ow do you identify an author's argument?

Step #1: Determine the author's argument.

Follow the steps to find the author's argument: look at the title, look at the
introduction, and, if necessary, look at the conclusion. ONE sentence that gives
theauthor's position about chocolate milk in schools with your RED/ORANGE colored
pencil.Sep 3, 2014

What is the author's argument? What claims are given to support this
...

www.warrencountyschools.org/userfiles/.../analyzinganargument%20.pdf?id...

Search for: How do you identify an author's argument?

How do you evaluate an author's argument?
How to evaluate an argument
1. Identify the conclusion and the premises.
2. Put the argument in standard form.
3. Decide if the argument is deductive or non-deductive.
4. Determine whether the argument succeeds logically.
5. If the argument succeeds logically, assess whether the premises are true. ...
6. Make a final judgement: is the argument good or bad?

How to evaluate an argument - Logical and Critical Thinking

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/.../9155

Search for: How do you evaluate an author's argument?

How do you find the author's point of view?
Point of View. The author's point of view in a text is, essentially, their opinion. It's
how the author's view the subject at hand. In persuasive texts, since the whole
purpose is to convince you, the reader, that the author's opinion is correct, author
point of view is pretty easy to determine.

Determining Point of View & Purpose in Informational Texts | Study ...

https://study.com/.../determining-point-of-view-purpose-in-informational-tex...

Search for: How do you find the author's point of view?

What is the author's argument?
 An author's argument is the opinion or belief that he or she wants to persuade readers
to believe.

Chapter 10: Evaluating an Author's Argument

https://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/.../Evaluating%20an%20Argument.pp...

Search for: What is the author's argument?

How do you analyze an author's argument?
To analyze an author's argument, take it one step at a time:
1. Briefly note the main assertion (what does the writer want me to believe or do?)
2. Make a note of the first reason the author makes to support his/her conclusion.
3. Write down every other reason.
4. Underline the most important reason.
Nov 17, 2014

How to Analyze an Argument in an Essay | 4 Easy Steps ...

https://takelessons.com/blog/how-to-analyze-an-argument

Search for: How do you analyze an author's argument?

What are the 5 Steps to Analyzing an argument?
Five Steps to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
 1) Identify the Central Claim or Thesis.
 2) Identify all the Explicit Reasons.
 3) Begin identifying the Implicit Reasons.
 4) Identify and evaluate the Evidence.
 5) Look for Logical Fallacies.

Five Steps to Analyzing and Eval

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/.../five_steps_to_analyzing.htm

Search for: What are the 5 Steps to Analyzing an argument?

How do you evaluate?
To evaluate an algebraic expression, you have to substitute a number for each variable
and perform the arithmetic operations. In the example above, the variable x is equal to 6
since 6 + 6 = 12. If we know the value of our variables, we can replace the variables
with their values and then evaluate the expression.
Evaluate expressions (Pre-Algebra, Introducing Algebra) – Mathplanet

https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/.../evaluate-expressions

Search for: How do you evaluate?

How do you find the author's claim?
Thank You :) Identify the author's claim. The claim is the statement that assert a point,
belief, or truth the requires supporting evidence. Identify what the author is trying to tell
the audience in the article.Nov 20, 2012

How To Find The Author's Claim by Jermani Lowery on Prezi

https://prezi.com/m/7ql40vpdznay/how-to-find-the-authors-claim/

Search for: How do you find the author's claim?

How do you identify an argument premise and a conclusion?
A premise includes the reasons and evidence behind a conclusion. A conclusionis
the statement that the premise supports and is a way of promoting a certain belief or
point of view. To help us better identify the premise and conclusion of anargument,
we can take a look at indicator words.Jan 11, 2016

How to Identify and Use Premise and Conclusion Indicator Words ...

https://study.com/.../how-to-identify-and-use-premise-and-conclusion-indicat...

Search for: How do you identify an argument premise and a conclusion?

What is author's purpose and point of view?
When the author's purpose is to persuade, the author wants the reader to side with
his or her position. A persuasive text contains facts and the author's opinion. is for or
against the issue or topic. If the author's purpose is to inform, the reader learns
something from the text.

Author's Purpose and Point of View

www.jwms.reg4.k12.ct.us/UserFiles/.../File/PP%20Author's%20Purpose.ppt

Search for: What is author's purpose and point of view?

What does author's point of view mean?
Definition of Point of View. Point of view is the angle of considering things, which
shows us the opinion or feelings of the individuals involved in a situation. In
literature,point of view is the mode of narration that an author employs to let the
readers “hear” and “see” what takes place in a story, poem, or essay.

Point of View - Examples and Definition of Point of View

https://literarydevices.net/point-of-view/

Search for: What does author's point of view mean?

What is the author's view?

What is the author's claim?

What is the author's position?

What is an argument in an article?

What are strategies for analyzing an argument?

When you "Analyze an Argument" you evaluate someone else's argument. The task
presents a brief passage in which the author makes a case for a course of action or
interprets events by presenting claims and supporting evidence.

Lesson - Tips for Analyzing an Argument - Brainfuse

https://www.brainfuse.com/jsp/alc/resource.jsp?s=gre&c=37192&cc...

Search for: What are strategies for analyzing an argument?

What is author analysis?

How do you find the main point of an article?

 How do you map an argument?
1.
2.
3.
4.

How do you critique an argument?

How do you analyze evidence?

1.
2.
3.

How do you evaluate something?

How do you evaluate yourself?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
 What are the steps for evaluating expressions?



How do you tell the difference between an argument and an explanation?

What is a premise in an argument example?

What are the premises of an argument?

What is an example of an author's claim?

How do you identify an author's argument?

How do you find evidence in an article?

1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the difference between author's point of view and author's purpose?
Point of View. If the author's purpose is the why behind the writing, the point of
view is the who. Point of view is all about who is telling or sharing the details. ... In
The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs, the author is Jon Scieszka, but the book is written
from the point of view of the wolf.

