The document outlines essential principles and rules for constructing strong arguments in academic writing, emphasizing logical thinking and reasoning. It covers various types of arguments, how to assess their strength, and common sources and forms of illogical thinking. The document also presents guidelines for delivering effective oral and written arguments, as well as highlighting the importance of seeking credible sources.

1. Build Strong Arguments
Huda Al Midani
Academic Skills Lectures Series
The Social Sciences Research Development Initiative (SSRDI)

2. Agenda
• Clear Thinking
• Arguments are the language of Logic
• Four Basic Principles of Logic
• What is an Argument?
• Basic Building Blocks of Arguments
• How to Assess an Argument?
• 12 General Rules for Strong Arguments

3. Agenda
• 5 Rules for Strong Arguments about Sources
• 4 Rules for Strong Arguments about Causes
• 5 Rules for Strong Extended Arguments (5 rules)
• 6 Rules for Strong Argumentative Essays (6 rules)
• 6 Rules for Strong Oral Arguments (6 rules)
• What are The Sources of Illogical Thinking?
• What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?

4. Let’s warm up!
This is a 10-minutes exercise,
Choose a topic,
Choose a specific subject,
Take a position (develop a thesis statement),
Try to argue (persuade us rationally) that your position is true.

5. We need Clear Logical Thinking!

6. Arguments are the Language of Logic!

7. Thing
Objective
fact
Mind
Idea
Communicating
using
External Reality
e.g. Cat, love
Internal Reality
Thinking
Words
Statements
Arguments
Speech
Writing
about
To Other Minds
There is "ontological" truth and "logical" truth.
Logic is about “True” and “False”!Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

8. “The whole purpose of reasoning, of logic, is to arrive at
the truth of things. This is often an arduous task, as
truth can sometimes be painfully elusive.
But not to pursue truth would be absurd, since it is the
only thing that gives meaning to all our endeavors.”
~McInerny, D.Q. 2004 Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (page 19)
How much do you agree?

9. Four Basic Principles of Logic
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY
A thing is what it is.
II. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE
Between being and nonbeing there is no middle state.
III. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON
There is a sufficient reason for everything.
IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION
It is impossible for something both to be and not be at the same
time and in the same respect.
What about
gray areas?
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

10. What is an Argument?

11. What is an Argument?
• Arguments is about “the inferential move, whereby we go from one
idea that is known to be true to a second idea that is recognized as
true on the force of the first idea.”
• Every argument is composed two different types of statements: a
“premise” (Supporting) statement and a “conclusion” (supported)
statement.
Premise 1 Premise 2 Conclusion+ 
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

12. Basic Building Blocks of Arguments
1.The Move from Universal to
Particular
The Move from Particular
to Universal
Predication
Negative
Statements
Making
Comparisons
Conditional
Argument
Syllogistic
Argument
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

13. 1. The Move from Universal to Particular
• every dog is carnivorous, then some dogs are carnivorous.
• If no males are mothers is true, then that some males are not
mothers is also true.”
“necessary conclusion”
“The basic rationale behind deductive reasoning is this: Starting from a
statement we know to be true (major premise), we draw out of it and
make explicit (through minor premise to conclusion) what is implied in
that initial true statement”.
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

14. 2. The Move from Particular to Universal
“Some women are mothers” is a true statement. But “every woman is a
mother.” is not true.
“Not necessary conclusions” they are true as the evidence allows.
“We could say that deductive argument is analytic because it breaks a
general truth down into its constituent parts. The premises of inductive
argument are all the particular facts that go together to serve as a
collection of evidence. Those facts provide the basis for making a
reliable generalization about them.”
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

15. 3. Predication
• “every statement is composed of a subject and a predicate.”
• “Predication,” then, is the idea-connecting process by which we attribute
something to something else.
. “Ulysses S. Grant was born in Ohio.” Being born in Ohio is properly
predicated of Grant because the statement reflects what is actually the
case.” it state, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence
or an argument of proposition.
“Jane Austen wrote Persuasion in New Hampshire” is false because writing
Persuasion in New Hampshire cannot be predicated of Jane Austen.
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

