The document discusses the types of arguments, focusing on persuasive, opinion-based, and argumentative essays, along with strategies to construct these arguments effectively. It distinguishes between deductive and inductive reasoning, outlining evaluation criteria and various logical fallacies that can weaken arguments. Additionally, the document provides examples and explanations for different argument forms such as generalizations and analogies.

1. • MSc. Klodjana Skendaj

2. Types of Arguments
Can you find the mistake?
Major sporting events should not accept sponsorship from
companies like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s because it is
contradictory, promotes an unhealthy lifestyle and it is
completely unnecessary.

3.  Opinion-based Essay
• Persuasive essay
• Argumentative essay
Controversial Topic
• Present your opinion
• Defend and develop your argument with reasons and details
Purpose
Goals

4. • What is the purpose?
To persuade the reader
To influence the reader’s point of view
• Who is your audience?
The person you are trying to persuade
The person who disagrees with you
Ex-The government should reduce airfare for international students
wanting to study abroad.
Who would disagree? Why would they object?

5. Balanced argument
• Consider both sides
• Makes your argument stronger
In argumentative paper you should :
• Be Coherent, cohesive sentences
• Show critical thinking
• Range of vocabulary
• Accuracy and range of grammar

6. Structure
• Argument: made to address a specific problem, by offering a position and providing reasons for
that position.
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Ex 1-Where to go for dinner?
The two premises:
1. Serendiville open until 9pm;
Piceri Era until 10pm.
2. Sendiville has the best Mexican food in Tirana.
Ex2- How many classes to take?
1-Twelve credit hours is 4000$.
Fifteen is 4500$.
2- Taking more classes every semester so you can finish faster.

7. • Facts and opinions have different relationships with the conclusions
drawn.
• This results in different arguments.
So: 9:05 pm, Should we eat at Serendiville or Piceri Era?
• If your facts are true, then the conclusion must be true.
• An argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the
premises/ if the premises are true then the conclusion is also true.
This what is called a deductive argument.

8. • But if it is 8:00 pm: Should we eat at Serendiville or Piceri Era?
The decision you take can not be said to be “true”. The conclusion does
not logically follow from the premise(in form of an opinion). You simply
built a case for why it’s better.
• If acceptance of the conclusion depends on the strength of the
premises …in which the premises do not prove but merely support
the conclusion- is an INDUCTIVE argument.

9. • Deductive Argument: the conclusion necessarily follows from the
premises- if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.
• When dealing with deductive arguments, do not start with the
conclusion.
• When making a deductive argument avoid picking out your
conclusion ahead of time.

10. • Evaluating a deductive argument:
1. Are the premises true?
2. Is the form of the argument valid?
An argument is valid if it is not possible for the premise to be true AND
the conclusion to be false.
Ex, The premise tells us that there are 2 restaurants to choose from and
1 of them is closed.

11. • Inductive Argument: the conclusion is supported (but not proven), to a greater or lesser
degree, by the premises.
• The evaluation process is different than deductive arguments.
You can not necessarily “prove” or “disprove” the premises, nor can you determine if the
premises lead inevitable to the conclusion or not.
Evaluating an inductive argument:
1. Are the premises true or acceptable?
2. Are the premises relevant to the issue at hand?
3. Are the premises compelling enough to justify the conclusion?
Inductive arguments take on many forms.
Generalization: where arguments involve making a general claim based on limited or
specific evidence.

12. • Analogies: drawing conclusions about one situation based on what
you know about another allegedly similar situation.
• General Principles: opposite of generalizations. Involve applying
general principles to specific case.
• Casual Reasoning: offer an argument that one thing necessarily lead
to another happening.

13. Logical Fallacies
• A logical is an error of reasoning that will weaken your argument, and in
most cases, undermine it completely.
Ten Fallacies:
1-Circular Reasoning- when the argument is restated rather than proven.
Ex-Opium is sleeping inducing
Opium has a sleeping-inducing quality
A is true because B is true
B is true because A is true

14. 2-Hasty Generalization is when someone makes a sweeping statement
without considering all the facts:
• I can see only girls in this neighborhood.
• So in this area families have only girls children.
3-Slippery slope: a conclusion based on the premise that one small step
will lead to a chain of events resulting in some significant event:
Lost your pen= no pen
No pen= no notes
No notes= no study….

15. 4-Straw Man: when someone distorts an opponents claim so that it is
easier to refute, or where someone tries to refute a point someone
made by giving a rebuttal to a point that they did not make.
Ex. Schools should be more lenient on standardized testing.
The other goes: If we stop giving tests in schools, we will raise ignorant
generations that will not survive in real life.
This fallacy serves to undermine an honest and rational debate with
unfounded claims.

16. 5-Ad Hominem: An attack on person’s character or personal attributes in
order to discredit their argument.
Ex- Male doctor to a mother: You should be careful on how you breastfeed
your baby.
The mother: What do you know about breastfeeding?!
6-False Dichotomy/False Dilemma: when an argument present two points
while disregarding or ignoring others in order to narrow the argument in
one person’s favor.
You are either with us or against us!
7- Appeal to emotions: when a writer or speaker uses emotion-based
language to try to persuade the reader or the listener of a certain belief or
position.
Ex. Can I submit my paper later because I had……..

17. • 8- Equivocation: when argument is presented in an ambiguous,
double- sided way, making the argument misleading.
Known as double speak fallacy.
Ex. Ice-creams are better than nothing.
Nothing is better than Nutella.
Therefore, Ice-cream is better than Nutella.
9-Bad-Wagon Appeal : is an appeal that presents the thoughts of a
group of people in order to persuade someone to think the same way.
Many companies use Vodaphone; therefore, all other companies have
to use Vodaphone.

18. • 10-False Analogy/weak analogy: when two things that are unlike are
being compared based on trivial similarity in order to prove a point.
Ex. People are like dogs. They respond best to discipline.