he Author's Point of View

In contrast to the purpose of the text, the author's point of view in a text is the author's personal
opinion, personal beliefs, personal perspective and the author's personal point of view. Although
the purpose of a text and the author's presentation of their point of view are aligned with and
consistent with each other, the author's point of view and the author's purpose for composing the
text are two different things.
In addition to the fact that the author's point of view and the author's purpose for writing the text
are different, the purpose is often easier and simpler to identify than the author's point of view.
The purpose of the text is often explicit, it is typically identified relatively easier than the author's
point of view which is implicit and spread throughout the text itself.
The author's purpose in terms of the text can often be found in the first and last paragraph of an
essay, the preface or introduction to a book, and in the introduction and/or the conclusion or
summary of a piece of writing. Additionally, there may be, unlike the author's point of view,
signals and signal words that alert the reader about the explicit purpose of the text. For example,
you may see a signal phrase such as, "The purpose of this book or article is to inform you
about..", or "In summary, you have learned about the pros and cons of…" which implicitly states
the texts' purpose of to inform the readers about the pros and cons of a specific action or
approach to a specific problem issue or concern.
On the other hand, the author's point of view can include several points of view, unlike a singular
primary purpose of the text; the author's point of view is often interspersed in the text and spread
out throughout the text which is in contrast to the purpose of the text which is singular and most
often concentrated and limited to the first and last paragraph of an essay, the preface or
introduction to a book, and in the introduction and/or the conclusion or summary of a piece of
writing.
Additionally, the author's point of view can result from unconscious and conscious bias and
preferences. For example, an author who is composing a persuasive or argumentative text uses
their consciously known and recognized personal bias and opinions in their types of texts; but a
person who, for example, is asked to compose an expository text, a cause and effect text or a
problem solution text for a newspaper that is intended to be factual and without any personal
beliefs or opinions, the author will have to be very careful to prevent unconscious and
unintended biases from entering into their text. Editors often read and proof read these factual
texts to insure that no conscious or unconscious biases of opinions have inadvertently or
intentional crept into them.
At times, there are articles that are written and speeches that are given by a person who has a
known bias as the result of working for a particular company. For example, if a member of a
pharmaceutical company is asked to give a speech or write an article about a particular disease
and its signs and symptoms, and the company that is being represented by the particular author
or speaker, the author or speaker is required to disclose the fact that they are employed by this
company so that the readers of the text and those in the audience during their speech can
critically evaluate the content that is presented in order to weed out any biases than can, or does,
interfere with the factual, and unbiased, content of the text or speech.
In summary, a critical reader should be able to know about the background of the author, the
reputation of the organization or company that is publishing the text, the credibility of the
citations within the text and the clue words in a text to identify the authors' points of view and
also separate subjective and personal points of view from objective, impersonal facts.
RELATED TEAS CRAFT & STRUCTURE CONTENT:

 Distinguishing Between Fact and Opinion, Biases, and Stereotypes

 Recognizing the Structure of Texts in Various Formats
 Interpreting the Meaning of Words and Phrases Using Context
 Determining the Denotative Meaning of Words
 Evaluating the Author's Purpose in a Given Text
 Evaluating the Author's Point of View in a Given Text (Currently here)
 Using Text Features

Alene Burke
Alene Burke RN, MSN is a nationally recognized nursing educator. She began her work career as an
elementary school teacher in New York City and later attended Queensborough Community College for
her associate degree in nursing. She worked as a registered nurse in the critical care area of a local
community hospital and, at this time, she was committed to become a nursing educator. She got her
bachelor’s of science in nursing with Excelsior College, a part of the New York State University and
immediately upon graduation she began graduate school at Adelphi University on Long Island, New
York. She graduated Summa Cum Laude from Adelphi with a double masters degree in both Nursing
Education and Nursing Administration and immediately began the PhD in nursing coursework at the
same university. She has authored hundreds of courses for healthcare professionals including nurses, she
serves as a nurse consultant for healthcare facilities and private corporations, she is also an approved
provider of continuing education for nurses and other disciplines and has also served as a member of the
American Nurses Association’s task force on competency and education for the nursing team members.
How to Identify the Author’s Point of
View in Historical Documents for the
GED Social Studies Test

RELATED BOOK
GED Social Studies For Dummies

By Achim K. Krull, Murray Shukyn

You will definitely see historical documents on the GED Social Studies test. The
author’s point of view is the position or attitude toward the issue or information he’s
presenting. Knowing the author’s point of view is important in determining the point he’s
trying to convey. Authors bring with them their own priorities, beliefs, and values, and
that can influence how they select and present the information.

Start by identifying the intended audience and purpose of the passage:

 Audience: The audience is comprised of the people the author is addressing. Do

you think the author is addressing the general public, his peers, people who oppose
his views, those who support his views, or some other group?

 Purpose: The purpose is the reason the author wrote the passage. Is the passage
intended to inform, tell a story, describe a situation, or persuade the audience to
believe or do something?

After sizing up the audience and purpose, you should have a fairly clear idea of the
author’s point of view. If the author is trying to convince the audience to believe or do
something, for example, he probably believes in it himself.
You can also pick up clues about the author’s point of view from the evidence presented
in the passage and the author’s word choice:

 List the information and supporting evidence presented. Has the author
omitted facts? What authorities does the author use to back up the argument or
evidence? Are these authorities themselves reliable and unbiased? If an author
omits certain facts or draws evidence from biased sources, it clues you in that the
author’s point of view is firmly on one side of an issue.

If an author uses quotations or refers to other sources, ask yourself whether these
sources are accepted and knowledgeable ones. A pattern in the selective use of
supporting evidence or authorities may indicate that the author is going to present
information with a particular, possibly biased, point of view.

 Look at the vocabulary used. Use of “loaded” words or inflammatory terms is a

strong signal that the author is biased. For example, if a passage refers to
opponents as fascists or bureaucrats, the author is using emotionally charged
language to cast his opponents in the worst possible light.

This extract from the Declaration of Independence is a good example of a passage that
expresses a strong author point of view with plenty of loaded words:

Extract from the Declaration of Independence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States.

Here’s a sample question based on this passage that requires an ability to identify the
author’s point of view:

The author of this passage believes which of the following?

 (A) Citizens should overthrow rulers they disagree with.

 (B) Rulers are tyrants.

 (C) Overthrowing an established government is likely to cause people to suffer.

 (D) Absolute tyranny and despotism are characteristics of any governing body.

Although the passage presents a very strong emotional argument defending the right and
obligation of the people to overthrow tyrannical rulers, the passage begins with a
statement that “mankind are more disposed to suffer … by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed,” as stated in Choice (C), which is the correct answer.

Choice (A) is wrong because the passage states that the people should rise up only when
the rulers are guilty of long-term tyranny and despotism that “reduces” the people.
Although the passage acknowledges that rulers can be tyrants and points to the example
of the current king, Choice (B) is an overgeneralization not made in the passage.
Likewise, Choice (D) is much broader than what the passage suggests.

The authors’ intent is to convince the reader that secession and creation of an independent
United States is a justified action. The audience is both American and British people,
both contemporary and future generations. First the document raises the obvious
objection to overthrowing existing rule: “it should not be done,” but then modifies it by
stating “lightly.” That implies that this decision was carefully considered.
The rest of the passage is a justification for revolution. The words chosen reinforce the
perception of injustices suffered by the people. In addition to their dictionary meaning,
the words despotism, usurpations, and tyranny have strong emotional overtones. By the
end of the passage, you have no doubt that the authors believe revolution is not only
justified but obligatory.

Sponsored Content


New 2019: This revolutionary portable air conditioner is breaking sales records in

PhilippinesWise Daily Savings



25 Really Cool Products That You Don't Know AboutNext Tech

New Wifi Booster Stops Expensive Internet In PhilippinesWise Web Savings

No Language is "Foreign" with This Brilliant Japanese InventionNext Tech

New WiFi Booster Stops Expensive Internet in Metro ManilaNext Tech

This Genius Device Lets You Communicate To People All Over The World In Their

Own LanguageNext Tech

Recommended by

Lesson - Tips for Analyzing an Argument

GRE Resources

Analyzing an Argument
When you "Analyze an Argument" you evaluate someone else's argument. The task
presents a brief passage in which the author makes a case for a course of action or
interprets events by presenting claims and supporting evidence. Your job will be to
examine the claims made and critically assess the logic of the author's position.

