Argument Paper

I. FIRST STEP: EXAMINE THE STATEMENT OF THE CONCLUSION

A. State your conclusion in simple language. Sort out the type of concepts used in the conclusion
(analytic, empirical, evaluative, fictitious, etc.)

Conclusion: Stress eating is better than not handling stress.

The term “stress eating” and “not handling stress” is an empirical concept. The term
“better” is vague and requires that more than half of the measured premises agrees that stress
eating is good..

B. Please define the key terms in your conclusion using the technique of analytic definition so that
you can have common frame of reference. Pay close attention to what can be taken as vague or
ambiguous terms.

1. “Stress eating” refers consuming food in response to your feelings, especially when you
are not hungry. Stress eating is also sometimes called emotional eating.
2. “Stress” is simply a reaction to a stimulus that disturbs our physical or mental
equilibrium.
3. “Handling” refers to the way that someone deals with a person, event or situation (in this
paper, handling stress.

C. Can there be agreement in the meaning (or use) of the terms? Or the very definition of the term
is biased, hence controversial?

The terms “stress eating”, “handling”, and “stress” were defined clearly in the context of
conclusion. This eliminates any cases of ambiguity or vagueness. The terms were defined properly
so it is not biased.

II. SECOND STEP: ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIM OF THE CONCLUSION

A. Please classify the conclusion into types of knowledge claims, viz., analytic, empirical, or
evaluative. Is it a legal or policy proposal? Is the claim of the conclusion controversial?

The conclusion is an evaluative claim since it judges the good or bad in “stress eating”
and “not handling stress”.
B. What is the conclusion trying to prove? What is the required proof or evidence to justify the
claim of the conclusion? You cannot answer these questions unless you have classified the
knowledge claim that your conclusion is asserting. Let me detail the steps below.

1. If the conclusion is an empirical generalization, we have an ascending degree of generalization

beginning from some, a few, many, most, almost all, and all; you can appeal to the required
evidence supporting different levels of generalizations.

The conclusion is not an empirical generalization; this is not applicable.

2. If the conclusion is an evaluative claim (like religious, aesthetic, political or moral claims), we
can appeal to the strength of the inter-subjective consensus or public acceptability that can justify
the claim?

The conclusion is an evaluative claim and can be verified by the inter-subjective consensus.

3. If the conclusion is a legal or a policy proposal, you can appeal to the beneficial consequences,
if the proposal is implemented. Or you can harp on the aversive consequences, if the proposal is
not implemented. This is the best way to justify a legal or policy proposal.

The conclusion is an evaluative claim; this is not applicable.

4. Try to determine if the claim of the conclusion is in the realm of the known, knowable, or
unknowable? If the claim is in the known and knowable, then it is provable. If the claim is
unknowable, then it is unprovable, and you can stop using the template. However if the claim is
provable, then try to determine if the evidence can be produced in fact or in principle?

The conclusion is in the realm of the knowable, therefore it is provable. The evidence can
be produced in facts and survey.

III. THIRD STEP: COMPOSE THE ARGUMENT

Conclusion: Stress eating is better than not handling stress.

Premise set:

1. Stress in an omnipresent part of life (Psychology Today, n.d.) .According to Harvard

Health Publications (2012), Stress shuts down appetite since it releases epinephrine that
puts other physiological state such as eating but if stress persists, cortisol is released which
causes appetite and motivation in general to ramp up.
2. “Stress” is a well-known contributor to mood, mental disorders, and suicide risk (Busch,
A. and Cornette, M., 2016). Going by the statistics, at least 40 students kill themselves
every year due to stress over examinations. According to the National Crime Records
 Bureau (NCRB) as cited by Sumit Singh (2012), 23 boys and 19 girls committed suicide
in 2010 in Delhi after being unable to cope with exam pressure. While 25 boys and 23 girls
committed suicide in 2009, 36 boys and 25 girls ended their lives in 2008. The numbers
remained almost same the in 2007 as 24 boys and 19 girls committed suicide.

3. A survey was conducted around the topic of stress eating. The survey was focused on the
preferences of 30 people which included questions for both people who has experiences
stress eating (86.7%) and those who haven’t (13.3%). For the population that involves
themselves in stress eating, only 2 out of 26 does not believe that stress eating is better than
not handling stress. However, the whole population that does not involve themselves in
stress eating believe that it is not better than not handling stress. Over-all 90% of the total
population that answered the survey agreed with the conclusion.

4. In an article by Alice Oglethorpe and Noelle Howey (2012), Jean Fain, a psychotherapist
affiliated with Harvard Medical School says that it's healthy to emotionally eat once in a
while, adding "Sure, you could go for a walk or head to the gym, but sometimes an ice
cream sundae is just the thing."

IV. FOURTH STEP: CRITICIZE THE ARGUMENT

A. Scrutinize the Conclusion

1. Please re-examine the way the conclusion was written. Is the statement of the conclusion biased?
Is the definition of the key terms neutral and acceptable? Or is it controversial? Is there a need to
revise the statement of the conclusion?

The conclusion was not biased since the key terms are neutral and acceptable. The definition
of the terms are not controversial. There is no need to revise the statement of the conclusion.

2. Next, re-examine the claim of the conclusion: If it is an empirical generalization, then challenge
it by demanding the required evidence for many, most or all claim in the premises set. If the
required evidence for the generalization was not offered in the premise set, then reject the argument
for having committed the fallacy of hasty generalization.

This is not applicable since the conclusion is an evaluative claim.

