Reading and Evaluating

Arguments
 The critical reader must be able to evaluate
arguments.

 When you evaluate an argument (a set of

claims), you determine its value or
persuasiveness.

 To be able to do a good job evaluating

arguments, you need to know what an
argument is and how an argument is put
together.
 An argument is a claim that is supported
by reasons or evidence.

 When an author tries to persuade the

reader that something is true or correct
by presenting supporting reasons or
evidence, an argument is being made.

 This means that an argument is different

from a statement.
An argument presents logical reasons
and evidence to support a viewpoint
 Parts of an Argument
 ISSUE - problem or controversy about
which people disagree
 CLAIM - the position on the issue
 SUPPORT - reasons and evidence that
the claim is reasonable and should be
accepted
 REFUTATION - opposing viewpoints
Persuasion
 The author is trying to convince the reader
that a claim is true by giving supporting
reasons or evidence.
The Claim
 The claim of an argument
is the point of the argument.
 When an author makes an argument,
it’s the claim that the author is trying
to persuade the reader to accept as
true.
 Types of Claims
 CLAIM OF FACT - statement that can be
proven or verified by observation or
research
 “Within ten years, destruction
of rain forests will cause
hundreds of plant and animal
species to become extinct.”
 Types of Claims
 CLAIM OF VALUE - states that one thing
or idea is better or more desirable than
another.
 “Requiring community service
in high school will produce more
community-aware graduates.”
 Types of Claims
 CLAIM OF POLICY - suggests what
should or ought to be done to solve a
problem.
 “To reduce school violence, more gun and
metal detectors should be installed in
public schools.”
Analysis
 To evaluate an argument, you need to
analyze it.

 When you analyze an argument, you

break it down into its parts and
examine them by themselves and in
relation to the other parts of the
argument.
 Types of Support
 REASON - a general statement that
supports a claim.
 EVIDENCE - consists of facts, statistics,
experiences, comparisons, and examples
that show why the claim is valid.
 EMOTIONAL APPEALS - ideas that are
targeted toward needs or values that
readers are likely to care about.
 Inductive and Deductive Arguments
 INDUCTIVE - reaches a general
conclusion from observed specifics.
 “By observing the performance of a large
number of athletes, you could conclude
that athletes possess physical stamina.”
Inductive and Deductive Arguments

 DEDUCTIVE - begins with a major

premise and moves toward a more
specific statement or minor premise.
 “Athletes possess physical stamina.
Because Anthony is an athlete, he must
possess physical stamina.”
Strategies for Reading an Argument

 What does the title suggest? Preview!

 Who is the author, and what are his or her
qualifications?
 What is the date of publication?
 What do I already know about the issue?
Strategies for Reading an Argument

 Read once for an initial impression.

 Read the argument several more times.
 Annotate as you read.
 Highlight key terms.
 Diagram or map to analyze structure.
Strategies for Evaluating Arguments
 Evaluate Types of Evidence - Is it
sufficient to support the claim?
 Personal Experience - may be biased, so
do not accept it
 Examples - should not be used by
themselves
Strategies for Evaluating Arguments
 Statistics - can be misused, manipulated
or misinterpreted.
 Comparisons and Analogies - reliability
depends on how closely they correspond
to the situation.
 Relevancy and Sufficiency of Evidence - is
there enough of the right kind to support
the claim?
Strategies for Evaluating Arguments
 Definition of Terms - should be carefully
defined and used consistently
 Cause-Effect Relationships - evidence that
the relationship exists should be present
 Implied or Stated Value System - are they
consistent with your personal value
system?
Strategies for Evaluating Arguments
 Recognizing and Refuting Opposing
Viewpoints
 Question the accuracy, relevancy or
sufficiency of the opponent’s evidence.
 Does the author address opposing viewpoints
clearly and fairly?
 Does the author refute the opposing viewpoint
with logic and relevant evidence?
Strategies for Evaluating Arguments
 Unfair Emotional Appeals
 Emotionally Charged or Biased Language
 False Authority
 athletes endorsing underwear
 movie stars selling shampoo

 Association
 a car being named a Cougar to remind you of a
sleek animal
 a cigarette advertisement featuring a scenic
waterfall
Strategies for Evaluating Arguments
 Unfair Emotional Appeals
 Appeal to “Common Folk”
 an ad showing a product being used in an average
household
 a politician suggesting he is like everyone else

 Ad Hominem - attack on the person rather

than his/her viewpoint
 “Join the Crowd” Appeal or Bandwagon
What emotional appeal is being used?