Points for Analysis

You will analyze the logic of the author's case by evaluating both the use of evidence
and the logical connections. In reading the author's argument, consider the following:

 what evidence is given?

 what conclusions are made?
 what assumptions (likely not stated) are made?
 what ramifications (perhaps not stated) would necessarily follow from the
author's argument?

Also evaluate the reasoning and structure of the argument. Look for transition words
and phrases to show the author's logical connections (e.g., however, thus, therefore,
evidently, hence, in conclusion ). Then evaluate the following:

 what leaps are being made from one point of logic to another?
 are classic logical flaws evident? *

* You will not need to address classic logical flaws by their Latin names, but you should be able
to recognize and refute common logical errors. A review of common logical flaws will be
helpful in preparation for analyzing arguments.

Key Concepts
Although you do not need to know special analytical techniques and terminology, you
should be familiar with the directions for the Argument task and with certain key
concepts, including the following:

 argument -- a claim or a set of claims with reasons and evidence offered as

support; a line of reasoning meant to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of
something
  assumption -- a belief, often unstated or unexamined, that someone must hold
in order to maintain a particular position; something that is taken for granted
but that must be true in order for the conclusion to be true

 alternative explanation -- a competing version of what might have caused the

events in question that undercuts or qualifies the original explanation because
it too can account for the observed facts

 counterexample -- an example, real or hypothetical, that refutes or disproves a

statement in the argument

 analysis-- the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its
component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up
the whole

 evaluation -- an assessment of the quality of evidence and reasons in an

argument and of the overall merit of an argument

 conclusion -- the end point reached by a line of reasoning, valid if the

reasoning is sound; the resulting assertion

What Not to Address in Your Response

An important part of performing well on the Argument task is remembering what you
are not being asked to do:

 You are not being asked to discuss whether the statements in the argument are
true or accurate.
 You are not being asked to agree or disagree with the position stated.
 You are not being asked to express your own views on the subject being
discussed (as you were in the Issue task).
Steps for Analyzing the Argument:
1) Read the argument and instructions carefully.
2) Identify the argument's claims, conclusions and underlying assumptions. Evaluate
their quality.
3) Think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as you can.
4) Think of what specific additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the
claims.
5) Ask yourself what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound.

***
You are being assessed on your ability to evaluate the logic of another writer's
argument. This is your opportunity to demonstrate your critical thinking skills,
analytical abilities, and the clarity with which you present your ideas.

Privacy | Terms of Use | FAQ | Announcements | Contact Us | All Rights Reserved

In simple terms, an explicit reason is a statement that can be or is linked to the

claim via the word/concept "because".

Bubba is guilty of murder because he killed Bobby Ray.

Claim Explicit Reason

We need to remove the Snake River dams because they are killing salmon.
Claim Explicit Reason

Claims

Claims are the single unifying idea the argument wants you to believe or is
trying to prove. In essays, this is often called the thesis.

Sometimes the source states the claim explicitly and obviously, but sometimes
it never states it at all. However, whenever possible, try to locate the claim
and quote/cite it directly.
If however, you cannot directly quote the source's claim and must come up
with a statement yourself, do so carefully and ethically; do not twist the
source's meaning to fit your own bias.

In most cases, Explicit Reasons will be proven or disproven on the basis of

evidence, and most often on the basis of factual evidence; we would need to
find factual evidence proving that Bubba killed Bobby Ray (there were
witnesses, he testified that he did, we found 'the smoking gun' in his hand
etc.); we would count salmon and figure out whether the dams were causing
those numbers to decrease.

So far, pretty easy.

Implicit Reasons

This is the hard part.

Identifying implicit reasons will do a combination of two things: it will

state/clarify/make obvious the logical principles that connect the Explicit
Reason to the Claim, and in so doing it will usually state/clarify/make obvious
the cultural principles or values that connect the Explicit Reason to the Claim.

Note that identifying the implicit reason may reveal flaws and inconsistencies in
the source’s argument. You may find, for example, that simply locating and
clearly stating the Implicit Reason disproves the argument. For this
reason, sometimes simply analyzing an argument leads directly to evaluating
it: once you’ve taken it apart, it may be obvious why it doesn’t work.

More likely, though, this process will reveal the heart of the argument and point
us to the real issues that need to be settled. If everyone agrees that Bubba shot
Bobby Ray, there’s no point spending a lot of time on this element of the
argument. The analysis may reveal that we only disagree about whether or
not the shooting was justified or intentional, so that’s where we need to invest
our time.

Normally implicit reasons are:

a) where we locate the logic of an argument: the logical connection between

the Explicit Reason and the Claim

b) found in key Assumptions and Context: when, where and why who does
what. Assumptions often infer values, and values are often dependent on
context.

To find the IR: write an “IF the IR (is true), THEN Claim (is true)” sentence.
You may need or want to broaden the Explicit Reason to state a general value or
rule. But be careful to state the line of reasoning as charitably and accurately
as possible.

For example, let’s say the argument provides compelling, seemingly valid
evidence that Bubba did indeed kill Bobby Ray. In other words, the first
explicit reason has been supported and we judge it valid. However, the
logical link between “kill” and “murder” is only implied and has yet to be
established. The difference between “kill” and “murder” will be determined
by values and context: did Bubba kill Bobby Ray on purpose, in an accident,
in self defense, during a time of war…? These will determine whether or not,
in this case, the claim is valid.

How are Implicit Reasons proven or dis-proven? In this case, the values will
be codified in the law, and the context will be determined by examining the
evidence.

Claim: "Bubba murdered Bobby Ray"

Explicit Reason: because "he shot him while in deer camp"

 Implicit Reason: "he shot him on purpose" (or IF Bubba shot Bobby Ray on
purpose, then Bubba committed murder.)

Implicit Reason: "the shooting was not somehow justified (self defense, as
an enemy combatant)" etc.
(or IF someone shoots someone on purpose and it is not for a justifiable
reason, THEN such a shooting constitutes murder.)

So, to prove our argument we would need to find evidence supporting both
the Explicit and Implicit Reasons. In this case the evidence for the Explicit
Reason would be factual (did the shooting occur as we claim) and support for
the Implicit Reason would be cultural and legal (how the laws define
"murder" vs "manslaughter" etc.)

Proving the Explicit Reason will be easy, and can be done with references
to facts, but proving the three Implicit Reasons will get messy and will
require context. Note also how each Implicit Reason will generate its own
argument.

