What makes up an argument?

What is an Argument? 

By Kellie Rosenfield
kellie -dot- rosenfield -at- gmail  -dot- com

Pronounced [ahr-gyuh-muhnt] as per Dictionary.com noun: 
For the purpose of this Wiki page, the term argument does not mean ‘fight’ or ‘dispute’ but is the name given to reasoning in order to establish a conclusion.

 An argument is where you try to convince someone of something by giving reasons as evidence in the hope that they will accept the conclusion you are trying to make.  The construction of an argument has to provide reasoning and rational thought.  Arguments are the fragments (or statements) used to build up to your conclusion. An easy way to check if something is a statement you insert it into the following..
"It is true that...."

For example. A mother yells to her child, "Son! Close the door! It is cold in here!"

To break down the dialogue, we can see three distinct parts.  When trying to ascertain which one is the statement, we will insert each into the text "It is true that..." and the one that remains logical is deemed the statement.

1. It is true that Son. - This makes no sense whatsoever. This is NOT a statement.
2. It is true that close the door! - This also makes no sense. THis is NOT a statement.
3. It is true that it is cold in here. - This DOES make sense and therefore it is deemed the statement. It is

logical and brings reasoning to the original statement made by the mother. It is deemed a valid argument.
A solid argument needs a good foundation, much like building a house.  If the foundation is not solid, whatever we choose to build on it, will become weakened as we progress.  We can consider the foundation our premise. This is an idea that we consider to be true and on which we will use to then build our argument.
 What is NOT an argument? This is where the statement is void of logic and reasoning. Please see Fallacies for further information.

Reasoning

We can build arguments through two different methods. These are through Inductive reasoning or Deductive reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning begins with data or an observation (hard facts). From this data, we look to see patterns forming (this is usually based on the average over time). This can strengthen our belief or confidence in the data or the observation.  From these patterns, we can provide a tentative explanation as to why this is occurring (in line with our argument). Once proven, this becomes an accepted theory. When using inductive reasoning, it is only necessary that each step implies the truth and it is not necessary for it to be the absolute truth. Inductive reasoning aims to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.  In inductive reasoning, we begin with an observation or data. From this information, we look to see any patterns emerging in the data. We then hypothesize why these patterns occur and from this we draw out theory (conclusion).  In each step along this process, it implies the truth but it is NOT absolute.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning begins with a concept or idea.  From this idea we can build a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative assumption in order to draw out and test your idea’s logic or empirical consequences (which means that it can be proven).  The evidence could be logical arguments. Evidence is considered the one piece of information that makes you believe in the idea/concept/assumption. This now becomes a confirmed solid theory. For a theory to be confirmed under deductive reasoning, each inference and argument MUST be true.

Examples

Example 1 

 This general example was drawn from Deegan (2009)

1. All surfers over the age of 35 ride longboards (premise)
2. Jack is a surfer over the age of 35 (evidence)
3. Jack therefore rides a longboard (conclusion)

Acceptance of the above premise means we are more likely to accept the conclusion due to its logical deduction.

Example 2 - Accounting

Assumption: The key objective of financial accounting is to provide useful information to decision makers.
Decision Usefulness Theory

1. If investors had better information, they could make better decisions
2. Historical cost is a bad method, illogical and probably misleading
3. Therefore, we SHOULD fix this problem (historical cost) and replace with information that WOULD be more useful.

Let’s examine each line of the above argument.
1.       If investors had better information, they could make better decisions.
Is this true? Well, it’s not not true.  Consider this example. If you have bricks, mortar mixed to the perfect consistency and expert tools and you’re asked to build a house. Will you be expected to build a brick house to an acceptable standard? Probably not. What you’re lacking is not the best materials and best tools; it is the ability to successfully construct. This is as true for wall construction as it is for argument construction. Just because people have the correct information does not mean they will always make the right decisions.
 2.       Historical cost is a bad method, illogical and probably misleading.
Historical cost method is bad. It IS illogical and it is definitely misleading.
This argument is true.
 3.       Therefore, we SHOULD fix this problem (historical cost) and replace with information that WOULD be more useful.
This is a normative statement as it is stating what SHOULD happen. This raises another question. What or how much information is considered enough? This is simple. There only needs to be sufficient information for it to be useful and this will vary for each individual user of the information.

