"A Rulebook for Arguments" by Anthony Weston

• “To give an argument” means to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion
• Arguments are efforts to support certain views with reasons.
• Arguments is essential, in the first place, because it is a way of finding out which views are better than others. Not all views are equal.
• Some conclusions can be supported by good reasons. Others have much weaker support.
• Once we have arrived at a conclusions that is well supported by reasons, we use arguments to explain and defend it.
• That is how you will convince others: by offering the reasons and evidence that convinced you.
• It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else.
• We have to put aside our desires and our opinions for a while and actually think.
• The very first step in making an argument is to ask yourself what you are trying to proves.
• Remember the conclusion is the statement for which you are giving reasons.
• You may have to try several different arguments before you find one that works well.
• No matter how well you argue from premises to conclusion, your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak.
• If you find you cannot argument adequately for your premises, then, of course, you need to try some other premise!
• Avoid abstract, vague, and general terms.
• In general, if you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you probably just don’t understand it yet.
• [A good] arguments repeats its key terms, while [a bad] argument uses a new phrase for each key idea every time the idea recurs.
• Re-using the same key phrases can feel repetitive, of course, so you may be tempted to reach for your thesaurus. Don’t go there! The logic depends on clear connections between premises and between premises and conclusion.
• It remains essential to use a consistent term for each idea.
• If none of the premises can be supported, there is no argument at all.
• A single example can sometimes be used for the sake of illustration. But a single example offers next to no support for a generalization.
• Generalizations about larger sets of things require picking out a sample. How many examples are required depends partly on how representative they are. It also depends partly on the size of the set being generalized about.
• In general, look for the most accurate cross-section you can find of the population being generalized about.
• To evaluate the reliability of any argument featuring a few vivid examples, then, we need to know the ratio between the number of “hits”, so to speak, and the number of tries.
• Be wary of numbers that are easily manipulated.
• Pollsters know very well that the way a question is asked can shape how it is answered.
• Counterexamples are examples that contradicts your generalizations.
• [Looking for counterexamples] is the best way to sharpen your own generalizations and to probe more deeply into your theme.
• Analogies require relevant similarities.
• No one can be an expert through direct experience on everything there is to know.
• To nail down the argument, you need to call upon a fully cited source.
• Sources must be qualified to make the statements they make.
• Note also that authorities on one subject are not necessarily informed about every subject on which they offer opinions.
• Truly informed sources rarely expect others to accept their conclusions simply because they assert them. Most good sources will offer at least some reasons or evidence--examples, facts, analogies, other kinds of arguments--to help explain and defend their conclusions.
• People who have the most at stake in a dispute are usually not the best sources of information about the issues involved.
• The truth as one honestly sees it can still be biased.We tend to see what we expect to see.
• Look for impartial sources: people or organizations who do not have a stake in the immediate issue, and who have a prior and primary interest in accuracy, such as (some) university scientists or statistical databases.
• For political matters, especially when the disagreements are basically over statistics, look to independent government agencies, such as the Census Bureau, or to university studies or other independent sources.
• Be sure that your sources genuinely independent and not just interest groups masquerading under an independent-sounding name.
• Sources that make extreme or simplistic claims, or spend most of their time attacking and demeaning the other side, weaken their own claims.
• Good arguments cite their sources; look them up. Make sure the evidence is quoted correctly and not pulled out of context, and check for further information that might be helpful.
• Don’t rely on a web site at all unless you have some idea of its source.
• The evidence for a claim about causes is usually a correlation--a regular association--between two events or kinds of events.
• Inverse correlations (that is, where an increase in one factor correlates to a decrease in another) may suggest causality too.
• Exploring correlations is also a scientific research strategy.
• Arguments from correlation to cause are often compelling.
• The problem is simply that any correlation may be explained in multiple ways. It’s often not clear from the correlation itself how best to interpret the underlying causes.
• Don’t assume that every little oddity must have some nefarious explanation. It’s hard enough to get the basics right. Neither you nor anyone else needs to have an answer for everything.
• Causes and effects may interpenetrate as well. Often the most interesting causal stories are loops!