The dam salmon example:

Implicit Reason Example:

“IF something threatens the salmon population, THEN it should be
removed”

or, without the “IF, THEN” formula, the Implicit Reason could also read:

“threats to the salmon population should be removed” or, “the value of

saving salmon outweighs the value of the dams”

Supporting Reasons

Now, for each Explicit Reason (ER), you will need two sets of information: a)
evidence that the Explicit Reason is true and b) evidence or support that the
Implicit Reason is true:

a) Locating evidence the ER is true is usually a matter of locating quotations

and/or factual information. For our example, you simply need to prove that
the dams indeed threaten the salmon population. Note proving this will be a
matter of data, of numbers and facts.

b) Locating evidence the IR is true can be trickier, as the IR is usually implied

in the overall context the source speaks to. Since the implicit reason usually
refers to values (valuing salmon, valuing dams), and because context refers to
“who, what, where, when, why”, you will usually find there are no universal
appeals to Implicit Reasons: if your farm depends on Snake River dams, you
will value the dams more than, say, if your livelihood depends on salmon
fishing.

Drake's List of The Most Common Logical Fallacies

Ad Hominem
This translates as “to the man” and refers to any attacks on the person
advancing the argument, rather than on the validity of the evidence or
logic. It’s is one thing to say that I don’t agree with you, but it’s another thing
to say that I don’t like you, and you are wrong because I don't like you; evil
people often make valid claims, and good people often make invalid claims,
so separate the claim from the person. Like the emotional appeal, the validity
of an argument has utterly nothing to do with the character of those
presenting it. Ad hominem attacks are the meat and potatoes of political
campaigns, but this is because we are, in fact, debating over who to vote for.
Once the votes have been cast, however, we do well to focus on the logic and
evidence, not those speaking the argument.

"Saddam can't have WMD's because George Bush said he does, and he's a
liar."
"Saddam must have WMD's because the UN can't find them."
"Who cares if the French oppose invading Iraq; they haven't won a war in
centuries!"
Affirming the Consequent
This is a fairly difficult fallacy to understand or spot. It is categorical in nature
and, essentially, means reversing an argument, or putting the cart before the
horse, meaning reversing or confusing the general category with the
specific/sub-category. Note that in this fallacy the premises/reasons are actually
correct or valid; the error is found between the premises and
conclusion. Usually, the error occurs because we incorrectly assume that the
Premise was a sufficient condition, when in fact it was only a necessary
condition (one of many conditions) necessary to prove the conclusion.

Fallacy Ex:
Premise: Ducks are birds.
Premise: Ducks swim in the water.
Premise: Chickens are birds.
False Conclusion: Chickens swim in the water.
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: not all birds swim in water;
swimming is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to be the thing
"bird")

Fallacy Ex:
Premise: You loved The Matrix.
Premise: Keanu Reaves is in The Matrix
Premise: Keanu Reaves is in Speed.
Conclusion: You must love Speed.
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: you may have like The Matrix even
if you don't like Keanu Reaves, or in spite of the fact that he was in it, or
maybe you liked him in it but hate him in everything else etc.)

Fallacy Ex:
Premise: Obama wants nationalized health care.
Premise: The Nazis had nationalized health care.
Conclusion: Nationalized health care will make us all Nazis!
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: "nationalized health care" is not a
sufficient reason to define the category of Nazism, any more than does
"swims in water" defines the category "birds". In fact, with the
exception of the USA, every country that fought against the Nazis now
 has nationalized health care.)
Editor's note: Obama does not, in fact, want to "nationalize healthcare".

Argument From Authority

This is the flip side of the ad hominem; in this case, the argument is
advanced because of those advancing it. But arguments from authority carry
little weight: the history of human kind is consistent in one fact: the frequency
of human error.

Sometimes fallacious arguments from authority are obvious because they are
arguments from false authorities. Supermodels who push cosmetics or pro
athletes pushing home loans or even sports equipment are likely false
authorities: first, we don’t know the supermodel or athlete uses the product at
all (odds are not), and second we can assume that the supermodel is beautiful
without the product and the pro athlete was successful without the
equipment…and that millionaire athletes probably don’t need the kind of
home loan you would.

The creationism vs. evolution debate is especially flush with false authorities
like Kent Hovind and others who freely lecture publicly on false diplomas
and credentials. This is also true with most conspiracy theory debates, such
as those surrounding the Kennedy assassination, Big Foot, the Apollo Moon
Landing Hoax etc.

To a degree, we also do well to differentiate between the different definitions

of “authority”. Authority can mean either power or knowledge. In the case
of knowledge, we often find we must trust people to help us make sense of the
vast and complex array of knowledge surrounding an issue – we do well, for
example, in courtroom trials to consult psychologists and forensic authorities
etc., or to consult with trained meteorologists, geologists, physicists, chemists
etc. when debating global warming etc. – but we should view these people
as resources for understanding the logic and evidence, rather than as those given
the final say concerning the issue.

Fallacy Ex: “The administration must know where the WMDs are or they wouldn’t
have sent American troops into look for them.” (note, this is also a non sequitur)
Fallacy Ex: "Saddam must have WMD's; the president wouldn't lie to us." (note,
this is also an either/or fallacy; not all incorrect assertions are lies)

Fallacy Ex: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were
dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat.”—Rumsfeld, May 30, 03

Argument From Ignorance or Non-Testable Hypothesis

This is the fallacy that that which has not been proven false must or is likely to
be true; however, the fallacy usually applies to concepts that haven’t yet been
adequately tested or are beyond the realm of proof. Our legal system protects us
from this fallacy under the presumption of innocence guideline – “innocent
until proven guilty”. Religious beliefs are founded on this "fallacy", but
remember that a religious belief is, by definition, based on faith, rather than
empirical proof or mathematical logic; that's what the phrase "leap of faith"
refers to.

Band Wagon
The basic fallacy of democracy: that popular ideas are necessarily right.

Of course in democracies like America popularity does play a certain degree in

determining “right”, so it’s worth keeping in mind that America and most
Western democracies are constitutional democracies, which means the political
system deliberately checks and balances mob rule with codified principles like
individual liberty and equality. Obvious examples of once popular moral and
legal positions include race based slavery, legal cocaine, American women not
being allowed to vote until 1920, prohibition (1920-1933) etc.

Fallacy Ex: "C'mon, dude, everybody's doin' it."

Begging the Question or Circular Argument

This is basically repeating the claim and never providing support for the
premises, or, in other words, repeating the same argument over and over
again. Often, dogmatic thinkers don’t even realize this is a fallacy.
Fallacy Ex: “Gay marriage is just plain wrong.”
Fallacy Ex: “Drugs are just plain bad.”
Fallacy Ex: “I can’t believe people eat dog. That’s just plain gross. Why? Because it’s
a dog, of course. How could someone eat a dog?”
Fallacy Ex: “Obviously logging causes severe environmental damage. You don’t have
to be a scientist to see that; just go out and look at a clear cut and there it is: no trees.”

Dogmatism
The unwillingness to even consider the opponent’s argument. The
assumption that even when many, perhaps millions, of other people believe
otherwise, only you can be correct. This is closely related to the Either/Or
fallacy as it’s based on the usually false assumption that competing theories or
perspectives cannot co-exist within single systems. The assumption that those
who disagree with you are “biased”, while you are “objective”.

