Argument Synonyms, Argument Antonyms -

In the absence of conviction, arguments tend to lack coherence or force. Yet from the outside, an argument with endless different reasons is much less persuasive than one with focus and precision on a small number of reasons. The debate in the UK about forming an argument or not to stay in the EU was a great example of this. The Remain campaign had dozens of different reasons. Car manufacturing! Cleaner beaches!

Key workers for the NHS! Medical research links! Economic opportunities! The difficulty of overcoming trade barriers! The Frankenstein critical essay Irish border! Meanwhile, the Leave campaign boiled their argument down to just one: membership of the EU means relinquishing control. Leaving it means taking back control. And despite most expectations and the advice of most experts, the simple, straightforward message won.

Voters struggled to remember the many different messages put out by the Remain campaign, as compelling as each of those reasons might have been; but they remembered the message about taking back control.

One of the most commonly used rhetorical fallacies is the Strawman Fallacy. A turn into counterargument here and there will sharpen and energize your essay, but too many such turns will have the reverse effect by obscuring your main idea or suggesting that you're ambivalent. Counterargument in Pre-Writing and Revising.

Good thinking constantly questions itself, as Socrates observed long ago. But at some point in the process of composing an essay, you need to switch off the questioning in your head and make a case. Having such an inner conversation during the drafting stage, however, can help you settle on a case worth making. As you consider possible theses and begin to work on your draft, ask yourself how an intelligent person might plausibly disagree with you or see matters differently.

When you can imagine an intelligent disagreement, you have an arguable idea. The conclusion may be true, but the reasons do not give good reason to accept it. The premises are plausible, that is, must have good reason to believe that the premises are true. Please remember these three criteria; they form the basis of much that we will do in this course.

Sometimes I will refer to these three rules in short hand fashion, as when I say a good argument must 1 have true premises, 2 be valid or strong, 3 premises more plausible than conclusion. An argument, pleaes note that sometime I will not make reference to the last of the three criteria, which is not nearly as important as the first two.

The next several lessons will be devoted to understanding these three criteria. We can dispense with the third criteria rather quickly. A good argument is one in which the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. This criteria means that an argument is not good if the conclusion is nothing more than a restatement of the premises, or when the conclusion rests upon a highly dubious doubtful premise or premises.

I am Adrian's best friend. I'm sure of this because she told me so, and I know she wouldn't lie to her best friend.

My premise that Adrian wouldn't lie to her best friend assumes the truth of the conclusion that I am Adrians best friend. We say that such an argument is circular; the argument is like a circle, you assume the premise to accept the conclusion, but you must assume the conclusion to accept the premise. We also say that such an argument begs the question. An argument that is circular, or which begs the question, fails to meet criteria three.

Writing an argument

My father was murdered by his brother my uncle. I know this because the ghost of my father told me so. In this argument derived from Shakespeare's Hamletthe speaker supports his conclusion with a premise that is highly dubious. Since it is writing an argument more plausible than the conclusion itself, this argument fails to meet criterion three.

The term ad hominem is used to refer to a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.

This usage is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in preth Century usages. Ad hominem fallacies are considered to be uncivil and do not make an argument creating a constructive atmosphere for dialogue to flourish.

It is so powerful of an argument it has been employed in many political debates. Since it is associated with negativity and dirty tricks, it has gained a bad fame, of being always fallacious.

Eithan Orkibi, having studied the Israeli politics prior to elections, described two other forms of ad hominem attacks that are common during election periods. They both depend on the collective memory shared by both proponents and the audience.

The first is the precedential ad hominem, according to which the previous history of someone means that he does not fit for the office. It goes like this: "My opponent was allegedly wrong in the past, therefor he is wrong now".

The second one, is a behavioral ad hominem: "my opponent was not a descent in his arguments in the past, so he is not now either". This kind of attacks are based on the inability of the audience to have a clear view of the statistical percentage of fault statements by both parts of the debate.

What is an Argument?

Canadian academic and author Douglas N. Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc. The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality or moral claimsand contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established of philosophical naturalism.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. See also: List of fallacies.

Although a re-evaluation of this evidence may lead you towards developing an argument dissertation revised thesis, it does not necessarily have to. Ask yourself: why did I interpret the text in this way? What might this contradictory evidence suggest about my thesis? The academic discipline of English is very heavily based on scholarly argumentative, thesis driven writing as most disciplines are.

However, it is the study of literature that has classically lent itself to and gone hand-in-hand with writing instruction in the academic imagination. These students quickly discover that this simply is not the case and will not cut it at the college level and beyond.

Forming an argument

So why learn it? We hope this guide will help you understand what this model is NOTbut more importantly what it IS and how it should be used to help you better understand the complex inner working of effective academic writing.

And most importantly, you will limit yourself and miss the chance to fully engage critically with the material and your understanding of it. Use of this model is not to box yourself in and make everything fit into five paragraphs this is, for the most part, impossible to do with information at this point in your academic careerbut to get an idea of how the parts of your essay work together to give your reader and, in many ways, as you are writing it, yourself your argument.

How you do that is up to you. You may end up with three main parts of your argument. Maybe you have one. Maybe seven. Maybe your introduction is two paragraphs long.Them's Fightin' Words Them's Fightin' Words 8 Words to describe a brawl Thesaurus Entries near an argument argufy argufying arguing argument argumentation argumentations argumentative.

Accessed 27 Feb. Please tell us where you read or heard it including the quote, if possible. Test Your Knowledge - and learn some interesting things along the way. Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search-ad free! Have some king cake on us.

Read More on This Topic. In logic an argument consists of a set of statements, the premises, whose truth supposedly supports the truth of a single statement called….

Developing an argument dissertation

Learn More in these related Britannica articles: fallacy. Fallacyin logic, erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness. Austin Cline. Atheism Expert.

Austin Cline, a former regional director for the Council for Secular Humanism, writes and lectures extensively about atheism and agnosticism. Updated March 08, An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition. Here are examples of assertions:. Shakespeare wrote the play Hamlet. The Civil War was caused by disagreements over slavery.

How to win an argument

God exists. Prostitution is immoral. There are two main types of argument: deductive, and inductive. I like about. Or, in other words: the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Or in other words: the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. For an argument that has a form appropriate for the use of title formal oral or writtenthis is the opportunity to make that first impression.

Regardless of how you set it up, the main point is to blend naturally into your main argument, which is defined by your thesis statement. Argumentation is the process of conducting an argument. The opposite is a "weak argument" or an "unconvincing argument". An argument can be valid or invalid or a combination of both. Some arguments may appear reasonable, but they turn out to be misleading or wrong.

Media related developing an argument dissertation Argument maps at Wikimedia Commons.