rhetoric in its original form, from ancient Greece 2,500 years ago:
rhetoric is the art of public speaking.

In other words, how to use the spoken word effectively to persuade people. How to appeal to
an audience, how to move them, how to use good style, and so forth.

Rhetoric also included the idea of good character: how can a speaker convince people that the
speaker is not a cheat, a liar, a sophist, or merely trying to sell them something?

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

So good argumentation has two parts:

1) good reasoning, and 2) ways to appeal to an audience (projecting a specific, carefully crafted
image of the speaker/writer to a carefully considered audience).

Argument as mature reasoning =

1) defending not merely the first position you might take on an issue, but what you think is the
BEST position, determined through open-minded inquiry.

2) providing reasons for holding that position which can earn the respect of an audience.

Rhetoric = the art of argument as mature reasoning

It means deliberately using the principles and practices of mature reasoning and effective
arguing.

Four Criteria of Mature Reasoning

1) Mature Reasoners are well informed.

Your opinions must develop from knowledge and be supported by reliable and current
evidence. If the reader feels that you don't really know what you are talking about, what
happens?

What do we "know?" What is reliable evidence?

The less we know about a topic, the easier it is to hold a simple opinion about it. It is easy to
form an opinion when we have only a few facts and we are just asserting our prejudices.

The more we know about topics, the harder it is to be dogmatic (=authoritative, arrogant
assertion of unproved or unprovable principles). As we study and gain broader and deeper
knowledge, we often find ourselves changing or at least refining our opinions.

2) Mature Reasoners are self-critical (recognizing weaknesses in their own positions) and
open to constructive criticism from others.

We all have opinions about all sorts of things. Some things don't really matter to us

shoes, breakfast cereal, flashlight batteries, shampoo, McDonald's food...

But we also have opinions about things in which we are heavily invested, which means that our
whole sense of reality, right and wrong, good and bad, is tied up in them. These opinions are

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

the ones which we fight fiercely to keep, since we identify the "rightness" of our opinions with
being "good" people.

Gay marriage, global warming, hybrid cars, McDonald's food, tuition hikes...etc.

The important difference is this:

The mature reasoner is able and willing to step back and examine all convictions, even the
deeply held ones. They are able and willing to modify, shift, or even change their convictions,
based on facts, making sense, or having a consistent and coherent argument for it.

Mature reasoners change their minds (and demonstrate willingness to do so) when they have
good reasons to do so.

3) Mature Reasoners argue with their audience/readers in mind.

When you firing an arrow, or a gun, you are trying to hit a target.

The target is a certain distance away, the windspeed is 10 kmh across the line of sight, and so
on.

When you write an argument, you are aiming at a target. You can't just "shoot it into the air"
and hope that it will hit something. You aim an argument at people.

Arguments must be "other-directed," or attuned to the specific people you are trying to reach.

What are their significant characteristics? What do they already know? What will convince
them?

If, for example, you believe that we should raise the age for a driver's license to 18, what
audiences are possible? Depending on which one we choose, we will select reasons and rhetoric
directed at that audience.

We also have to read/listen to the other side. Other points of view have to be taken into
consideration--we have to explain why we don't hold those views, in addition to explaining
why we hold our own.

4) Mature Reasoners know their arguments' contexts.

Arguments, in the academic sense, are long-term conversations about topics.

Arguments and opinions have pasts--what were people arguing about then? What did they
argue about this topic back then?
They have a present--who is arguing about this now? What are the current arguments?
They even have a future--what will they argue about this, with knowledge we lack now?

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

Most arguments are not the isolated, "one-shot" event we might think they are, due to our
ignorance of the context and history of the argument. Part of being well-informed is to know
something about the history of an argument.

If we know where an argument has been, we won't cover ground that everybody already
knows, and what patterns may help us successfully develop our own position.

Do you really need to argue that tobacco use has been linked to various cancers? Or that fast food is bad
for you if too much of it is eaten?

If we know where an argument is now, we know how to make our argument relevant to the
present audience.

We don't just jump into the middle of the conversation--that's arrogant and rude. We find out
and acknowledge what has gone before, and what is going on now, and then we join that
conversation.

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

FOUR AIMS OF ARGUMENT: INQUIRY, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, NEGOTIATION

Argument can be defined as a process of making what we think clear to ourselves and to
others. The definition derives from the word’s Latin origin, arguere, meaning “to make
clear.” Engaging in argument involves moving from a private, often vague viewpoint to a
clearly stated position that we can publicly defend in speech or writing. To undertake this
process means to pursue the truth with honesty and openness.