More broadly, the over application of a theory at the expense of discussing the
actual issue, specific incidence or evidence at hand; the assertion that one’s
position is so correct that one should not even examine the evidence to the
contrary. For example, the assumption that the economic theory of capitalism
explains moral choices; or the assumption that socialism is morally wrong,
even though you attend a public university; the assumption that welfare is
wrong and all those who partake in it are lazy (even though you accept
federal financial aid or would accept state aid in the case of a catastrophic
accident or injury); the argument that drugs are morally wrong and drug
addicts should all be locked up or even executed (although you drink alcohol
and coffee and take Ritalin and your grandmother uses anti-depressants and
you are grateful your alcoholic uncle was cured via AA); the assumption that
all animals should be treated humanely (although you respect indigenous
cultures that subsist on seal meat); the assumption that because nature is holy,
all logging is morally wrong; the assumption that democratic republics are the
best form of government for all people; and on and on and on….

Either/Or or Black/White, False Dilemma, or Excluded Middle Fallacy

This fallacy simply paints an issue as one between two extremes with no
possible room for middle ground or nuance or compromise. It is closely
related to the straw man fallacy, which essentially paints one side, instead of
both, as so extreme no can agree with it.

Fallacy Ex: “You either support George Bush or you support the terrorists.”

Fallacy Ex: “You either for me or your against me.”

Fallacy Ex: “She loves me; she loves me not.”

Fallacy Ex: “You’re a German Christian? So was Hitler. You must hate Jews.”

Fallacy Ex: “You don’t support the Israeli occupation of Palestine? You must be an
anti-Semite.”

Fallacy Ex: “You support the existence of an Israeli state? You must support the
occupation of Palestine.”

Emotional Appeals
When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt
to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or
evidence, can be considered a fallacy. This includes in some but not all cases the
fallacy argument from adverse consequences, or “scare tactic”; bad things will
happen to us if you do not agree with my argument. However, if one is
arguing over whether or not bad things will occur, this is no longer a fallacy.

Fallacy of Exclusion
This is related to the Hasty Generalization, and refers to focusing attention on
one group’s behavior and assuming that behavior is unique to that group; yet,
in fact, the behavior is common to many groups. Contrast with Hasty
Generalization linked here.

The best example I’ve ever seen was in a letter to the Argonaut editor a few
years back, the week after Halloween. The letter’s author complained that
fraternities deserved their bad reputations because while wandering around
Greek row Halloween night he saw three different “frat boys”
puking. However, one might argue that had he wandered around just about
any other place kids of this age gathered on Halloween, he’d have seen the
same amount of puke.

Ex: An actual friend of mine wrote this a few years ago in response to a drunk
driving fatality newspaper story, in Nashville. In this case, the drunk driver
was an illegal alien and the victim was a US Citizen. "Oh my god, this has got
to stop! How much is too much? Why are these people [illegal aliens]
allowed to live in our country?" At first I agreed: yes, drunk drivers who kill
people should themselves be put to death! Then I realized he was referring to
illegal aliens, as if that was the cause of most, or even many, drunk driving
fatalities.

Fallacy Ex: I'd never live in NYC; it's way too dangerous! (Indeed many people
are murdered in cities, so cities appear to have a high murder rate (number of
murders per capita) Yet, there are many people in NYC, so in fact the
murder rate is lower in NYC than in many small towns.)

Fallacy Ex: Women can't drive! (If you examine the driving habits of women,
you will observe that women are poor drivers. Yet if you were to examine the
driving habits of both women and men, you’d learn that men are far more
likely to get into accidents.

Faulty Analogy
Our language functions through comparisons, and it is common and useful to
argue the validity of one point by comparing it to another, but often the
comparison suggests that two thing are more alike than they really are.

Fallacy Ex: "If we legalize gay marriage, next we'll legalize marriage between men
and their pets."

Fallacy Ex: "Iraq is another quagmire, just like Vietnam."

Fallacy Ex: "Feminazi."

Fallacy Ex: “Meat is murder.”

Hasty Generalization, Misunderstanding Statistics or Non-Representative
Sample
This normally involves mistaking a small incidence for a larger trend.

Racism is the most obvious example, especially when exposure to other races
or groups is filtered thru the media, and so you have only seen a very small
percentage of the actual group and what you’ve seen has been careful chosen
rather than due to random chance.

Ex: If you grow up in the very white state of Idaho and only see Blacks on TV,
you are likely to think that most Black men are athletes, gangster rappers or
comedians.

Ex: Fishing and hunting also frequently trick us into this fallacy; you get a hit
on your first cast and assume you’ve found the perfect spot and the ideal lure,
only to sit there getting skunked for the next hour.

Ex: Most complain about how badly women drive, and if one examines the
driving habits of women one finds that indeed they do get in many accidents.
However, they get in fewer accidents than men.

Ex: Assuming you are likely to be shot if you visit NYC, when, in fact, fewer
people are murdered, per capita, in NYC than in most rural American small
towns.

Ex: You are thinking of your old high school friend, Biff, and the phone rings
and it’s him. You conclude the two of you are magically connected.
Occam’s Razor: Random Coincidence. You’ve eliminated the literally
thousands of hours that you’ve thought of your hundreds of friends when not
a single one of them called you.

Moral Equivalency
The implication that two moral issues carry the same weight or are essentially
similar.

Ex: Equating the treatment of animals with the treatment of human beings.
Ex: Equating acts of war with murder.
Ex: Equating gay marriage with legalizing pedophilia.
Ex: Equating being a wage slave with actual slavery.
Ex: Equating all acts of war with terrorism.

Non Sequitur
Non sequitur translates as “it does not follow,” meaning that the conclusion
does not follow the premises (usually because of a faulty Implicit
Reason/Assumption/Warrant). In other words the non sequitur means there
is a logical gap between the premises or evidence and the conclusion. The non
sequitur is a broad, categorical term, and so there are many different types
of non sequitur fallacies, including post hoc, hasty generalization, slippery slope,
affirming the consequent and simply faulty assumption or warrant.

Fallacy Ex: “If you loved me you’d buy me this car.”

Fallacy Ex: “If you loved me, you’d sleep with me.”

Fallacy Ex: “I can’t believe you don’t like Speed; you loved Matrix and Keanu Reaves
is in Speed.”
Fallacy: it does not follow that all Matrix lovers love Speed; the error is that one
may love Matrix in spite of the fact that Keanu was in it (this is an Affirming The
Consequent fallacy).

A slippery slope argument, for example, is non sequitur because it does not
follow that legalizing one thing (gay marriage, medicinal marijuana)
would inevitably, necessarily or likely lead tolegalizing other things (polygamy,
or recreational marijuana use).

Post Hoc or Faulty Causality, or Correlation vs. Causation

Post hoc is the shortened version of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, which
translates as “after this, therefore because of this”. In other words, the fallacy
confuses correlation for causation, or mistakenly claiming that one thing
caused another to happen since they happen in sequence.

