-Rogers, P. S.

(2003) Teaching Note-

Building a Case & Arguing with Sophistication

It does not take too much business experience to learn that differences of opinion, indeed
arguments, comprise important communications for management decision-making.

“Give me some valid reasons and maybe I’ll consider your alternative.”

“But, what evidence do you have to support that idea!?”

“Why should we change anything? Our current approach will ultimately pull us through this. I
think this problem will cure itself."

These and other such remarks call for highly promotional responses or argumentation. The
problem is, many managers have never studied argumentation and do not know how an argument
is constructed. Instead, methods of argumentation are often learned informally, by observing
others; therefore, arguments tend to evolve via intuition rather than via studied knowledge and
deliberate planning.

Knowing how to construct arguments and how different types of arguments tend work with
receivers may raise the quality of the managerial discourse and, subsequently, of management
decisions. With that in mind, the first question is: What are the components of an argument?

Basic Components of an Argument

In a now classic book, The Uses of Argument, rhetorician Stephen Toulmin (1954) described the
structure of the argument, including components that hold to this day. According to Toulmin, an
argument consists of three fundamental components: claim, data, and warrant (Figure 1).

1
Kinds of Claims

A claim is a proposition, recommendation, or conclusion a manager wants others to accept or to

adopt. Four kinds of claims include: fact, value, causation, and policy.

Claims of fact posit the probability or truth of something as suggested in the following
examples:

• Past fact: The sales training program has been too costly.
• Present fact: The current sales training program is too costly.
• Future fact: The current sales training program will become too costly within the next
five years.

Clearly, as the above suggest, so-called "facts" may be debatable. For instance, management
may argue that their firm is profitable; stockholders may argue the opposite. Indeed, both may
be argued as "true" using various analyses of accounting data and the like.

Claims of value assert a judgement about a person, or institution, or program. A value

claim might state, for example, that the sales training program either is detrimental or is
beneficial for the company. Like a claim of fact, a claim of value can also be about the past,
present, or future as shown below:

• Past value: Our accounting system has facilitated good communications with our key
investors.
• Present value: Our current accounting system is detrimental to our investor relations
program.
• Future value: Our accounting system will damage our investor relations program in the
near future.

Claims of causation deal with cause-and-effect relationships. Such claims posit the reasons
for certain results or the possible consequence of a particular action. As illustrated in the
examples below, the word "cause" or "caused" is often explicit or implicit in such claims:

• Past causation: High suppliers’ costs were the main cause of the failure to meet earnings
projections.
• Present causation: Excessive spending on fuel is the reason for the current gloomy
outlook on earnings.
• Future causation: Union pressure will bring about a lack of change in the reward-for-
performance measures.

2
Claims of policy either affirm or deny that a particular course of action should be taken.
Since managing involves causing or preventing change, policy claims comprise many
management conversations and meetings. Since policy claims often include the verb "should"
they are easy to compose and to spot as seen below:

• The Sales Training Program should be replaced with an apprenticeship-training program.

• A policy of hiring the best candidate, either internal or external, should be adopted at
Waltman's.

Claims of fact, value, and causation sometimes function as the subordinate claims that may be
developed as arguments to support or to defeat proposed changes in policy. In this way, claims
of fact, value, and causation function as subordinate contentions for policy claims. For example,
the factual claim that "the internal candidate pool does not bring new knowledge into the
company," or the value claim that "hiring only internal candidates is detrimental for the
company," or the causal claim that "hiring from within causes internal stagnation," all could be
developed as arguments to support a larger policy claim that the hiring policy should be changed
to allow outside applicants.

In summary, four kinds of claim statements are available for putting a debatable idea “on the
table.” When a manager has policy-making power, a policy claim is readily used. When in a
non-policy-making position, a manager may use claims of fact, value, and/or causation to
suggest policy reexamination, particularly for early communications initiating discussion about
the issue.

Rules for claims

Whatever type of claim a manager uses, three basic rules apply:

(1) First, a claim statement must be perceived significant in order to stir sufficient interest. If
no one believes the issue is relevant or critically important, there's little chance for further
discussion. If the issue is viewed as important but not critical, it is likely to be tabled.
Therefore, if the claim deals with an issue that others may dismiss in these ways, the significance
of that claim must be explained.

(2) Second, a claim statement should contain only one central idea. A claim statement that
includes the little word “and,” probably includes two claims, not one. Clarity is improved if two
claims are separated into two statements.

(3) Third, a claim should also be free of emotionally loaded terms--e.g. "immoral,"
"socialistic." Suggesting “what kind of,” these adjectives should be removed to make the claim
statement neutral and less emotionally charged.

