Topics in this Section
What Is An Argument?Everyone of us has at least some experiences concerning the need to convince others, to get one's point across so that others who we are talking with believe what we are trying to show them. When we are doing this, we are said to be arguing, or making arguments. Basically, arguments are set of words that purport to change someone beliefs in a particular topic. For example, if someone tries to show that raising the weight limit of trucks on the street is a good thing and presents reasons to support that view, he is presenting an argument in favor of raising the weight limit of trucks. Or if I say to you Chula students should not wear uniforms anymore because wearing uniforms is a symbol of authoritarian power having no place in a university, then I am making an argument also.
In fact there are more ways of getting other people to believe what we'd like them to believe besides using arguments. Suppose someone approaches you in the dark and try to convince you that the money in your wallet belongs to him rather than to you, and he is supporting his "argument" by pointing a sharp knife at your throat. What would you do? Would you believe that the money really belongs to him, would you change your mind regarding the owner of the money in question in this situation? Not at all, right? His "argument" that the money belongs to him to totally unconvincing. Actually it is not an argument at all, for an argument has to be an attempt to change one's mind through the use of reasons only. The reason you give the money to him is, of course, not because you really believe what he is saying, but you fear that you will be stabbed to death if you don't oblige. If anything, an argument cannot be anything like that. For an argument to work, whatever that supports the point the one who is making the argument is trying to get others to believe must be such that the others would believe the point through their own free will, through their own thinking and deliberation, not because they are forced to do so by a knife or other kinds of weapons.
Thus we can have a look at what an argument consists of. Suppose someone is trying to change people's belief, arguing that raising the weight limit of trucks would do more good than harm, and he is presenting reasons to support that view. What we have here is that his whole set of words that together comprise the argument can be divided into two parts, namely the part on the point the arguer is trying to get across, and the reasons or evidence used to support that point. Every argument has to consist of these two parts. They are both essential, in that if the set of words lack one part, then that would not be an argument at all. For example, if the one who is arguing for raising the weight limit just presents his own point without any supporting reasons, then how would he bring others to believe the point? The point might in fact be a good one, in that it might be actually true that raising the weight limit would do more good than harm, but how could he change other people's beliefs if he presents no reasons supporting the view? On the other hand, merely presenting reasons or evidence without stating what they are supposed to support would just confuse the listeners, for they would have to clue at all what these reasons are for. These two parts are known as "conclusion" and "premise" respectively.
Why Do We Need Arguments?It should be obvious by now why arguments are so important. Someone might think that to try to change someone else's mind sounds like not a really good thing to do. What is the use of trying to get others to believe the same as we do. Why bother? Why don't let people believe what they want and let the matter stand as it is? But an argument, if it is really sound--if it is inherently convincing--shows that the conclusion is something that all rational persons should believe. Now if we want reason to prevail instead of brute force, we have all the reasons to prefer rational arguments than weapon wielding. But why should we prefer reasons? This question is in fact not an easy one to answer. It can be pointed, however, out that brute force is not a good thing. Everybody seems to agree on this point. And if we have a maniac who believes in brute force rather than arguments, then we feel that he cannot be allowed to ramapage and to wield his brute force around. It should be obvious for us, since I assume that you are capable of thinking for yourselves and are aware of the dangers of letting brute force rule. But is the point really obvious to the maniac? If the maniac is such that he will not listen to reasons, what is the point of arguing with him? That is why I said that the question is difficult to answer satisfactorily. The advantage of reasoning and arguments is obvious only to those who already believe in their power; that is, to those who are rational. To an irrational person there is no use to talk with him anyway.
The skills of argumentative writing you will learn and practice in this course are also highly practical. Imagine you are working in a large corporation and you are trying to convince the board that the company should invest in mass producing a new type of washing detergent which the scientific division has just created and patented. You need to convince the board that the investment will definitely be returned and profits made. What would you say or do to the board? Presenting a pistol and waving it in the meeting room? No, you use words and reasons; that is, you need a series of strong, convincing arguments; otherwise, there is little hope of convincing the board.
So we need arguments because we need to believe some propositions in the same way. And because there are numerous concrete situations in which we need to bring others to "see the point." That is essential if we are to join hands to do something together. And unless we have a number of shared beliefs, communication among us is not nearly possible. Here are the global reasons why arguments are indeed essential. And in the practical context concerning each one of you, the skills of argumentation will certainly carry far in your career. Not only will you know how to present a case clearly and convincingly, your thinking and conceptualizing abilities will also develop. Moreover, the society as a whole develops if its members know how to think and how to reason.
