Defining
Argumentation
1
1
CHAPTER
KEY TERMS
adherence, p. 2
decision makers, p. 2
ultimate purpose, p. 2
claim, p. 3
subclaim, p. 3
factual claim, p. 3
value claim, p. 4
policy claim, p. 4
issue, p. 5
proposition, p. 6
support, p. 7
evidence, p. 7
values, p. 7
credibility, p. 8
argument, p. 8
argumentativeness, p. 8
verbal aggression, p. 8
criteria, p. 10
uncertainty, p. 11
fallacies, p. 12
language, p. 12
critical thinking, p. 13
dialectic, p. 15
spheres, p. 17
group structuration, p. 17
internal dialogue, p. 18
personal spheres, p. 18
technical spheres, p. 19
public spheres, p. 19
rhetoric, p. 20
audience, p. 20
probability, p. 21
proof, p. 22
gumentation. By making arguments and then evaluating them, people are able
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 1 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 1 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
2 PART 1 Principles
(Willbrand and Rieke 1991). As a kid, you probably reasoned on the basis of power au-
thority, “Mom said I could play the game now, so move over!” As an adult, you still use
power authority, although in a more grown-up way, “My advisor says this course will
satisfy a major requirement, and she has the power to make that determination.”
The difficult part about studying argumentation is keeping your mind open to new
ways of thinking about a familiar process. The objective of this book is to sensitize you to
your own argumentation behaviors and provide new information and insight to help you
be as effective as possible.
ELEMENTS OF ARGUMENTATION
Argumentation is the communicative process of advancing, supporting, criticizing, and mod-
ifying claims so that appropriate decision makers, defined by relevant spheres, may grant or
deny adherence. Let us briefly discuss the important terms in this working definition.
Adherence
The objective of argumentation, as Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca have noted,
is to gain adherence, which is the informed support of others (1). By informed, we mean
that people who have committed themselves to your claim are consciously aware of the
reasons for doing so. By support, we mean that people stand ready to act on your claims,
not simply grant lip service.
Appropriate Decision Makers
The appropriate decision makers are those necessary to the implementation of the deci-
sion and the achievement of the ultimate purpose . The judge or jury in court, the city
council, state legislators, U.S. Congress, the President in making public policy decisions,
the board of trustees or the C.E.O. in business, the admissions board at college, the driv-
er’s license examiner, the insurance adjuster, and many more are all appropriate decision
makers in their context. Winning the adherence of people who are not in a position to
move the decision toward the ultimate purpose of the decision is of little value.
At colleges and universities throughout the United States, when their football teams
are having a good season, people begin arguing that the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 2 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 2 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 3
is unfair. Claims are advanced that the BCS gives unfair advantage to the six BCS confer-
ences and independent Notre Dame at the expense of others who have truly outstanding
teams only once in a while. For example, Tulane, Marshall, Utah, Boise State, Texas
Christian, and Hawaii had undefeated seasons but were not able to compete for a na-
tional championship, while teams who had losses were allowed.
The arguments must gain the adherence of those who really make the decisions. The sen-
ior Senator from Utah announced he was going to work to change the BCS system when the
University of Utah had a perfect season but was denied entry into the championship game.
The President of the United States said that he did not like the BCS system and called for a
playoff process. But neither of these influential and powerful men changed the BCS even a lit-
tle bit. When you make an argument, you must address it to the appropriate decision makers
if you expect to achieve what you are trying to accomplish (your ultimate purpose).
Claims
A claim is a statement that you want others to accept and act on (to grant their adher-
ence). It may be linked to a series of other claims that constitute a case.
When a claim is used to justify another claim, it is called a subclaim. “Playing violent
games for more than three hours a day makes children aggressive” is a claim. It becomes a
subclaim when it is used to justify the claim, “Violent games should not be sold to anyone
under 17 years of age.”
Factual Claim. A factual claim affirms that certain conditions exist in the material world
and can be observed. Decision makers are asked to adhere to a factual claim because it is
confirmed by objective data from reliable sources. The following are examples of factual
claims:
■ Cypress College is in Orange County, California.
■ Twenty-four species of animals run faster than humans.
These are all factual claims. Each makes a claim that decision makers might verify
by reference to some kind of data. The first two are claims of present fact and the third
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 3 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 3 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
4 PART 1 Principles
is a claim of past fact . The fourth claim about the cause of aggression in children is more
complex since it must be verified by research, and research results are usually contested.
The fifth claim about the U.S. population is worth special note as it is a claim of future
fact (Cronkhite). A visit or a web site tells you that Cypress College is in Orange County,
California, a count found in an almanac confirms that 24 species of animals run faster
than humans, and a historical record shows that New Mexico became a state in 1912.
