Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
To convince someone or a group of people that one thing has caused another, one can employ a causal argument. This kind of argument concentrates on how an issue developed as a result of how something happened. This kind of argument is crucial because it enables individuals to ascertain the causes of specific events. The argument based on authority is composed of testimony from individuals or professionals who are usually authorities on a subject. Quotations, well-known sayings, illustrations, etc. may also be utilised, provided that they are connected to an influential person or subject-matter expert (i.e., those concepts.
Types of Arguments
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
A solid premise for the conclusion serves as the foundation of a deductive argument. It’s a top-down strategy where you get to a conclusion based on a presumption that something is true. Police typically utilise this method to solve crimes: They have a suspect in mind based on prior knowledge that isn’t immediately relevant to the case, and they use that knowledge to develop their theory that the suspect is guilty.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
The opposite of a deductive argument is an inductive argument. You can draw inferences based on his observations thanks to the bottom-up methodology used in this method. Inductive arguments are the more general of the two kinds of reasoning. To identify a pattern, they use information and observations.
OTHER TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
TOULMIN ARGUMENT
Stephen Toulmin, a British philosopher, developed the Toulmin argument as another method for building arguments. It entails dividing an argument into its six fundamental components, including the claim, premises, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backup. The claim, which is a statement of opinion, the grounds, which are the information or facts on which the claim is founded, and the warrant, which is what connects the grounds to the claim, are the three key components of a Toulmin argument. The strongest case for a position makes a successful claim. To demonstrate that the reasoning supporting their argument is valid and logically sound, the arguer must, nevertheless, provide the data and facts in support of their position. Imagine you want to make it illegal to eat fast food in an office cafeteria. Your major argument is that employees should not be allowed to eat fast food since it is bad for their health. The argument is that eating poorly is going to cause health issues.
ROGERIAN ARGUMENT
When trying to come up with the greatest potential answer, the Rogerian argument comes into play. In essence, it is a bargaining tactic in which you choose a shared objective and work to find common ground. Many of us are familiar with and have unknowingly applied Rogerian arguments in our lives.
Causal Argument
A causal argument focuses explicitly on how something has contributed to or caused a certain issue. An explanation for how or why something came to be is provided by a causal argument. What caused something to occur?
A causal argument is a crucial kind of argument because individuals frequently seek explanations for why events occurred but may not be certain of their answers or lack certain information. You have the opportunity to clearly state these points in your causal argument.
Rebuttal Argument
A rebuttal is a refutation of another person’s position. One tries to show explanations and supporting data in a rebuttal to show why the argument is false. A literary rebuttal is when a writer offers justifications for proofs that refute or contradict the opposing claim.
Strong rebuttals have the following qualities:
- The opposing point of view must be conveyed truthfully and concisely.
- The arguments and supporting data presented to refute the opposing perspective must be valid and coherent.
- The rebuttal must be delivered in a polite manner without making any personal or malicious attacks.
Evaluation Argument
The criteria that evaluation arguments often utilize to make the evaluation must be defined and justified. Moral standards, aesthetic standards, or measures of effective operation may be included in these requirements. Depending on how contentious the criteria are, the justification for their selection may need to be defended in the argument. How can we defend the criteria we chose? We can explain the merit of the criteria in themselves by arguing for the positive outcomes they produce and tying them to values we think our audience will share, or we can quote precedent or the leading authorities in the subject.
Conclusion
A series of two or more propositions constructed so that one proposition is supported and one or more propositions support the conclusion is known as an argument. The word argumentum, which meant “indication,” is derived from Latin. Giving reasons to prove or defend a position is, in essence, what is meant by the concept of an argument. Deductive reasoning seeks certainty. A sound deductive argument will be well-structured. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true, which is the format of a good argument. The opposite of a deductive argument is an inductive argument.