3
Types of Data

Support for claims comes in two forms, probative data and non-probative data.

Probative data can pass tests of dependability; therefore, probative data are said to “prove” the
truth of the claim. Expert testimony and numerical data can be verified through source checking
and statistical tests, thus these data qualify as probative. When verified, such data become
difficult to refute and are said to have probative force.

Probative data alone may fail to convince receivers, however. Testimony after testimony and
statistic after statistic can both overwhelm and bore. Therefore, most every claim should be
supported with both probative and non-probative data.

Non-probative data, by contrast, may not be seen to prove the truth of a claim. Non-probative
data, however, may play the critical role of making a claim more appealing, more
understandable, and more believable.

Examples, comparisons and contrasts, and restatements are all forms of non-probative data.
Clearly, hypothetical or actual examples alone are insufficient proof as they deal with only one
instance. But examples can make probative testimony or statistics "come to life." Dealing with
human needs, desires, and interests, examples may illustrate what the numbers actually mean for
the organization, employees, and external stakeholders.

Often novice managers assume that they have no personal experiences or observations that could
be used as non-probative data in policy discussions or debates. With some thought, however,
even a novice should be able to recall relevant personal experiences or observations of other
situations that can be used as examples to elaborate, enliven, and convince.

Comparison and contrast point out similarities and differences between ideas and experiences
that are familiar to an audience. A literal comparison is between two things from the same class –
e.g. man with man, machine with machine. Whereas a figurative comparison is between two
objects that fall into unlike classes – e.g. "life" compared with a game of chess.

And finally, another kind of non-probative data is restatement. Restatement is expressing an

idea in another way or simply repeating it. In investor relations these are sometimes called
"sound bytes" or memorable phrases that merit repetition because they are short and effectively
summarize the argumentation as a whole.

Nature of Warrant

Warrants are statements, phrases (such as “because of” "given that," or “since”), or explanations
that associate the data and the claim. Warrants bridge from the claim to the data or vice versa.
Warrants answer the question: How do these data support the claim?

4
For example, data showing that there was an increase in customer satisfaction shortly after a new
sales training program was implemented is insufficient without a warrant explaining how the
increase in customer satisfaction can be attributed to the sales training program. Many factors
could have contributed to increased customer satisfaction. How can one know for sure that the
sales training program contributed to the increased satisfaction? Without explanatory warrant,
the connection between the customer satisfaction data and the sales training program is highly
suspect.

Arguments Are "Data Driven"

Thus, an argument is communicated by (1) asserting some kind of claim (e.g., fact, value,
causation, or policy), (2) coupling probative and non-probative data to support this claim, and (3)
providing warrant or showing the connection between these data and the claim. A claim is
stated, sometimes followed by a brief explanation of key words or its significance. Then
probative and non-probative data are presented--statistics and/or testimony coupled with
examples, comparison/contrast, or repetition.

Of all these elements, the presentation of data typically consumes the greatest amount of time.
Typically it does not take much time to name and explain a claim. Elaborating probative and
non-probative data is another matter, however. A statistical table, for example, must not only be
shown but also clearly explained so the audience can fully comprehend it. Moreover, the table
must be shown to be relevant to the claim in order to achieve warrant. And even more than this,
the table must also be related to other kinds of data, as it alone is likely insufficient to persuade.

Complexifying the Argument Model

In addition to the basic components of an argument (claim + data + warrant) some additional
elements may also be needed to construct a "winning" argument in certain situations. These
elements include qualifiers, rebuttal, and backing.

Qualifiers show the limitations or restrictions in the scope of the claim. Words such as
'‘probably,” or soft modal verbs, such as “might,” or “may,” can be inserted to qualify as in the
claim of fact below:

5
 The Euro will probably appreciate against the U.S. dollar within the next five years.

Qualification shows that the claim is asserted with sophisticated knowledge of the exceptions,
which can bring a certain amount of credibility to the claim and the manager promoting it.
Typically, however, the first time a claim is stated it is not qualified. Instead, qualification is
given at some later point as in the following claim of fact:

The Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar within the next five years. While this is
not an absolute prediction, it is highly probable because. . . . In the next few minutes I
will show you the reasons why we can safely predict such a comparative currency
appreciation.

Rebuttal points out major objections or limitations that the opposite side is likely to raise.
Rebutting an argument before the opposition has an opportunity to do so, can strengthen a claim
(e.g. "The fact that X is not covered, however, is not a major concern because…"). Rebuttal may
be incorporated to show that objections/limitations are not significant enough to negate the
claim. Rebuttal may also be as simple as saying that the claim is true unless, as in the following:
"We expect this occur unless, of course, XYZ policies change.”