3. The quickest way to demolish an empirical argument is to confront the conclusion and prove it
to be false or at least improbable by producing counter-examples. If the claim is all, reject the
conclusion by a counter-example; if the claim is most, produce as many counter examples as you
can.

This is not applicable since the conclusion is an evaluative claim.

4. Now, if the conclusion is an evaluative claim, challenge it by demanding the required evidence
for a strong inter-subjective consensus. If this evidence was not offered in the premises, reject the
argument as fallacious - irrelevant reason.

In premise 2, the required facts about the effects of stress does not accept “not handling
stress” as a good option.

5. You know that the quickest way to demolish an evaluative argument is to confront the evaluative
conclusion and show that it is contrary to certain moral principle that is supported by very strong
public acceptance and approval.

In premise 3, required data collected show that more than half of the surveyed population
agrees with the conclusion.

6. Finally, if the conclusion is proposing a legal or policy proposal, challenge the estimate of the
probability of the anticipated beneficial as well as aversive consequences.

The conclusion is not proposing a legal policy.

B. Scrutinize The Premise Set:

1. Please check if there are duplications in the premises? If there are, merge the redundant premises
into one.

There are no duplications in the premises.

2. You have to classify the assortment of your premises into types of knowledge claims, empirical,
evaluative or even analytic.

Premise 1 is an empirical claim that proving not handling stress is not good. Premise 2 is
an evaluative claim proving that more than half of the surveyed population agrees with the
conclusion.

3. Are there inconsistent or contradictory premises?

There are no inconsistent or contradictory premises

4. Make a tentative estimate of the strength of the argument by ranking the strength of the support
offered by each and every premise. Which premise, if true or acceptable, provides the strongest
support to the claim of the conclusion? Is the argument persuasive? That is to say likely to be
accepted by the target audience.

Premise 3 provides the strongest support since it presents numbers that supports stress
eating being better given that the term “better” means more than half agrees. Premise 4 follows
because it cites facts that prove that stress eating is good. Premise 1 and 2 are not as strong as
premises 3 and 4 because they simply cite facts that prove not handling stress is not good.
5. You have to determine if the premises offered are all necessary to prove the conclusion. Is there
a premise that offers little or no support?

The first and second premise offers little support because it did not directly refer to not
handling stress but the possible causes of it.

6. If all the premises are necessary to prove the claim of the conclusion, the next question to ask
is: Is the premise set sufficient to establish claim of the conclusion without additional premise(s).
You have to demonstrate that the premise set is not sufficient to establish the claim of the
conclusion by claiming that the premise set is very inadequate to prove what is wanted.

The premise set is sufficient to establish claim of the conclusion.

7. Try to determine if there is an important premise missing in the set. This premise must be
produced. If you can do this, you have succeeded in weakening the argument.

There are no important premises missing in the premise set.

8. Are the evaluative or moral premises supported by a strong inter-subjective consensus or public
approval? Demonstrate that it does not have such support. Or you can offer another
moral/evaluative premises that is inconsistent with the evaluative premise offered?

The evaluative premise (premise 3) is supported by strong public approval.

9. Are there empirical generalizations in the premises? Challenge them by demanding for the
required evidence for each level of generalizations beginning from many, most, almost all and all.

There are no empirical generalizations in the premises.

10. In a legal or policy proposal criticize the estimate of the probabilities of the occurrence of both
beneficial and aversive consequence. Or give counter examples with an opposite consequence than
those predicted. Predictions of this sort oftentimes are not grounded on empirical data. Harp on
this weakness. If you can succeed in doing either, you can reject the argument as a non sequitur.

This is not applicable because the argument presented is not a legal proposal.

11. You have to demonstrate that the premise set is inadequate because it did not offer the best
reason (or evidence) to support the conclusion. Then you have to produce the best reason.
Remember arguments would dramatically improve its strength with the addition of a novel
premise.

The best evidence that would support the conclusion was presented in premises 3 and 4. It
supported that stress eating is good at the occurrence of stress which also automatically agrees
that not handling stress is bad since stress eating is a way of handling stress.
12. You are now ready to demonstrate that the premise set failed to prove or justify the conclusion,
by challenging the premises one by one beginning with the premise(s) that offered the strongest
support.

Premise 3 is from a survey actually conducted to both stress eaters and non-stress eaters,
so it supports the conclusion greatly. The respondents of the survey directly stated that stress
eating is better than not stress eating at all.. Premise 2, on the other hand, shows that stress eating
has reason and positive effects in stress according to experts in psychology which is a field that
should be knowledgeable of the topic. Premise 1 and 2 mainly shows how stress stimulates stress
eating and that it is a natural occurrence.

References

Busch, A. and Cornette, M. (2016). Stress and suicide. The Charles E. Kubly Foundation
Retrieved from http://charlesekublyfoundation.org/resource-center/resource-
articles/stress-and-suicide/
Harvard Health Publications (2012). Why stress causes people to overeat. Retrieved from
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/why-stress-causes-people-to-overeat
Scott, J. (2016, February 17). What is stress eating? Retrieved from
https://www.verywell.com/what-is-emotional-eating-3495967
Howey, N. and Oglethorpe, A. (2012, October 3). The facts about emotional eating. Cable News
Network. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/03/living/real-simple-emotional-
eating/index.html
Psychology Today (n.d.). Stress. https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/stress.
Singh, S. (2012, March 3). Stress drives 40 students to suicide every year. Deccan Herald.
Retrieved from
http://m.deccanherald.com/articles.php?name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deccanherald.com
%2Fcontent%2F231917%2Fstress-drives-40-students-suicide.html