Argument in this sense of seeking clarity has a two-part form or structure:

(1) The statement of an opinion;

(2) The statement of one or more reasons for holding that opinion.

Argument is not in itself an end or a purpose of communication. It is rather
a means of discourse, a way of developing what we have to say. We can
identify four primary aims or purposes that argument helps us accomplish:

• Inquiry

• Conviction

• Persuasion

• Negotiation

Arguing to Inquire: Forming our opinions or questioning those we already have.

The ancient Greeks used the word dialectic to identify an argument as inquiry; a more common
term might be dialogue or conversation. Arguing to inquire helps us accomplish the following:

• to form opinions

• to question opinions

• to reason our way through conflicts or contradictions

It requires an attitude of patient questioning under non-threatening circumstances, usually done
alone or among trusted friends and associates. The primary purpose is a search for the
truth. The primary audience is often the writer and fellow inquirers concerned with the same
issues.

Examples: Classroom discussions; journal writing; exploratory essays; letters; late-night bull
sessions in a dorm.

Arguing to Convince: Gaining assent from others through case-making.

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

While some inquiry may be never ending, the goal of most inquiry is to reach a conclusion, a
conviction. We seek an “earned opinion,” achieved through careful thought, research, and
discussion. And then we usually want others to share this conviction, to secure the assent of an
audience by means of reason rather than by force.

Arguing to inquire centers on asking questions: we want to expose and examine what we
think. Arguing to convince requires us to make a case, to get others to agree with what we think.
While inquiry is a cooperative use of argument, convincing is competitive. We put our case
against the case of others in an effort to win the assent of readers.

Examples: a lawyer’s brief; newspaper editorials; case studies; most academic writing

Arguing to Persuade: Moving others to action through rational, emotional, personal, and stylistic
appeals.

While arguing to convince seeks to earn the assent of readers or listeners, arguing to persuade
attempts to influence their behavior, to move them to act upon the conviction. Persuasion aims
to close the gap between assent and action. To convince focuses on the logic of an argument; to
persuade will often rely on the personal appeal of the writer (what Aristotle called ethos) and
involve an appeal to an audience’s emotions (pathos). In addition to these personal and
emotional appeals, persuasion exploits the resources of language more fully than convincing
does.

In general, the more academic the audience or the more purely intellectual the issue, the more
likely that the writing task involves an argument to convince rather than to persuade. In most
philosophy or science assignments, for example, the writer would usually focus on conviction
rather than persuasion, confining the argument primarily to thesis, reasons, and evidence. But
when you are working with public issues, with matters of policy or questions of right and
wrong, persuasion’s fuller range of appeal is usually appropriate.

Persuasion begins with difference and, when it works, ends with identity. We expect that before
reading our argument, readers will differ from us in beliefs, attitudes, and/or desires. A
successful persuasive argument brings readers and writer together, creating a sense of
connection between parties.

Examples: Political speeches, sermons, advertising

Arguing to Negotiate: Exploring differences of opinion in the hope of reaching agreement and/or
cooperation.

If efforts to convince and/or persuade the audience have failed, the participants must often turn
to negotiation, resolving the conflict in order to maintain a satisfactory working
relationship. Each side must listen closely to understand the other side’s case and the emotional
commitments and values that support that case. The aim of negotiation is to build consensus,
usually by making and asking for concessions. Dialogue plays a key role, bringing us full circle
back to argument as inquiry. Negotiation often depends on collaborative problem-solving.

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist

Examples: Diplomatic negotiations, labor relations, organizational decision-making; essays
seeking resolution of conflict between competing parties; dealing with disagreements among
friends and family.

*******

Reflections on Writing Argumentative Papers

“Truth is not simply ‘out there’ in some
wordless place waiting to be discovered;
rather, our opinion is what we discover or
uncover as we grapple with a
controversial issue and results largely
from how we interpret ourselves and our
world. We agree. . . that truth claims
ought to be provisional and subject to
revision, held for good reasons until
better ones change our minds. Moreover,
we agree with Plato that rhetoric divorced
from inquiry is dangerous and morally
suspect. The truth . . . must count for
more than sheer technical skill in
argumentation.” ~ Crusius & Channell

ADVANCED COMPOSITION C. Donlan, Instructional Specialist