But claims of cause and effect may be supported by objective data coming from scientific
studies, but such research is always kept open to correction by new studies. And, a future
fact cannot be confirmed by looking at objective data from reliable sources. Decision mak-
Nonetheless, whether of past, present, cause, or future, factual claims all have similar
characteristics. All make assertions about what a situation was, is, or will be. All can be
identified by some variety of the verb “to be.” Note the examples above: “Cypress College
is ... ,” “Twenty-four species of animals run ...,” “New Mexico became ...,” “Playing
games causes ...,” and “The percentage of the population over sixty-five will ...” And,
all are analyzed in the same way.
Value Claim. A claim that asserts the quality of a person, place, thing, or idea is called
a value claim :
■ Natural gas is our best energy source.
■ Drugs and alcohol are a threat to public morality.
Both of these statements make claims about the value of something; they make a value
judgment that cannot be checked against data. “Drugs and alcohol are a threat to public
morality” is clearly a value claim. “Public morality” is a condition that can be defined
only by the participants in argumentation. It has no generally accepted means of verifica-
tion. Natural gas, however, might be shown to have fewer pollutants, may cost less per
BTU than other energy sources, and may have other characteristics that seem to make this
claim verifiable as a factual claim. But best means more than verifiable characteristics.
Some people find gas better than electricity for cooking. How is that to be verified? So,
value claims may vary from personal choice to definition in the strictest verifiable terms.
Policy Claim. A claim that tells someone or some agency how to behave is called a policy
claim. Any statement of a rule, law, or regulation is a policy claim and is a proposed
change in the way people or agencies currently behave:
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 4 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 4 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 5
■ No left turn.
■ Don’t walk on the grass.
■ The balanced budget amendment to the constitution should be passed.
■ Medical marijuana use ought to be legalized.
■ The United States must control undocumented immigration.
Because policy claims have to do with behavior, it will help you to identify them by
checking to see if they state or imply the word should . The first two claims do not specifi-
cally state “You should not turn left” or “You should not walk on the grass,” but they
are commands based on policy decisions. The last two policy claims use terms ought and
must that mean the same as should.
Note the differences in these three related claims:
Notice that a claim is a single statement, but it is possible that you could have a
sentence with more than one claim in it. Consider this sentence: “The national average
composite score for the ACT test in 2010 was 21, and that reveals a disappointing decline
over the past few years,” is a factual claim about the scores and a value claim about their
significance. You may need to separate these two for your analysis.
Issue
The term issue, as frequently used in our society, can be confused with the term claim .
A politician will argue, “My opponent has missed the issue; we need a balanced budget
amendment.” But an issue is more than an important claim. An issue is the paralleling of
two opposing claims stated as a question.
mation which led to a rise in cases of autism” ( About.com 1)?
By the same token, issues never begin with words such as who , what , where , when ,
why , or how . These and similar words lead to an open-ended question such as, “What is
1 In some logic systems, this point is made by substituting for yes or no, yes or not yes. All you have decided to
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 5 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 5 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
6 PART 1 Principles
the impact of livestock grazing on federal lands?” The response to such a question is wide
open and does not focus the analysis. As you will see in Chapter 5 , such general questions
may be the point where analysis begins, but such analysis will look to find issues.
Many political leaders in western states oppose the wilderness designation for federal
lands because that will restrict the economic development of those lands for livestock
grazing, mining, and logging. Environmental groups favor a greater designation of wilder-
ness to preserve more land in the natural state. They claim, “More federal land should be
designated as wilderness.” Others argue against such designation. Here, then, is a policy
Not all claims result in issues, but any claim (policy, fact, or value) may become an
issue. If you say to a friend, “We should go to the basketball game tonight,” you have a
Proposition
A proposition is a claim that expresses the judgment that decision makers are asked to
accept or reject. Generally speaking, like other claims, a proposition may be of fact, value,
or policy.
2 Although other claims may serve as subclaims to one another and to proposi-
tions, a proposition cannot be a subclaim because it represents the point where you want
the decision makers to be when your argumentation is finished.
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 6 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 6 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 7
The following is a brief outline of a controversy to illustrate the relationship between
a proposition and its supporting claims.
FIGURE 1.1
Propositions and Claims
PROPOSITION OF POLICY: “The University should increase regulations to
assure that animals in laboratories are protected from pain or distress.”
I. The activist group Stop Animal Exploitation NOW has put our university on
its top 20 most painful labs in the country (factual claim).