Structure of an ArgumentThe conclusion of an argument is just what that argument is trying to show; it is the point the arguer is trying to get across so that others believe it. A conclusion is supported by premises, which are reasons or evidence used to support the conclusion. An argument might consist of many premises, but has only one conclusion, because if there are more than one conclusion, that would make it more than one arguments. The premises that support a conclusion might in fact be themselves supported by other, deeper premises. In this case the premise is the conclusion of the deeper premises. Let us study this example closely; the sentences are numbered for reference later:
(1)We should raise the weight limit of trucks on the nation's highways from 21 to 28 tons. (2)Firstly, most trucks plying the highways weight much more than the legal limit already. (3)Some weight as much as 35 tons or more. Amending the law in order to raise the legal limit will make the law correspond to reality. (4)Secondly, the current problem of the highway police extorting bribes from truckers would be eliminated. (5)The reason is if the limit is raised, truckers would have no more reason to exceed the limit, and the police would be unable to extort bribes.
The conclusion of the argument (sentence (1)) is clear. We should raise the legal weight limit of trucks on the nation's highways. The premises are many, but can be divided into two groups, both of which provide reasons in support of the conclusion. The first reason (sentence (2)) is that the trucks already exceed the limit anyway, and the second (sentence (4)) is that raising the limit will reduce bribe taking by the police. Each of the reasons or premises are themselves supported by further reasons as you can see. These further reasons are premises also, for they support their respective reasons. The whole structure of the argument can be shown in the following diagram:
(1)
^
/ \
(2) (4)
^ ^
/ \
(3) (5)
Here sentence (1) is the conclusion. It is supported by the two main premises, (2) and (4). Sentence (2) itself is supported by (3), and (4) by (5). Here we can say that sentence (2) is a premise of (1), since it supports the latter, and is the immediate conclusion of (3).
In this course there is not enough time to discuss this matter fully. However, you will have a chance to study this in more detail later on when you study Philosophy and Logic.
Basic Rules for Writing Short ArgumentsIn the first class that we met I presented some rules on writing short argumentative essays. Here they are again. They might not look exactly the same as the ones you saw in the lecture, but the basic content remains the same:
Here is the most important rule of writing arguments. If you don't make clear in your writing what is the conclusion, then your writing can't really be called an argument at all, for the reader would not be able to know which statement or point you are making. Let's look at this example:
Chula students usually wear uniforms. Girls wear them more often than boys. On the uniforms there is the Pra Keow symbol, which is the university's symbol. I like to see Chula students wear uniforms. They look so cool. The university also requires students to wear uniforms, especially during exams.
This is actually not an argument at all. The reader has no clue which point the writer is pushing for. Reading the passage, one has a vague idea that the writer might be arguing for Chula students to continue wearing uniforms, but there is no way to be sure. Since he does not single out which of the sentences in the passage is the conclusion, the whole passage fails as an argument.
Compare the above passage with this one:
Chula students should wear uniforms. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it has been our tradition for a long time. Students have always worn uniforms; though girls wear it more often than boys. Besides, the Pra Keow, symbol of Chulalongkorn University, is on every uniform. Thirdly, the university requires students to wear uniforms anyway, and the last point is that uniforms are so cool.
Here it is clear that the first sentence is the conclusion. Then the other sentences provide supports for it. Thus this passage is much more powerful; the reader has a clear idea what the writer is pushing for.
Look at this example:
This new washing detergent is much better than those in the market today. The Board should invest in this new product. It contains a very powerful compound which cleans fast. If the Board does not invest, then the company risks losing the market share to our rivals. The chemical compound is friendly to the environment. We could market the new product emphasizing this fast action.
Now this passage has a conclusion: The Board should consider investing in this new washing detergent. But it is difficult to know the reasons for this. In fact it is also difficult to know the conclusion itself! You might know already why this is so. The ideas are jumbled together without logical connection and progression. The first sentence talks about the superior quality of the new product. Then the writer jumps to the conclusion. After that he returns to the quality of the detergent again. Then he speculates on what would happen if the Board decided not to invest, and so on. The whole argument could have been made much more powerful if the ideas are grouped together so that the same ideas go together in a logical manner.
Suppose we rearrange this argument to make it more coherent, it might look like this:
The new washing detergent contains a very powerful compound which cleans fast and is friendly to the environment. This shows that the new product is much better than the ones in the market today. Indeed we could market this new product emphasizing its fast action and its friendliness to the environment. Thus the Board should consider investing in this new product. It might be the case that if the Board decided not to, the company might risk losing the market share to its competitors.
This passage is clearly better than the other one. The first sentence opens with introducing the new product. This supports the idea in the second and third sentences. The fourth sentence states the conclusion, which is further supported by another reason in the last sentence.
If you clearly state the conclusion and present the ideas in a logical order, but if the language itself is confusing, then the point you want the reader to get might be lost. It is difficult for us to write well in English because we are not native speakers of the language. But since you have chosen to study in this international program, you are required to learn English well fast. A very good way to do that is to write a lot, and this course is designed to help you do just that.
