Criteria for analyzing arguments

• Rhetoric is centrally concerned with the

production, interpretation analysis and
evaluation of argument. Since Aristotle,
countless books have written on the
subject.
• There are many criteria for evaluation. The
handout lists some common ones (there’s
a larger file on Blackboard that lists more).
• Here are a few:
 Elements of argument & their
analysis/evaluation
1. Evidence
2. Appeals (logos, ethos, pathos)
3. Acknowledge & refute opposition
4. Chains of reasoning (GASCAP)
5. Assumptions and implications
6. Vulnerability to counterexamples and
counterarguments
7. Nuance (qualifications/author’s use of
distinctions? Think of Moore and UHC)
8. Audience and context of debate
 Evidence
• Evidence/Support for Claim:
Consists of evidence, examples, experience, data, quotations,
reports, testimony, statistics etc. that underwrite the claim.

• Evaluation: Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of

evidence from statistical, textual, an authority, or from experiential
realms to support claim. In each case, there are criteria that
determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable
and relevant; the experience is reasonably typical and relevant. The
statistics are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched, involve
controls, etc. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to
date, and verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The
evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency, typicality,
scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim.
 STAR – criteria for evaluating
evidence

• STAR criteria = useful rule of thumb for

evaluating evidence – stands for sufficiency,
typicality, accuracy and relevance.
 Evidence – Sufficiency
• Sufficiency: there should be enough evidence to
support the claim(s). The amount of evidence required
depends on context, audience, genre, etc., plus the
nature of your claims.
• The stronger the claim (in terms of scope, generality,
etc.) the more evidence often required. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.
• An audience likely to disagree with your position may
need more evidence than one that agrees with you.
• Why would an author arguing for the validity of alien
abduction stories require more evidence than one
arguing against their validity? (also - burden of proof)
• NOTE: few critics go after Moore on this ground
 Evidence – Typicality
 Typicality: evidence should be representative – not
selected merely to fit a narrow interpretation. The
examples, expert opinions etc. you include should be
“typical” rather than “cherry picked.” In statistics, we
expect a random sample (e.g. select evidence of U.S.
educational quality from “Jaywalking” episodes - or
Nobel prizes - or UN stats).
 If you argue against global warming, you shouldn’t just
select evidence from sources or year ranges that
support your view, or quote only authorities from the
Discovery Institute.
 Critics of Moore question the typicality of the evidence
he selects – they claim it is not representative (cherry
picks data, and leaves out important information).
Ignani claims he relies on “anecdotes,” i.e. evidence
that is not representative.
 Evidence – Accuracy
 Accuracy: evidence is stronger if it is accurate,
up-to-date, carefully selected, properly
documented, draws on recognized authorities,
etc.
 Faith in the accuracy of a writer’s data is one
function of ethos.
 Accuracy is something critics of Moore focus
on. E.g. Ignani charges that he presents
scandals from the past that have been
corrected (Dr Pino).
 Evidence – Relevance
 Relevance: evidence should be pertinent to the
argument being made. There should be a
close “fit” between the argument and the
evidence provided, a strong connection
between the evidence and what it is offered to
prove. If you cite an authority for support, that
authority should be relevant (Michael Crichton
on global warming?)
 On this ground we might question Ignani’s use
of poll data showing that 87% of Americans are
satisfied with the quality of their healthcare.
• If you can find weaknesses in one of these
aspects of the evidence presented, this may be
a clue that there is some shortcoming in an
author’s argument – some gap, limitation or flaw.
• Pointing this out may complicate the argument,
and point to a possible extension or revision of
the argument.
• Locating such a weakness may provide a space
for you to enter the conversation – to make a
contribution.
 You’re a STAR baby
• Although mainly used to talk about
evidence, the STAR criteria can be applied
to other aspects of argument.
• For example, we can consider STAR in
appeals to authority, and claims based on
analogy
 Authority
• Do we have a sufficient number of
authoritative sources, who are
representative (typical), accurately cited
with relevant knowledge (relevant to the
issue, context and audience)?
• To what degree does an authority exhibit
logos, pathos and ethos (good sense,
good character and good will)?
 Analogy
• Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and
outcome of a similar situation or event. An argument based on
parallels between two cases or situations. Arguing from a specific
case or example to another example, reasoning that because the
two examples are alike in many ways they are also alike in one
further specific way. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based
reasoning used in legal discourse.
• Moore argues by analogy when he shows us developed
democracies and their systems of health care. He suggests that if
they can achieve UHC, then so can we, and that the same levels of
efficiency, coverage and fairness can be achieved.
• Moore also uses an analogy when he shows all the socialized
services we currently enjoy – schools, police, libraries, firemen, etc.
He suggests that socialized health care would be similar to other
socialized systems we currently use and value.
 Examples of argument by analogy
• Gay marriage. Supporters use the analogy of equal rights for
African Americans (and the injustice of anti-miscegenation laws).
Opponents use the analogy of polygamy.
• Gun control and analogies with Japan/Switzerland.
• Iraq: Threat posed by Hussein analogous to Hitler, or other
annoying dictators like Ghadaffi, Nasser, Khomeini, who were
successfully contained?
• “War on terror” analogous to the cold war (containment +
international alliances), a problem to be combated primarily via
police/crime framework, or something entirely new, more
dangerous, requiring pre-emption.
• Occupation of Iraq will be analogous to a) “quagmires” such as
Vietnam/Algeria, or postwar Germany/Japan/Yugoslavia?
 Evaluation
• Evaluation: what is important here is the extent to which
relevant similarities can be established between 2
contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant
similarities?
• If the analogy is based on similarities between two
examples, we need to consider whether
counterexamples exist. How strong is the claim? (The
stronger the claim, the tighter the analogy must be). Are
there counter-analogies that refute the original argument
from analogy? Are there differences between the two
situations that undermine the force of the similarity cited?
How willing is the audience likely to be in accepting that
the two different examples/cases/situations you present
are really similar?
 Analogy
• Some critics question the analogy Moore draws between
countries with UHC shown in Sicko, and a system of
UHC that will work in the U.S. They argue that England,
Canada and France have forms of UHC that are very
different from the current situation in the U.S., and would
be hard to implement. They suggest it’s better to make
analogies with countries such as Switzerland, Israel and
Denmark.
• Other critics suggest Moore should use Medicare as the
model, since a) people are already familiar with it, and b)
it’s less “exotic” and foreign.
 Analysis
• Karen Ignagni, spokesperson for insurance companies, argues that Moore’s
movie is flawed. Here are some of her main criticisms:
• “To make his case, he relies on one-sided anecdotes — some dating back
to the 1980s — that grossly distort the role of health insurance plans in
providing access to care to more than 200 million people.”
• To counter Moore’s claims, Ignani cites a survey that reports “87% of
insured respondents said their coverage gives them access to good medical
care at an affordable cost.”
• Ignani states that Moore wants “a total government takeover of health care,”
and that this would inevitably lead to “rationed care, long waits for care,
underpaid doctors and delayed adoption of new technologies.”
• She writes, “That's not to pretend that any part of the system is flawless. In
every doctor's office, hospital and health plan, things sometimes go wrong.
Yet our system of coverage and care leads the world in many important
quality measures, including survival rates after diagnosis and treatment of a
wide range of life-threatening conditions.”
• Mair writes that Moore’s account of the English health care system
ignores problems in the NHS. A prime example is that in “September
2006 more than 6,000 patients in eastern England had to wait more
than 20 weeks to begin treatment already prescribed by their
doctors.”
• He also ignores “stories in 2005 about the prevalence of antibiotic-
resistant MRSA infections being spread throughout the National
Health Service due to poor hygiene in NHS hospitals, and which in
2005 were blamed for 20 percent of the 5,000 deaths occurring
each year in British hospitals. Or maybe even one 2006 story from a
Glasgow newspaper that indicated that despite the supposed
wonders of the NHS, average life expectancy in one part of the city
was just 53 years.”
• Given criticism of Moore’s claims, we can ask the following question
– what data are most relevant when it comes to determining the
overall success of a nation’s health care system? To what
extent do boosters and critics of Moore get this right?
• To what extent do we already have socialized health care
(medicare, medicaid, veterans administration, etc.) Do politicians
use government health care – e.g. navy doctors?
• Some other questions to consider. Why does it seem that critics of
Moore do not attack the French system?
• What versions of UHC that exist in other countries might be best for
the U.S. – given our current situation, our culture, history, etc.?
• Are aspects of health care being left out of the current debate. E.g.,
are there wider public health issues that are ignored? Could we
change aspects of our environment, health education, or social
conditions and achieve better outcomes? [consider Pollan &
Schlossler]
• To address the large number of uninsured
Americans, the declining number of employers
offering insurance, increasing costs and the lack
of federal action, some states are trying to
produce UHC. Massachusetts and Vermont
passed laws in 2006. What lessons do these
states provide, and how do they complicate,
extend, or clarify the arguments we have looked
at?
• http://www.familiesusa.org/
• http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/universalhe
alth2007.htm
• In Sicko, the issue of race is briefly raised
in one of the stories of insured patients
being denied coverage. Few texts seem to
address its significance to the issue of
health care reform. Does race point to a
shortcoming or gap in the healthcare
debate?
 Why We Fight!
(for you to write, argue and analyze well)

