Remember that one of Aristotle’s “available means of persuasion was logic, or what I refer to as “argument” in blog postings. To better understand how to judge the strength of an argument, it helps to have some tools at hand, so in this post I look at the structure and constituent parts. To effectively analyze an argument, approach it with a sense of “disinterest”. That means you’re evaluating the argument on its merits rather than on your support of a particular candidate. I’ve found the best visualization of the parts is a framework I’ve termed the Fulcrum model. In the Fulcrum Model of Argument, the three parts are the assertion, the evidence and the reasoning. A fulcrum, or “tipping point” serves to leverage how these parts interact. The practice of Rhetoric is the process of leveraging the fulcrum to produce a stronger argument.
The Assertion is what people are trying to get you to agree to. You could also call it the conclusion or the claim. Some examples of assertions include:
We should raise taxes on the wealthy
Lowering taxes on businesses will create jobs
It’s wrong to discriminate against the elderly
Cutting spending is the best way to reduce the deficit.
When the assertion contains “loaded” or persuasive terms, it makes for a weak argument because the self-evident nature of assertion leaves little room for the argument to advance. Because the assertion itself is questionable, disagreement prevails over argument. An example might be “Given your own disastrous finances, why should we trust you with the finances of the country”?
The Evidence is used to advance or challenge a claim. You might think of evidence as reasons you give people why they should agree with your claim. As the weight of the evidence increases, it provides more leverage and the argument therefore becomes stronger.
It’s important to note that the weight of the evidence isn’t only a function of the amount or quantity of evidence you produce, but also the quality of evidence. You could produce lots of evidence, but it might not be relevant or factual. In that case, the weight of the evidence wouldn’t move the assertion towards a stronger argument. Another factor that decreases the strength of the argument is when people provide insufficient evidence to advance their assertion. Think of Trump during the first Republican debates when Chris Wallace challenged him to provide evidence of the types of people that were entering the U.S. from Mexico and his only evidence after repeated challenges was an anecdotal story about something he heard from U.S. Border Patrol agents. See Trump provide his evidence.
The Reasoning is the rule or assumption we use to build a connection between the assertion and the evidence. If you remember enough of your high school geometry, you’ll be familiar with the Pythagorean theorem: In a right triangle, a squared + b squared = c squared. If we use it in the fulcrum model of argument, we find:
Assertion: C=5
Evidence: A=3 and B=4
Reasoning: A squared (9) + B squared (16) = 25
In this case, the reasoning is quite straightforward. Many times however, the reasoning is implicit or unstated.
Assertion: Ben Carson doesn’t have the experience to become President
Evidence: Ben Carson has never held elective office
Reasoning: Holding some type of elective office is a necessary prerequisite to becoming President
Throughout the debates, the other Republican candidates consistently point out that Carson, Fiorina and Trump aren’t prepared to become President because they lack political experience. They derisively liken it to electing someone who will need “on the job training.” Carson, Fiorina and Trump can’t disagree with the evidence because it’s a fact. When they argue against the assertion, they are really taking issue with the reasoning.
Assertion: Bernie Sanders isn’t tough enough on guns
Evidence: He voted against the Brady Bill
Reasoning: Anyone who is tough on guns would have voted for the Brady Bill
Similary, Sanders can’t argue against the evidence, so he takes issue with the reasoning.
A couple of other points about argument; first, someone has to be willing to engage in argument, rather than just repeating his or her assertion. Ask this question: “What evidence would it take to make you change your mind?” If the answer is “Nothing you could say would make me change my mind,” the person precludes argument by espousing dogma. “Dogma” means strong belief or opinion and you arrive at it by acceptance rather than logic.
Second, we’re all familiar with the phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” In argument, the saying is “Let he who asserts prove.” That means the burden of proof rests with the person who is making the assumption. It’s not incumbent on someone to prove the negative of an assertion.
To effectively judge the strength of an argument, first identify the assertion, then look at the evidence and reasoning. I’ll cover each of these parts in more detail, along with fallacies in upcoming posts, but this should provide a good starting point for understanding how argument works.
Thank you for this. It seems like much of the political rhetoric this campaign season is devoid of logic, reasoning, and evidence. Not sure the fulcrum and lever model really captures the complexity of the relationship, but it does bring into focus the importance of the three elements.