Backing is used in conjunction with warrant. Backing is some kind of testimonial or study
supporting the association between the claim and the data. For example, the testimony of a long-
time sales employee might be used to back the notion that the improvement in customer
satisfaction is a direct result of the sales training program. The employee may be quoted
explaining some very specific and important ways her customer service has improved since she
participated in the sales training program.

A sophisticated argument may not only include the essential elements--claim, data, and warrant--
but also qualification, rebuttal, and backing as shown in the claim of fact example below:

• Claim: The Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar within the next five years.
• Data (testimony): According to an IMS report, the European union is expected to grow
while U.S. growth is decelerating and expected to do so in the near future.
• Warrant: Growth is necessary for currency appreciation; indeed, faster growth is
directly attributed to currency appreciation.
• Backing: According to Prof. Gunter Dufey, expert on international exchange and finance
at the University of Michigan Business School, the absence of systematic changes in
government policies relative to movements of the business cycle become a major cause
for currency valuation.
• Qualifier: The probability that the Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar is strong.
Clearly, this remains a probability, but it is a strong probability.
• Rebuttal: The Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar unless, of course, U.S.
policies dramatically change.

Clearly, the above example is a lot to digest all at once. Receivers would need elaboration in
order to understand fully. For example, the claim might be restated in different words. Or, one

6
piece of data, an actual quotation from the IMS report, might be shown in a visual, read carefully
with emphasis on key words, paraphrased, and then tied back to the claim.

Types of Arguments

Since much of managing involves causing or preventing change, claims of policy are frequently
used and the several kinds of arguments used to support policy claims become keenly important.

Types of arguments to support policy claims include (1) inherent harm, (2) comparative
advantage, and (3) goal achievement.

An inherent harm argument shows that either the present system or the proposed change is
structurally or systematically incapable of solving or preventing certain harmful consequences or
basic problems. In other words, such an argument contends that either the present system or the
proposed plan cannot get the job done, or cannot solve the problem, or cannot eliminate the harm
because of certain inherent barriers.

For example, a manager could argue that the old policy of "hiring managers from within" hinders
the company progress because it prevents hiring outsiders who bring innovative perspectives and
ideas into the firm. The hiring-from-within policy, then, is presented as a barrier to the infusion
of new, outside perspectives. Of course, an inherent harm argument can also be garnered for the
other side of this issue. For example, one could argue that outsiders do not have the kind of
sustained organizational knowledge that is necessary for upper managers at the company.
Indeed, the argument could continue, the only way to ensure that those hired as middle- and
upper-level managers have been ingrained knowledge of company systems, is to "grow or
develop them from within. Giving a few examples of individuals who have been developed
internally would serve as non-probative evidence for this kind of a claim.

A comparative-advantage argument states that either the proposed change or the current
system has certain advantages that cannot be realized via the alternative. Issues of efficiency,
enforcement, financing, and implementation may all be used to argue advantage.

Usually, there are several advantages given to make a comparative-advantage argument. The
argument may begin something like this:

Adoption of ABC would result in three major advantages. These advantages are, A, B,
and C. Let me explain each briefly.

With this type of argumentation, however, it is not enough to simply list advantages. Rather, the
arguer must explain the advantages in light of the other side, showing how these advantages
cannot be realized via the alternative. Without such explanation, receivers can readily dismiss
the advantages or posit that these advantages can be achieved via the alternative.

A goal achievement argument shows that certain desirable goals can only be achieved via the
policy the manager is promoting. Alternatives, the manager argues, are incapable of bringing

7
about these goals or the objectives. For example, a manager may show that the goal of cutting
costs cannot be achieved by replacing the sales training program with an apprenticeship program.
By comparing the projected costs of the two programs, the manager goes on to show how the
cost-savings goals can best be achieved via maintaining the sales training program. Key to the
success of this type of argument, then, is showing how the goals or objectives are achieved by
the policy being promoted.

Finally, in addition to the three types of arguments suggested above, several additional strategies
might be used with claims defending existing policy. One such strategy is to deny that any
significant problem exists, raising doubt about the need to change. Another is to argue that the
present system is capable of self-correction and that any problem is incidental rather than
systematic. And finally, one can also defend the current state of affairs by suggesting minor
repairs. A minor repairs strategy admits that the current policy needs some alteration in order to
continue successfully, but goes on to show that there are no serious, inherent faults. Minor
repairs or corrections are all that is required.

Sources include: Toulmin's (1954) The Uses of Argument and a debate handbook titled The Elements of Argument