• The ability to interpret arguments, locate claims and

evidence, analyze moves and strategies, and evaluate
arguments are crucial skills.
• They are central to business, law, professional life, and
to academic study (including graduate school).
• You will be tested for these skills in the WPA, the LSAT,
GMAT, and GRE – all the gateways to professional life.
• Consider the GRE…
Skills Measured in General Test:
Analytical Writing Section

• Articulate complex ideas clearly and effectively

• Examine claims and accompanying evidence
• Support ideas with relevant reasons and
examples
• Sustain a well-focused, coherent discussion
• Control the elements of standard written English
Analytical Writing Tasks

• Present Your Views on an Issue (45 minutes,

choice of 2 topics)
• Analyze an Argument (30 minutes)
• Each essay is scored on a 0-6 scale using holistic
scoring
– Two scores for each essay
• GRE Website presents directions, actual topics,
scoring guide, and sample essays for both the
Issue and Argument tasks (
www.gre.org/gentest.html)
 Research Tips
• There is no one way to find things, no one tool or
methodology that will work consistently.
• Instead, there are a set of tools and resources that you
will need to adapt to your task, and which work well, or
less well, depending on the topic/your discipline.
• Example: http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/ GOOD place to
start.
• Works well for some disciplines, not so well for others.
Compare entries for rhetoric and writing studies,
http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/sub.php?id=112 and biology,
http://infoguides.sdsu.edu/sub.php?id=11
• Best place to start? Leave the matrix and go visit the
brick and mortar library. Talk to a research librarian.
• You still want to take the red pill?
• http://rhetoric.pbwiki.com/research-tools-page
• Often, typing keywords into one of the
major databases (e.g. Ebscohost) doesn’t
help much – e.g. “rhetoric and linguistics”
• It can be more useful to search books,
google scholar, or journals, and to try
coming at the search from several different
angles.
• We’ll practice some in class today.