16. 4. Negative Statements
• “Affirmative statements” connect ideas; “negative statements”
disconnect ideas.
• “universal negative statement” disconnects ideas completely e.g“ No
philosophers are infallible”.
• “particular negative statement” disconnects ideas incompletely e.g.
Some North Dakotans do not read Dickens”.
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

17. 5. Making Comparisons
• “Even a goodly number of similar significant characteristics does not make
a strong comparison if a key significant characteristic is omitted.”
• “A possesses traits R, S, T, U, V, W, X,
and Y, B possesses traits R, S, T, U, V, W, X,
and Y, A possesses trait Z,
Therefore B also possesses trait Z.”
• “I make a comparison of the two animals. I tell them that both mice and
elephants have four feet, two eyes, two ears, a mouth, a tongue, a tail, a
heart, and so on. All are significant characteristics. But in my account I
make no mention of the comparative size of the animals.”
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

18. 6. Conditional Argument
• If A → B
A
Therefore, B
If Louise is running, then Louise is moving. But Louise is in fact running.
Therefore, Louise is moving.
• If A → B
-B
Therefore, -A
“If Louise is running, then she is moving.” “Louise is not moving.” Conclusion:
“Therefore, she is not running.”
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

19. 7. Syllogistic Argument
• If Every M is P
Every S is M
Therefore, every S is P
• Every NFL player is a professional athlete.
The Minnesota Vikings are NFL players.
Thus, the Minnesota Vikings are professional athletes.
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

20. Basic Building Blocks of Arguments
1.If all A are B,
2.Therefore, some A
are B
If some A are B,
Therefore not all A
are B
B is a predicate of A
Not all A is B
Some A is not B
If A has traits R, S,
and Y, B have traits R, S,
and Y, A have trait Z,
Therefore B also has trait Z.
If A -> B
A is true
Therefore, B is true
If Every A is B
Every C is A
Therefore, every C is B
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

21. How to Assess an Argument?

22. How to Assess an Argument?
• Is there an argument?
• Are the premises true? E.g. are they seductive?
• How they relate to the conclusion they seek to support? Does
conclusion follow necessarily?
• If not necessarily, but probably does that reflected in a clearly
probable conclusion?
• Do the data of the premises give strong and convincing support to the
argument?

23. Let’s Assess Our Arguments
Take a look at your argument,
Please think of ways to enhance it,
Let’s listen to each others’ lessons learned,
Please comment on other arguments,
How much do you give each one ( 1- 5)?
Who is the winner ?

24. “In the final analysis, the force of an argument depends on
the extent to which it reflects the objective order of things.
We argue well because first we reason well, and the
purpose of both arguing and reasoning is to enable us to
perform more freely and purposefully in the world”.
~McInerny, D.Q. 2004 Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking (page 86)

25. 12 General Rules for Strong Arguments
1. Identify premises and conclusion
2. Develop your ideas in a natural order
3. Start from reliable premises
4. Be concrete and concise
5. Build on substance, not overtone
6. Use consistent terms
Source: Weston, A. 2009

26. 12 General Rules for Strong Arguments
7. Use more than one example
8. Use representative examples
9. Background rates may be crucial
10. Statistics need a critical eye
11. Consider counterexamples
12. Analogies require relevantly similar examples
Source: Weston, A. 2009

27. 5 Rules for Strong Arguments (Sources)
13. Cite your sources
14. Seek informed sources
15. Seek impartial sources
16. Cross-check sources
17. Use the Web with care
Source: Weston, A. 2009

28. 4 Rules for Strong Arguments (Causes)
18. Causal arguments start with correlations
19. Correlations may have alternative explanations
20. Work toward the most likely explanation
21. Expect complexity
Source: Weston, A. 2009

29. 5 Rules for Strong Extended Arguments
29. Explore the issue
30. Spell out basic ideas as arguments
31. Defend basic premises with arguments of their own
32. Consider objections
33. Consider alternatives
Source: Weston, A. 2009

