The document discusses the process of evaluating arguments, outlining the elements that constitute an argument, such as claims, support, and refutation. It highlights different types of claims (fact, value, policy), provides strategies for analyzing and assessing arguments, and emphasizes the importance of identifying the author's assumptions and the relevance of the support offered. Additionally, it addresses common logical fallacies and suggests criteria for determining an argument's validity and credibility.

1. Reading and Evaluating
Arguments

2.  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.

3.  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.

4. An argument presents logical reasons
and evidence to support a viewpoint

5. 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

6. Persuasion
 The author is trying to convince the reader
that a claim is true by giving supporting
reasons or evidence.

7. 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.

8. 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.”

9. 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.”

10. 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.”

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.”

14. 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.”

15. 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?

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.”

26. 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.”

27. 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?

28. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
28
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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.

29. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
29
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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.

30. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
30
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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.

31. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
31
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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?”

32. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
32
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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.

33. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
33
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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)?”

34. Chapter 11: Evaluating an Author's Ar
34
© 2008 McGraw-Hill
Higher Education
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.

35. 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)?

36. 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?