Correlation simply refers to two things happening at the same time, or one
thing commonly happening before another thing happens; in other words, the
frequency with which one thing occurs corresponds with the frequency with
which another occurs. Causation of course means that the one thing
occurring causes the other to occur. Post hoc refers mistaking correlation for
causation. The flaw in the argument is that often a third cause exists, which is
causing both to occur frequently, or perhaps the flaw is simply that both
things commonly occur regardless of each other.

There are a couple key points to understand about this fallacy:

First, the fallacy only occurs when both things (reasons, premises) have actually
occurred; therefore, the fallacy doesn’t apply to the future or to debates over
whether or not one thing actually occurred. For example, in order to claim
that the green-house gasses-global-warming argument is post hoc, you must
first agree that a) there is a spike in greenhouse gasses, and b) global warming
is actually occurring.

Second, most often the fallacy occurs because of a third element that is
responsible for causing both of the other elements. So, look for a “third
cause”.

Third, reasonable skepticism reveals this to be an incredibly common fallacy

in both everyday arguments and in very formal, influential, widely believed,
often “scientific arguments”. For instance, most people recover from their
colds a couple days after they take cold medication. But, of course, most
people recover from their colds if they take no cold medication
whatsoever. Many people get rich when they pray for wealth, but many
people who never pray also get rich, and many people who pray to get rich
stay poor; also, what about people who pray to other gods and get rich?

The danger rests in the degree of skepticism; extreme skepticism will reveal all
arguments post hoc, and, in fact, this is the standard argument of most defense
lawyers and traditionally all industries when it comes to questions such as
cigarettes and lung cancer, safety glass in automobiles, seat belts in
automobiles, air bags in automobiles, causes of air pollution, effects of
pollution on health and so on; normally scientists prove within a reasonable
doubt causation decades before the public and those responsible for the cause
stop crying post hoc. Current, continuing debates over post hoc include pretty
much every scientific argument that intersects with either faith (evolution,
AIDS), industry (global warming) or economic interests.
(NPR On The Media 5 minute discussion of this fallacy and flu vaccinations)

Fallacy Ex: Drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to get lung cancer,
suggesting drinking causes lung cancer. (It turns out there is a strong correlation
between consuming alcohol and developing lung cancer. The post hoc fallacy
would be asserting that alcohol consumption causes lung cancer; the actual
reason is that people who drink more also tend to smoke, or smoke more,
than non drinkers.)

Ex: Many claim that marijuana is a “gateway drug” because those who have
smoked marijuana are more likely than those who haven’t to go on to try
other drugs. The post hoc fallacy would be asserting that marijuana use leads
to increased use of other drugs; the more logical explanation is that those who
are willing to try one drug are obviously also willing to try other drugs: the
cause – willingness to try or use drugs – must necessarily exist before one tries
pot; otherwise, you wouldn’t try it in the first place.

Red Herring
This generally refers to changing the subject mid-debate, so that we start
arguing about a tangential topic rather than the real or original issue.

Ex: We start debating the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, but you
bring up the fact that believing this theory is depressing.

Ex: We start debating the evidence supporting global warming, but you bring
up the fact that believing this theory is depressing...or that Al Gore has a big
house and flies on jets a lot.

Semantics or Equivocation (also, Splitting Hairs, Playing With Words, or

Using Legalisms)
Using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the actual ideas or
issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument incorrectly, and then
addressing that rephrasing.
Fallacy Ex: "No man of woman born" can kill Macbeth (Macduff, who does kill
Macbeth, was caesarian)

Bill Clinton attempted to use this fallacy (with disastrous results!) when he
denied having "sex" with Monica Lewinski. His defense was based on the
"fact" that both the law and Webster's dictionary have a very limited
definition of "sex".

Jim Leher: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?
President Clinton: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate.” January 21,
1998

“But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm
going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss
Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.” – Bill Clinton,
January 26, 1998

"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." – Bill Clinton, Federal
Deposition

Q "Did you have sex with Ms. Lewinski."

A "I never had sex with that woman [Ms. Lewinski]." – Bill Clinton

Slippery Slope
Arguing from the perspective that one change inevitably will lead to another.

Ex: "If we legalize gay marriage, next people will want to legalize polygamy." (also
false analogy)
Ex: “Why stop at $7.25 an hour? Why not raise the minimum wage to $15 or $20 an
hour? For that matter, why not mandate the price of housing? ... If we believe
Congress has the power to raise minimum wages, where do we go next?” -- Bill
Sali, Argonaut, 2/13/07
Ex: “The inevitable result of handgun control is the government seizure of all guns.”
Ex: "What we see in El Salvador is an attempt to destabilize the entire region and
eventually move chaos and anarchy toward the American border." Ronald Reagan,
May 9, 1984
Ex: "Death Panels" In response to the House bill to reform healthcare, Rep.
John Boehner said: "With three states having legalized physician-assisted
suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive
environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide
because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of
killing
oneself." http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu
mentID=139131

Ex: "Death Panels":

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care,
but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the
cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care?
The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in
which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death
panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of
productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity
must be at the center of any health care discussion. [Sarah Palin Facebook post, 8/7/09]

(The actual Bill his here. Skip to page 428 or "find: 1233")

Straw Man
One side of the argument is presented as so extreme that no one will agree
with it. Often this is done by referring to the exception, rather than the rule,
and inferring that the exception is the rule.

Fallacy Ex: “We either leave right now or we’re never going to get there.” “All
PETA supporters support the bombing or destruction of laboratories.” “If you
surrender your freedoms, the terrorists have already won. You don’t want that, do
you?” “Hitler supported gun control, you know.”

Weasel Words or Glittering Generality

This is the use of words so broadly defined – such as “love” or “freedom” or
“rights” or “patriotism” etc. etc. – as to become essentially meaningless; no
one, and I do mean no one, on this planet, does not value love, freedom, or
rights, and most everyone is a patriot of one kind or another. It’s the “one
kind or another” nature of these words that makes them essentially pointless:
they mean something different to everyone, and so their use in an argument
frequently means nothing. “Love”, for example, refers to both sexual passion
and the nature of God or divine virtue.

Technically, their use is probably not a fallacy, but their use tends to move an
argument no where while inciting deep emotional responses. Thus, they are
rhetorically useful and logically distracting.

The current glittering generality is “terrorism” or “terrorist” as it first clearly

refers to something most people abhor and second is used so broadly it
actually applies to any act of war. This renders those involved in the “war on
terror” (itself a misnomer) as themselves “terrorists”. In the case of this word,
however, the fallacy is likely equivocation; the word has been rendered
semantically useless by having been so often misused.

Other current glittering generalities include “protecting marriage”, and “pro

choice” or “pro life”.

Failing Occam's Razor

Occam’s Razor is the scientific principle that the simplest of any given
hypotheses is likely to be the right one.