30. 6 Rules for Strong Argumentative Essays
34. Jump right in
35. Make a definite claim or proposal
36. Your argument is your outline
37. Detail objections and meet them
38. Get feedback and use it
39. Modesty, please!
Source: Weston, A. 2009

31. 6 Rules for Strong Oral Arguments
40. Reach out to your audience
41. Be fully present
42. Signpost your argument
43. Offer something positive
44. Use visual aids sparingly
45. End in style
Source: Weston, A. 2009

32. What are the Sources of Illogical Thinking?

33. What are the Sources of Illogical Thinking?
1. Skepticism ‫الحقيقة‬ ‫فهم‬ ‫لنا‬ ‫يمكن‬ ‫ال‬ ‫أو‬ ‫حقيقة‬ ‫اليوجد‬) )
2. Evasive Agnosticism (‫كافية‬ ‫دراسة‬ ‫دون‬ ‫معين‬ ‫أمر‬ ‫في‬ ‫موقف‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫الوصول‬ ‫اليمكن‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫أحكام‬ ‫إعطاء‬)
3. Cynicism and Naïve Optimism ‫الساذج‬ ‫التفاؤل‬ ‫أو‬ ‫دليل‬ ‫بدون‬ ‫والتشاؤم‬ ‫السخرية‬) )
4. Narrow-Mindedness (‫الحل‬ ‫أفاق‬ ‫جميع‬ ‫استكشاف‬ ‫عدم‬)
5. Emotion and Argument (‫أولوية‬ ‫لها‬ ‫ليس‬ ‫ولكن‬ ،‫العواطف‬ ‫استبعاد‬ ‫عدم‬)
6. The Reason for Reasoning (‫الحقيقة‬ ‫فهم‬ ‫غير‬ ‫أخرى‬ ‫ألمور‬ ‫الحجج‬ ‫استخدام‬)
7. Argumentation Is Not Quarreling (‫محاججة‬ ‫ليس‬ ‫والشخصنة‬ ‫الجدال‬)
8. The Limits of Sincerity (‫ضروري‬ ‫ولكن‬ ‫يكفي‬ ‫ال‬ ‫اإلخالص‬)
9. Common Sense (‫فقط‬ ‫األساس‬ ‫وهو‬ ‫السليم‬ ‫الحس‬ ‫احترام‬ ‫من‬ ‫البد‬)

34. What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?

35. What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?
1. Denying the Antecedent (‫الخالصة‬ ‫إنكار‬ ‫إثبات‬ ‫يعني‬ ‫ال‬ ‫المقدمة‬ ‫إنكار‬)
2. Affirming the Consequent (‫المقدمة‬ ‫إثبات‬ ‫يعني‬ ‫ال‬ ‫الخالصة‬ ‫إثبات‬)
3. The Undistributed Middle Term (‫الكل‬ ‫على‬ ‫ينطبق‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫أن‬ ‫يعني‬ ‫ال‬ ‫صفات‬ ‫لهم‬ ‫الكل‬ ‫مجموعة‬ ‫من‬ ‫بعض‬ ‫كان‬ ‫إذا‬)
4. Equivocation (‫الكبرى‬ ‫المقدمة‬ ‫عن‬ ‫خاطئة‬ ‫نتيجة‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫للوصول‬ ‫الصغرى‬ ‫المقدمة‬ ‫من‬ ‫أمور‬ ‫استنتاج‬)
5. Begging the Question (‫مفترضة‬ ‫بمقدمات‬ ‫خالصات‬)
6. False Assumptions (‫الخالصة‬ ‫إلثبات‬ ‫المقدمة‬ ‫صحة‬ ‫افتراض‬)
7. The Straw-Man Fallacy (‫الحجج‬ ‫في‬ ‫النظر‬ ‫بدل‬ ‫المحاججة‬ ‫وراء‬ ‫الشخص‬ ‫مع‬ ‫التعامل‬)
8. Using and Abusing Tradition (‫آبائنا‬ ‫عليه‬ ‫ألفينا‬ ‫ما‬ ‫هذا‬)
9. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right (‫صحيحة‬ ‫خالصات‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫تؤدي‬ ‫ال‬ ‫خاطئة‬ ‫مقدمات‬)
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