II. The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection service
reported that the university used 1,504 guinea pigs in tests without the use of
anesthesia (factual claim).
Support
Whatever communication (including both words and objects) is necessary and available
to secure adherence, what it takes to get others to accept and act on your claim, falls
within the concept of support. Support presents the decision makers with claims with
which they already agree that will help them agree with your claim. Sometimes, nothing
more than your own authority in stating the claim is required:
Evidence. You can strengthen a claim and increase its potential for adherence if you
add to it examples, statistics, or testimony, the three broad categories of evidence. This is
discussed in Chapter 7 .
Values. Claims are supported when they are identified with social values —generalized
conceptions of what are desirable ends or ways of behaving—of the decision makers.
Values are discussed in Chapter 8 .
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 7 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 7 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
8 PART 1 Principles
Credibility. Claims are more acceptable when the person making the claim, or the source
reporting the claim, is regarded as credible, as believable, and worthy of adherence.
Credibility is discussed in Chapter 9 .
Argument
An argument, in our usage, is a single unit of argumentation comprising a claim and its
support. Both claim and support may be explicitly stated or one or both may be implied
but understood by the persons participating in the argumentation process. To qualify as
an argument, the support must potentially provide justification to relevant decision mak-
ers to grant adherence to the claim.
A caution is necessary here. In English usage, argument can also refer to the open
expression of conflict, as in, “My roommate and I had a terrible argument last night.” In
fact, in western thought, arguments and argumentation are often associated with compe-
tition, a form of fighting. The idea of argumentation functioning in a competitive forum
where the desire to win might overcome the search for the best answer has always been
troubling. It was this concern that led Socrates to defend the dialectical approach to deci-
However, argumentation does inherently involve a willingness to express your ideas,
provide support for them, and allow others to respond in ways that are often in disagree-
ment with you. And, engaging in argumentation requires you to consider others’ disagree-
ment and say why you do or do not find them worthy of your adherence. This is called
argumentativeness, and some students in argumentation classes have reported that learn-
ing to do that is “exhilarating,” and leads to a feeling of being “confident and knowledge-
able and eloquent” (Goodwin 48). They have learned socially acceptable skills of openly
expressing disagreement and standing up for what they believe in what has been measured
as a construct of “self-perceived communication competence” (Teven et al. 264).
By contrast, verbal aggression i s a construct found to be associated with people per-
ceiving themselves as being less competent in communication skills (Teven et al. 268). As
we explain in Chapter 11 , trying to attack others’ self-concept through the infliction of
psychological pain rather than dealing with their arguments characterizes verbal aggres-
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 8 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 8 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 9
In this book, argument includes the argument a lawyer prepares for a trial, the argu-
ment supporting a scientific principle, or the argument of a friend that you should join her
in studying for the test. Daniel O’Keefe explains two meanings of argument other than
the confusion with angry exchanges. What he calls argument 1 “is a kind of utterance or
a sort of communicative act” (121). This speaks of an argument as a product as we have
Criticism
Argumentation involves criticism of claims with the open potential for modifying them.
Dogmatic defense of positions is not argumentation; it is fanaticism. Criticism involves
refutation, which is discussed in Chapters 10 and 11 . Stephen Toulmin (1964) says that the
test of an argument is its ability to “stand up to criticism” (9).
The Society for Personality and Social Psychology includes research on racial preju-
dice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat, and unconscious bias against minorities; so,
the members pride themselves on being experts on bias in society. However, at the 2011
convention in San Antonio, Dr. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of
Virginia, charged the society with being a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred
values” that damage their research and their credibility. He charged the scientists with
being blind to the hostile climate they have created for nonliberals (Tierney 1). By a show
Starting with this evidence gathered on the spot in front of his audience, Dr. Haidt
proceeded to develop a criticism of the social science sphere. Using fundamental values
that provide a foundation for research arguments—that the studies are conducted from a
position of scholarly independence and objectivity—Haidt claimed that another value—
the commitment to redress the wrongs of racism—had turned social science blind to its
own prejudices. He charged his colleagues with embracing “science whenever it supports
their sacred values, but [ditching or distorting] it as soon as it threatens a sacred value”
(Tierney 2). The professor went on to provide some high profile examples of instances in
which social scientists had been shunned when they violated sacred values—good criti-
cism usually requires examples as support for arguments.
Showing that the criticism was taken to heart, the members of the society agreed to
some language changes in their category of “underrepresented groups” who are provided
special funds to travel to the annual meeting. Instead of limiting the category to ethnic or
racial minorities, first-generation college students, individuals with a physical disability
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 9 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 9 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
10 PART 1 Principles
and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender students, the category is left open and may
one day include conservatives in the list (Tierney 3).