Fallacy Ex: You don’t keep up on your homework and start a paper the night before
it’s due. When it’s returned to you it has a C- grade. You conclude the grade reflects
the teacher’s ignorance or personal dislike for you.
Occam’s Razor: The paper was poorly written.

Fallacy Ex: Every guy you meet at the bar and take home turns out to use you for a
night and then dump you. You conclude all men are losers.
Occam’s Razor: Men assume, and thus dump, any woman skanky enough to
take them home from a bar.

Fallacy Ex: You drink five beers and climb behind the wheel of your father’s Ford
Explorer. When you slide off the road and roll it you blame him for not telling you the
tires where worn and letting you drive a tippy SUV, because everyone knows you can
hold your beer.
Occam’s Razor: You were drunk, idiot.

Fallacy Ex: You are thinking of your best friend, Rufus, when the phone rings and
it’s Rufus! You conclude the two of you are magically connected.
Occam’s Razor: Random Coincidence. You think of your best friend dozens if
not hundreds of times a day; he calls you a couple times a day. The odds of
him calling you once or twice a day at least once in awhile are pretty good.

Fallacy Ex: You are thinking of your old high school friend, Biff, and the phone rings
and it’s Biff! You conclude the two of you are magically connected.
Occam’s Razor: Random Coincidence. You’ve eliminated the literally
thousands of hours that you’ve thought of your hundreds of friends when not
a single one of them called you.

Fallacy Ex: You drive downtown breakfast. You start thinking of your best friend,
Skipper. You park the car and walk over to the Breakfast Club. There’s Skipper! You
conclude that the two of you are magically connected!
Occam’s Razor: The act of driving requires us to process infinite amounts of
(mostly visual) information while attending to other elements of the act, so we
unconsciously see much more than we are aware of. You probably saw
Skipper out of the corner of your eye, also, friends tend to go to the same
place. Also, where else would you go for breakfast in Moscow?

At some point in your academic career, you’ll need to know how to analyze an argument
properly. Here, tutor Andrew P. shares his guide to success…

As a college student, you’ll be expected at some point to understand, restate, comment on, or
discuss someone’s assertion (strongly stated position).
Learn new writing skills today with our in-person or online lessons!
Start Now

An argument is a reason(s) for a conclusion.

 He is dense (reason); therefore, I won’t talk with him (conclusion).
 I won’t talk with him (conclusion) because he is dense (reason).
When asked to analyze an argument, you are expected to explain how and why something works
or does not work.
 My car will not start. I realize that I left the interior lights on overnight (“you stupid idiot”)—no
analysis necessary.
 My car will not start. The battery is fairly new, and the engine started right up yesterday. So, I
open the hood. As soon as I begin probing to search for the reason, I am analyzing (whether or not I
find the answer).

To analyze an author’s argument, take it one step at a time:

 Briefly note the main assertion (what does the writer want me to believe or do?)
 Make a note of the first reason the author makes to support his/her conclusion
 Write down every other reason
 Underline the most important reason

Here’s an example, with the analysis of the argument following:

Reasonable Risk-taking
Part of my philosophy is that a life worth living involves taking reasonable
risks, whatever that may mean to a person. Without that openness,
responsiveness, a person sees very little possibility for change and can sink
into a rut of routines. I have known many who define themselves by their
routines–and little else. These are the people an American educator spoke of
when he said, “Many people should have written on their tombstones: ‘Died
at 30, buried at 60.'” How sad! I think that one of the most horrible feelings a
person must have is to be on the deathbed, regretting the many things never
tried, and many things done that cannot be undone. I live my life to minimize
possibilities of regrets, as I hope you do. Did you ever see the Sandra Bullock
movie 28 Days? She plays an alcoholic in a destructive relationship with a
guy who wants only to have fun. A staff person at the clinic where she is
sentenced to spend 28 days for rehab explained: “Insanity is repeating the
same behavior over and over and expecting different results.” Maybe more
people should watch that movie. The world may not go out of its way to help
you–the world does not owe us fairness–but the world is there with more
possibilities than most of us imagine. If we are responsible to ourselves–and
response-able, we can continue growing in directions that are good for us.
We do not need to understand the future, which, after all, does not exist, has
not yet been created.
Main assertion: Worthwhile life = taking reasonable risks

Reasons:
 Being open to possibilities vs rut of routines
 Dying with regrets for actions and inactions is horrible
 Repeating same behaviors will prevent change
 Ability to respond to new possibilities, including risks, results in growth

You can now summarize the author’s position and, if required, agree or disagree in part or in
whole, offering examples from your own experiences.

Complicated, huh? Yes, it is, until you get used to developing such a reaction paper. A writing
tutor can be very helpful in guiding you through this process of how to analyze an argument, step
by step, until you feel confident working with this important college skill.

Andrew P. teaches English and writing in Milton, VT, as well as through

online lessons. He taught English courses at colleges and universities in five states for 35 years
before retiring in 2013. Learn more about Andrew here!

Interested in Private Lessons?

Search thousands of teachers for local and live, online lessons. Sign up for convenient, affordable private
lessons today!

Search for Your Teacher

Photo by LOLItsLloyd

Related

Intro to Writing Types: 5 Types to Know

August 19, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"
How to Score a 5 on the AP English Language and Composition Exam
August 28, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"

How To Pass a Test You Aren't Ready For |Test Taking Strategies
October 12, 2014
In "Other - Academics"

8 Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Paper

December 10, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"
Why Is College Writing So Much Harder Than High School?
July 8, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"

Wanna Be a Music Major? 10 Guitar Strategies for a Successful College Audition

August 10, 2015
In "Guitar"

How to Write a Book: Advice From a Published Author

May 18, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"
7 Simple Steps for Journalistic Writing
July 7, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"

5 Tips for Acing Your Composition Writing Class

October 21, 2014
In "TakeLessons Teachers"
Home › Academic Tutoring › Writing Lessons › Writing Articles › How to Analyze an Argument in an
Essay | 4 Easy Steps

IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING ARGUMENTS INTRODUCTION

Welcome to Laurier Library's presentation on "Identifying and
Analyzing Arguments" This presentation will explain the steps
you should take to create strong and effective arguments from
the academic sources you discover through your research. By the
end of this presentation, you should be able to understand the
characteristics of an argument, identify those arguments that
you find within an academic paper, and analyze those
arguments. Let's begin! IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS An argument,
in the context of your university career, is a formal way to make
a point in academic writing. This remains distinct from the "real
world" definition where an argument might mean a fight or a
conflict. An argument consists of two parts. 1. Firstly, a claim or
statement that summarizes the main idea 2. and secondly,
reasons why that claim is true, and/or evidence to support that
claim. Let's look at an example. Reflective writing can help
students become better thinkers. It can help students see that
ideas are meant to be discussed and debated. Bridges and Jost
found that students who did weekly reflective journal writing
about their course content for a semester could analyze course
concepts at a deeper level than those who didn’t (131). In this
case, the sentence "Reflective writing can help students become
better thinkers" is the claim. The claim is expanded upon in the
next sentence, "It can help students see that ideas are meant to
be discussed and debated." Finally, evidence is presented, often
in the form of a citation. Here, we read that "Bridges and Jost
found that students who did weekly reflective journal writing
about their course content for a semester could analyze course
concepts at a deeper level than those who didn't." This evidence
supports the originally presented claim and its expansion. This
diagram displays a recommended argument structure which
should be utilized in a universitylevel essay. 1. A main argument,
or thesis, is presented first. 2. Then, different sections are
formed with the purpose of supporting the main argument. 3.
Within those sections, we find paragraphs which hold the
purpose of supporting the sections that support the thesis. Page
2 of 5 Utilizing this type of hierarchy structure is an excellent way
to ensure that your essay stays on track and continues to argue
what it sets out to argue. Let's move on to identifying arguments
within academic writing. When reading, you will need to identify
arguments in order to properly understand the main points. In
paragraphs, a topic sentence often identifies the main claim or
idea of the paragraph. This is usually the first sentence, but not
always. To find it, follow the following steps: 1. Firstly, read the
paragraph. 2. Next, ask "What is this paragraph about?" 3.
Thirdly, summarize the content in your own words, and lastly,
find the sentence within that paragraph that best matches that
summary. This is likely the stated claim of the paragraph. Most
other sentences in the paragraph provide reasons and evidence
to support the claim made in the topic sentence. Reasons and
evidence explain why and how the claim is true, and usually
consists of quotes or ideas from other scholars, data, or facts.
Let's look at an example. Let's take for example the following
paragraph: The story of Disney's "The Lion King" draws direct
inspiration from Shakespeare's "Hamlet". Simba represents
Hamlet, the successor of the King/Mufasa, who swears revenge
on his evil uncle Scar/Claudius. Likewise, Simba's best friend Nala
represents both Ophelia, a love interest, and Horatio, a best
friend. Take a minute and follow the four-step process to
determine the stated claim. Click "Continue" when you have an
answer in mind. After reading the paragraph, it seems clear that
the author is comparing "The Lion King" to "Hamlet". More
specifically, it is saying that the similarities between the two are
too great to be only coincidences. As a result, it would appear as
though the best 'sentence' match to this summary would be the
first sentence. This is likely the stated claim. It is important to
note that not all paragraphs have topic sentences. If there isn't
one, identify the important ideas in the paragraph, then look at
what they have in common and summarize that to get the main
claim or idea. Let's look at an example. Take, for example, the
following paragraph. According to a paper published in the
journal 'Science', people in America living near coal-fired power
stations are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living
near nuclear power plants. In addition, despite popular belief,
the production of nuclear energy results in a lower yearly death
rate compared to coal energy production. This paragraph does
not appear to contain a topic sentence. Follow the three-step
process to determine what the stated claim might be. Click
"Continue" once you have an answer in mind. Page 3 of 5 This
paragraph discusses a couple comparisons between nuclear
energy and coal-fired energy production. Specifically, it gives
two examples where coal-fired energy production is more
dangerous than nuclear energy production. To summarize, you
might say that "Despite popular belief, nuclear energy
production is actually quite a bit safer as a whole than coal-fired
energy production." This is the stated claim. You will find that
this process works the same way when identifying main
arguments or section arguments. Sometimes such arguments
will have explicitly stated topic or thesis sentences, and
sometimes not. If not, identify the important ideas, see what
they have in common, put them in groups if needed, and
summarize the main idea based on those groups. ANALYZING
ARGUMENTS We will now move onto analyzing arguments.
Usually you are expected, both for your course readings and for
your assignments, to identify and understand the arguments
that the author is making. You are also expected to analyze these
arguments. In order to begin analyzing an argument, you must
first look at the evidence presented to you, then ask questions
based on that evidence. Ask questions like,  "Based on the
evidence, is there a different explanation or claim possible?" 
"Is the evidence convincing and sound?"  "How does the
argument/evidence compare with others you've read?" You will
likely find two authors who make different claims on the same
topic. How do they each support their claims with reasons and
evidence? Let's look at an example. Every citizen should have
access to a free, universal health care system. This would allow
medical professionals to concentrate on healing their patients
rather than dealing with insurance procedures and liability
concerns. Each person has a right to be cared for and having
access to free medical services provides patients with the
opportunity for regular checkups when otherwise they may not
be able to afford them. Universal health care is an impractical
system where total costs end up being much higher compared to
privatized care. Doctor flexibility is decreased due to
government policy and those that are healthy are forced to
subsidize the health benefits for smokers and those that are
obese. Everyone should be given access to health care, but not
in a publically-controlled system. These two passages each
reflect an opinion about a universal health care system. Although
each paragraph discusses the same topic, they both claim very
different things. Page 4 of 5 The upper paragraph argues that
universal health care gives doctors the opportunity to focus on
care over insurance concerns while the bottom argues that
doctor flexibility is decreased in such a system due to intrusive
government policy. The upper paragraph argues that universal
health care gives everyone the opportunity for regular checkups,
no matter the cost while the bottom argues that such a system
forces the healthy to subsidize benefits for those needing care
due to smoking or obesity. Ultimately, each author supports his
claim with effective reasoning. As you read, make sure you
understand the claims that the author is trying to make.
PRACTICE Let's take some time to practice a few of things we just
went over. Click "Continue" to begin a series of multiple choice
questions which will help test the skills you just learned. Best of
luck! What is the main idea of paragraph 1? “Digital piracy is not
killing the music industry. History has shown that formats shift
and change depending on consumer preferences. LPs and
cassettes have been phased out to make room for CDs. With the
current shift from physical to digital, consumers have the
freedom to purchase individual tracks instead of whole albums,
a move than explains the drop in album sales and as a result,
overall profits.” a) As a result of piracy, overall album sales
dropped b) Consumers prefer digital media over physical media
c) Digital piracy is not killing the music industry d) LPs and
cassettes have been phased out to make room for CDs (Answer
is at the end) What is the main idea of paragraph 2? “When a
consumer product in some way has a negative impact on society,
governments often move to place high taxes on those products
to discourage use, for example high taxes on cigarettes and
alcohol. Obesity should be viewed in the same light. With the
high availability of soft drinks and junk food at an affordable low
price, consumers are all but discouraged from eating healthy. A
tax on such products would discourage mass purchasing and
positively impact our society by curbing obesity rates.” a) High
taxes on a product discourage use b) Low prices and high
availability of junk foods results in an increased obesity rate c)
Taxes on healthy food items should be reduced Page 5 of 5 d) To
encourage healthy eating, higher taxes should be imposed on
soft drinks and junk food (Answer is at the end) Hopefully you
found these problems to be helpful in solidifying your
understanding. Make sure to utilize these skills as you continue
through your university career. This brings us to the end of our
presentation. Thanks for watching and good luck! Answers to
practice questions: Paragraph 1: c) Digital piracy is not killing the
music industry Paragraph 2: d) To encourage healthy eating,
higher taxes should be imposed on soft drinks and junk food.