36. What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?
10. The Democratic Fallacy (‫صحيحا‬ ‫يجعله‬ ‫ال‬ ‫شيئ‬ ‫بصحة‬ ‫االعتقاد‬ ‫كثرة‬)
11. The Ad Hominem Fallacy (‫الحجة‬ ‫صاحب‬ ‫عيوب‬ ‫إظهار‬)
12. Substituting for the Force of Reason (‫المحاججة‬ ‫طرق‬ ‫بغير‬ ‫اإلقناع‬)
13. The Uses and Abuses of Expertise (‫أتوماتيكي‬ ‫بشكل‬ ‫الحجة‬ ‫قوة‬ ‫تعني‬ ‫ال‬ ‫الخبرة‬)
14. The Quantifying of Quality (‫أقوى‬ ‫أصبحت‬ ‫الحجة‬ ‫أن‬ ‫يعني‬ ‫ال‬ ‫األمور‬ ‫جودة‬ ‫تكميم‬)
15. Consider More Than the Source (‫أوتوماتيكي‬ ‫بشكل‬ ‫الحجة‬ ‫قوة‬ ‫تعطي‬ ‫ال‬ ‫المصادر‬)
16. Stopping Short at Analysis (‫النتائج‬ ‫الستخالص‬ ‫الجيد‬ ‫التركيب‬ ‫دون‬ ‫فقط‬ ‫بالتحليل‬ ‫القيام‬)
17. Reductionism (‫فقط‬ ‫صفاته‬ ‫من‬ ‫قليل‬ ‫عدد‬ ‫مع‬ ‫الشيء‬ ‫مطابقة‬)
18. Misclassification (‫الخاطئ‬ ‫التصنيف‬)
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

37. What are the Forms of Illogical Thinking?
19. The Red Herring (‫الحجج‬ ‫في‬ ‫األخطاء‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫االنتباه‬ ‫إلبعاد‬ ‫عاطفيا‬ ‫مثيرة‬ ‫معلومات‬ ‫تقديم‬)
20. Laughter as Diversionary Tactic (‫الحجة‬ ‫ضعف‬ ‫عن‬ ‫األنظار‬ ‫إلبعاد‬ ‫المزاح‬)
21. Tears as Diversionary Tactic (‫الحجة‬ ‫ضعف‬ ‫عن‬ ‫االنتباه‬ ‫لتشتيت‬ ‫البكاء‬)
22. An Inability to Disprove Does Not Prove (‫إثبات‬ ‫اليعني‬ ‫النفي‬ ‫إثبات‬ ‫على‬ ‫القدرة‬ ‫عدم‬)
23. The False Dilemma (‫القيمة‬ ‫متساويتي‬ ‫إمكانيتين‬ ‫فقط‬ ‫هناك‬ ‫أن‬ ‫اإلقناع‬)
24. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (‫السببية‬ ‫يعني‬ ‫ال‬ ‫الترافق‬)
25. Special Pleading (‫حجة‬ ‫بدون‬ ‫معين‬ ‫أمر‬ ‫عن‬ ‫الدفاع‬)
26. The Fallacy of Expediency (‫أخرى‬ ‫أمور‬ ‫دراسة‬ ‫دون‬ ‫النهائية‬ ‫النتيجة‬ ‫في‬ ‫فعال‬ ‫ألنه‬ ‫ما‬ ‫بأمر‬ ‫اإلقتناع‬)
27. Avoiding Conclusions (‫شيئ‬ ‫أي‬ ‫في‬ ‫خالصات‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫الوصول‬ ‫اليمكن‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫االعتقاد‬)
28. Simplistic Reasoning (‫المسيئ‬ ‫التبسيط‬)
Source: McInerny, D.Q. 2004

38. What is your favorite fallacy?

39. Are you Still Hungary?
McInerny, D.Q.. 2004. Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle
Edition.
Weston, Anthony. 2009. A Rulebook for Arguments (Hackett Student Handbooks) . Hackett Publishing
Company, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Many Others 

40. Thank you