 Come early so you won’t have to stand in line –

because everyone knows you can make a deal
with Dave and save.

 As a test pilot, Susan Gibbs knows performance.

“That’s why I drive a Mustang,” she says.

 Olson’s pizzas are lower in fat and calories.

Other pizza makers don’t care about your health.
Emotional appeals continued…
 “We can work magic with your children,” says
Eileen of Eileen’s Day Care. “Call upon us, and
your children will be happy you did.”

 Liberty Bell Airlines flies anywhere in this great

land, from sea to shining sea.

 As a young man, Candidate Alan Wilson learned

what it means to work hard by spending long
hours lifting boxes and sweeping floors working in
a department store.
 Errors in Logical Reasoning
commonly called logical fallacies
invalidate the argument or render argument flawed

 Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question

 “Female police officers should not be sent to
crime scenes because apprehending
criminals is a man’s job.”
 Hasty Generalization - conclusion derived
from insufficient evidence
 “Because one apple is sour,
all of them in the bowl must
be sour.”
 Errors in Logical Reasoning
 Non Sequitur (“It Does Not Follow”)
 “Because my doctor is young, I’m
sure she’ll be a good doctor.”
 False Cause
 “Because I opened the umbrella when I
tripped on the sidewalk, the umbrella must
have caused me to trip.”
 Either-Or Fallacy
 “Because of the violence, TV must be either
allowed or banned.”
 For Each Argument:
 Identify the claim.
 Outline the reasons to support the claim.
 What types of evidence are used?
 Evaluate the adequacy and sufficiency of
the evidence.
 What emotional appeals are used?
 Does the author recognize or refute
counter arguments?
 Step 1: Identify the Author’s
Assumptions
 An author’s assumptions consist of things the
author takes for granted without presenting
any proof (in other words, what the author believes or
accepts as true and bases the argument on).
 Ask yourself, “What does the author take for
granted?”
 If the author’s assumptions are illogical or
incorrect, the entire argument will be flawed.
Readers may be misled unless they identify the
author’s assumptions.
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
28 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
 Step 2: Identify the
Types of Support
 Types of support refers to the kind of
evidence the author uses to back up the
argument.
 Ask yourself, “What kind of support does the
author present to back the argument?”
 Support can include research findings, case
studies, personal experience or observation,
examples, facts, comparisons, expert testimony
and opinions.
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
29 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
 Step 3: Determine the
Relevance of the Support

 Relevance means the support is

directly related to the argument.
 Ask yourself, “Is the support directly
related to the argument?”
 Unless the author is an expert, his or
her opinion or personal experience may
not be particularly relevant.
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
30 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
 Step 4: Determine the
Author’s Objectivity

 The author’s argument has objectivity

when the support consists of facts and
other clear evidence.
 Ask yourself, “Does the author present
facts and clear evidence as support?”

© 2008 McGraw-Hill
31 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
 Step 5: Determine the
Argument’s Completeness
 An argument is complete if the author
presents adequate support and
overcomes opposing points.

 Sometimes authors do not give enough support.

 Sometimes they leave out information that would

weaken their argument. Their argument would be
stronger if they presented it and countered it.
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
32 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
 Step 6: Determine if the
Argument Is Valid

 An argument is valid (has validity) if

it is logical.
 Ask yourself, “Is the argument logical
(well-reasoned)?”

© 2008 McGraw-Hill
33 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
 Step 7: Decide if the
Argument Is Credible

 An argument has credibility if it is

believable (convincing).
 Ask yourself, “Is the author’s argument
believable?”
 Validity and credibility are closely
related since an argument that is not
valid will not be credible.
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
34 Higher Education Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
Analyzing an Argument
 What issue is presented?
 What is the author’s argument?
 What are some author’s assumptions?
 What type of support (facts, experts’ opinions, research,
observations, personal experiences, etc.) do the author/s
present?
 How relevant (directly related to the issue) is the
support?
 Is the argument objective and complete?
 Is the argument valid(logical) and credible (believable)?
 Comparing the Arguments:
 Compare the types of evidence used.
 Which argument did you find more
convincing? Why?
 What further information would be useful
in assessing the issue?