Where do Arguments fit into Theory?

Below are the elements that go into creating a theory with a brief explanation of each.
For consistency, the example of building a house will be used to keep things in context.

Assumptions (Foundation)

This is the foundation on which you build everything else.
Assumptions can fall into two categories.

1. Explicit – where your assumption about something is very clear and there is no doubt about its meaning.
2. Implicit – where your assumption is not very clear or possibly not understood. It is defined as being “unexpressed”. This is different from being unstated as it infers a level of consciousness.

House example – The house’s foundation (the concrete slab)

Arguments (Parts)

Parts which are used to construct the whole structure (these are statements made using evidence)

House example – Walls, roof, etc.

Evidence (Materials)

Materials used in the parts (Arguments) – The stronger the evidence, the higher quality the material is = Better parts and thus creates a stronger structure.
Evidence is something you or present to support your argument. These can be facts, other theories or abservations (data).

House example – bricks, wood, glass, etc

Theory (Structure)

The structure in its totality. It gives meaning to your arguments, the evidence and your underlying assumption.

House example – The house

Conclusion (Function)

Function = what you plan on doing with the structure (theory)?

This raises two very important points.

1. The conclusion indicates how people behave
2. Now you know:  what do you do with the information?

House example – What we plan on doing with the house upon completion.

 Reference List

Allen, Matthew (2004) Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Deegan, Craig 2009, Financial Accounting Theory, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, North Rude, NSW, Australia

Dictionary.com - accessed 27th April 2014
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument?s=t

Leyden, D (2011) Critical thinking in economics, Kono Publishing and Media Group, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

 Mohan, T McGregor, H Saunders, S Archee, R (2008) Communicating as Professionals, 2nd Edition, Cengage Learning Australia, South Melbourne, Victori, Australia, Chapter 2.

Positive and Normative theories, Inductive and deductive methods. What's the difference?

Let's try and separate the concepts of normative, positive, induction and deduction. First off, we need a distinction between the types of theories and the methods of proof that we use to test their validity. 

Here's an analogy:

Proof by INDUCTION and POSITIVE theories are kind of like ROAD and CAR

Proof by DEDUCTION and NORMATIVE theories are kind of like RUNWAY and AIRCRAFT. 

Roads and runways kind of look the same, they are black, hard, made of the same stuff, but they have very different designs and do very different things.

Cars and planes both get you places, but again, have very different uses. Which one is better? Well that depends on what you are doing. I can't just take a plane to Chadstone shopping center. Really a a car is only the best tool for this job. 

Naturally a car matches the road, and runways are used by planes. But they can swap if they have to. Cars drive on runways all the time. There are MANY cases of planes landing on highways in emergency because it's better than crashing. 

This what I mean by theories and their methods of proof crossing over. You simply use whatever theory is best able to do the job. 

For illustration, have a look at this image below. Cars, roads, planes, and runways all in one image. It's one of the few places where the country's main highway also crosses their international airport. You'd make sure you don't mix up the differences between road and runways here otherwise there could be a very messy outcome. So too it is with your theories. Mixing your meaning often means your ideas will crash. 

And this is 100% real. No Photoshop. 

View Larger Map

The point is, don't confuse the two. If I want to fly to Gibraltar, I wouldn't say "I'm going to take the runway to Gibraltar". Likewise, I wouldn't say my idea is deductive. Instead you would say "I have a normative idea and I will show you how it works using deductive methods".

I hope this makes the idea clearer for all! 

-Tetracarbon out

Follow me on twitter @tetracarbon or subscribe to my YouTube Channel.