Though writing good English is very difficult, it is not impossible. First of all you have to be very clear about the ideas you have in mind. Think it through and through. If you find yourself stuck and don't know how to express the ideas in English, try thinking in Thai first and then try to translate it into English afterwards. However, you should not do this too often because it can become a habit easily and you might find yourself having to translate everything you want to say in English (which considerably slows you down, especially when you are talking.) When you are about to write, try to construct sentences which are not too long and make sure the meaning gets across as you exactly want it. Secondly, choose words which are unambiguous in meaning. Some people 'cheat,' so to speak, when they argue by subtly changing the meaning of the same word they use in their argument. We will deal with this topic later on. Right now just make sure you really know the meaning of each word you use. When you are in doubt, consult a dictionary. It goes without saying that a student should never stay away from a good dictionary, especially when you are in an international program.
In order to be able to write good English, make sure you gain the most from your English courses. These courses are designed to help you with the necessary skills for communicating effectively in the language.
Consider this example. Suppose you are arguing that Chula students should not wear uniforms anymore and your reason is that Chula students work hard. It is obvious that this argument does not work. What is the connection between working hard and the fact that Chula students should wear uniforms? One does not see a connection at all. If you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion, then there is no hope of convincing the reader.
This kind of connection we are talking about is a special one. We call it "logical connection" between it deals with the relation between premises and their conclusion in an argument. A relation between conclusion and premise is said to be connected logically when the premise provides support for the conclusion in such a way that the conclusion is convincing by virtue of the premise. Thus to argue that Chula students should wear uniforms because they work hard is not an example of logical connection, but if you argue that they should wear uniforms because wearing uniforms are cheaper than wearing normal clothes, then one can see some connection between the two part. And the conclusion in this argument is more convincing than the other one. So there is a logical connection between the two.
In this course there is not enough time to deal with the issue of logical connection fully. But you will certainly have such a chance when you study Philosophy and Logic later on in your program (probably in the second year). For now we will rely on common sense to see whether the conclusion follows from the premises or not. So right now the rule is: Use your intuition or common sense to see if the conclusion is really logically connected to the premises. Ask yourself if you would believe that argument if it were presented with the aim of convincing you.
Here is another important rule. If the premises and conclusion are logically connected, but if the premises themselves are not plausible--that is, if they are not that worthy of being believed--then the argument as a whole is not convincing. Consider this example:
All spiders have six legs.
All six-legged creatures have wings.
Therefore, all spiders have wings.
If you pretend to believe that all spiders really do have six legs (which is false--I believe you already know that), and furthermore that all six-legged creatures have wings, then you are bound to believe that all spiders have wings too. Why? Well, that's a topic for the course in logic you will study later on. Right now just use your common sense and ask yourself why. So we see that this argument is such that, if the premises were true, then the conclusion was bound to be true. But ask yourself whether you really believe the conclusion. Are you convinced that all spiders really have wings? I don't think so. So what is wrong with this argument is that, even though the conclusion is bound to follow from the premises, the argument as a whole is not convincing because the premises are not true. That is, it is simply untrue that all spiders have six legs. In fact NO spiders have six legs, as you know. Thus an important rule is that the premises themselves must be plausible; they must be true or at least worthy of being believed.
If your premises are not plausible, then the reader has no reason to believe in the conclusion. But the whole point of an argument, as we have seen earlier, is that we want the reader to accept the conclusion. So remember to use only true or plausible premises. Sometimes it is difficult to find true premises because the issue is difficult and we can't find the real truth easily. In theses cases try to make the premises plausible--that is, try to make them look in such a way that the reader would find no immediate or obvious reasons for rejecting them.
We might see this point better if we return to the truck weight limit argument we have just seen. Let's bring back the argument one more time:
(1)We should raise the weight limit of trucks on the nation's highways from 21 to 28 tons. (2)Firstly, most trucks plying the highways weight much more than the legal limit already. (3)Some weight as much as 35 tons or more. Amending the law in order to raise the legal limit will make the law correspond to reality. (4)Secondly, the current problem of the highway police extorting bribes from truckers would be eliminated. (5)The reason is if the limit is raised, truckers would have no more reason to exceed the limit, and the police would be unable to extort bribes.
We have seen earlier that this passage is indeed an argument. But there are good and there are bad arguments. This one, as we shall see, is not so good. One reason is that the premises are not that plausible. Look at sentences (2) and (3). The basic premise is that raising the weight limit would make the law correspond to reality. But what is it about making the law correspond to reality that makes it the case that the weight limit should really be raised? To claim that truckers are exceeding the existing legal limit anyway does not make it a right thing to do. Suppose someone else argues that we should abolish parking rules on the street because people are violating them all the time. But would that make it a right thing to do to park anywhere on the street without any rules at all? If we believe that the 21 ton limit is right, then what we should do is that we must enforce this law and arrest truckers who exceed the limit. And if we are to believe that this limit is too low, then reasons for this must not be the fact that truckers already exceed the limit anyway. That would mean that if the law is broken often enough, it should be abolished. Think for yourself why this is not a right idea.