ELEMENTS OF CRITICAL DECISION MAKING
A critical decision is one that survives the test of a relevant set of criteria. Choice is made
on the basis of clearly articulated arguments that have been held open to refutation or
disagreement. It stands up to criticism and it remains open to further criticism as long as
possible. When the arguments change, when new arguments occur, when the criteria for
decision change, the decision changes accordingly.
Criteria are standards, rules, algorithms, or tests on which a decision can be based.
So, a critical decision is one for which you can state the standard, rule, algorithm, or test
on which it is based, so that others can understand and accept or reject your criteria as a
sufficient basis for the decision.
You may say, “I decided to buy the new iPad because I felt like doing it.” You have
shared the criterion on which your decision is based; now let’s see if it stands up to criti-
cism: Is your old iPad no longer good enough? Do you have plenty of money to afford
such a purchase? Will you be unable to pay for something more important because of this
expenditure? Did you do some comparison-shopping to see that the iPad is the best device
to meet your needs? Did you check with Consumer Reports or other independent testing
groups to see if they gave a high rating to your iPad? Did you talk with people who own
the iPad to see how they like it? Did you take time to think about this decision in relation
to others you must make to increase the likelihood you will be happy you did it? Some of
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 10 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 10 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
CHAPTER 1 Defining Argumentation 11
many other sites, About.com writing on the subject. They identify a number of issues that
to date are unresolved, but they stress this caution: when doing your research, you must
remember that what comes up in an Internet search may be produced by people trying
to persuade you to their way of thinking, and they may use questionable fact claims and
omit important considerations. It will be necessary for you to look beyond headlines and
opening paragraphs to make a quality assessment of the material. In other words, they
urge you to make a critical decision.
Toleration of Uncertainty
To call decision making critical is to say that the claims of argumentation are inherently
open to ongoing criticism. Decisions must be made and actions taken on them without
knowing for certain that they are correct. In religion, politics, science, ethics, business,
law, government, education, and many more pivotal areas of your life, you must decide
and act without being able to wait until you are certain.
Uncertainty Is Pervasive. As you proceed in the study of argumentation, you will prob-
ably be surprised to find uncertainty so pervasive. Throughout modern times, many schol-
ars (followers of Socrates) have refused to teach argumentation because it operated in
arenas of uncertainty, and they were interested only in the absolute. As those issues once
thought to be susceptible to certain answers have proven to be, at best, uncertain, the
study of argumentation has become increasingly important. Physicist F. David Peat char-
acterizes the history of science in the twentieth century as moving from certainty to uncer-
tainty. “We have left the dream of absolute certainty behind. In its place each of us must
now take responsibility for the uncertain future” (213).
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 11 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 11 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396
12 PART 1 Principles
surgeon general declared, “We can close the books on infectious diseases” because of the
emergence of antibiotics (11). But the Centers for Disease Control announced in 2007
the presence of antibiotic-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus that were creating a
Language Is Inherently Ambiguous. Another source of uncertainty is the inherently am-
biguous character of language. By language, we usually mean words, but the same prin-
ciples apply to all signs, pictures, objects, mathematical symbols, musical sounds, and
anything else that facilitates communication.
One of the things that allowed people in the past to think they could find certainty
was the belief that language could convey precise meaning. They thought meaning was
derived from a tight link between language and “reality” (the presumed but erroneous
belief in the regularity of the universe). Aristotle’s idea of fallacies (argument practices
that are persuasive but illogical), which is still influential today, rests largely on such
Language is a collection of noises, movements, and marks people utter or set down
on a surface. Language is not connected to things “in the world”; it is simply a tool peo-
ple use to interact with each other. These noises and marks become language only when
we use them as such, and that use defines their nature (Kent 11). Words do not have
meaning; people have meaning that they try to share through language. When you seek
to communicate, there are at least three meaning processes at work: (1) the meaning you
intend to communicate, (2) the conventional meanings stored in dictionaries or other
The Attraction of Certainty Is Powerful. History documents a search for truth and cer-
tainty. Philosopher John Dewey in The Quest for Certainty observed that our society
is obsessed with a quest for certainty (Dewey). Whether it is a genetic characteristic of
humans or something learned, people deplore doubt. It is an uncomfortable state of mind
from which people seek to free themselves (Peirce 7–18). Writing about the role of various
parts of the brain on how we make decisions, author Jonah Lehrer says,
M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 12 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396M01_RIEK0596_08_SE_C01.indd Page 12 17/01/12 10:24 AM user-f396 F-396F-396