• A (properly formed) deductive argument is an argument of such a form that if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true too. Properly formed deductive arguments are called valid arguments.
• Modus ponens: If P then Q. P. Therefore, Q.
• Modus tollens: If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.
• Hypothetical syllogism: If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore, if P then R.
• Hypothetical syllogisms are valid for any number of premises, as long as each premise has the form “If P then Q” and the Q (called the “consequent”) of one premise becomes then P (the “antecedent”) of the next.
• Disjunctive syllogism: P or Q. Not P. Therefore, Q.
• Dilemma: P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. Therefore, R or S.
• Rhetorically, a dilemma is a choice between two options both of which have unappealing consequences.
• One traditional deductive strategy deserves special mention even though, strictly speaking, it is only a version of modus tollens. This is the reductio ad absurdum, that is, a “reduction to absurdity.”
• Arguments by reductio establish their conclusions by showing that assuming the opposite leads to absurdity: to a contradictory or silly result.Nothing is left to do, the argument suggests, but to accept the conclusions.
• Reductio ad absurdum: To prove: P. Assume the opposite: Not P. Argue that from the assumption we’d have to conclude Q. Show that Q is false/contradictory/absurd/etc. Conclude: P must be true after all.
• Once you have spelled out your basic ideas as an argument, it will need defense and development.
• Always ask: What are the best arguments against the conclusion you are working on?
• Most actions have many effects, not just one. Maybe some of the other effects--ones you haven’t looked at yet--are less desireable.
• Launch straight into the real work. No windy windups or rhetorical padding.
• If you are making a proposal, be specific.
• Similarly, if you are making a philosophical claim or defending your interpretation of a text or event, begin by stating your claim or interpretation simply.
• Writers--at all levels-- need feedback. It is through others’ eyes that you can see best where you are unclear or hasty or just plain implausible. Feedback improves your logic too.
• Feedback is a “reality check” all the way around--welcome it.
• The truth is that every single piece of writing you read is put together by someone who starts from scratch and makes thousands of choices and multiple revisions along the way.
• Development, criticism, clarification, and change are the keys. Feedback is what makes them go.
• Don’t claim more than you’ve shown.
• One way to reach out is through your own enthusiasm. Bring some of your own interest and energy for the topic into your wall early on. It personalizes you and notches up the energy in the room.
• Never give an audience the feeling that you are talking down to them. They may know less than you do about the subject, but they can certainly learn, and it is pretty likely that you have some learning to do too.
• Again, approach your audience from enthusiasm, not some sort of superiority.
• All arguments--not just oral arguments--should try to offer something positive.
• An audience’s optimism and excitement can be infectious, and it can become a power of its own, as can a sense of gloom and disempowerment.
• Fallacies are misleading types of arguments. Many of them are so tempting, and therefore so common, that they even have their own names. This may make them seem like a separated and new topic. Actually, though, to call something a fallacy is usually just another way of saying that it violates one of the rules for good arguments.
• Arguments ad populum are good examples of bad arguments from authority.
• Begging the questions: Implicitly using your conclusion as a premise.
• Real-life circular arguments often follow a bigger circle, but they all eventually end up starting in the same place they want to end.
• Equivocation: Sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument.
• Red herring: Introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.
• Usually the red herring is an issue about which people get heated quickly, so that no one notices how their attention is being diverted.
• Some arguments require attention to the meaning of words. Sometimes we may not know the established meaning of a word, or the established meaning may be specialized.
• Often times, a term may be in popular use but still unclear.
• When terms are unclear, get specific.
• Use concrete, definite terms rather than vague ones. Be specific without narrowing the term too much.
• Sometime s a term is contested. That is, people argue over the proper application of the term itself. In that case, it’s not enough simply to propose a clarification.
• When a term is contested, you can distinguish three relevant sets of things. On set includes those things to which the term clearly applies. The second includes those things to which the term clearly does not apply. In the middle will be those things whose status is unclear--included the things being argued over.
• In short, definitions contribute to clarity, but seldom do they make arguments all by themes.
• Clarify your terms--know exactly what questions you’re asking--but don’t expect that clarity alone will answer them.