ments. These are the basic instruments we shall need in order to derstand hat is involved inthe rational ercism of arguments. For instance: = Whats the natural “starting point” of an argument? What sits proper "destination"? — What kinds of procedures muti follow? = What sequences of stages will an atpument pas through, and what are the relations between successive stages? — What kinds of questions must we ask, and what kinds of tests must we employ, in ehecking whether © particular argument 1s 1 through? ly reasoned Introduction ' Athi point, emus prove cuss with a pater fala avr | cablary Yor Meniying and dserbing the Seng and weakncte of agu THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT AN ARGUMENT [A te outset of a fully easoned argument, one ofthe putes involved—we ray call him the asserzor, or A—presents “claim,” C. For our present pur poses, it does not mater what Kind of elnim i is. It may be a sporting prediction ‘or # medical diagnosis, a legal charge ora piece of business advice. Asan iii batch of exampies, let us consider the following scenarios, in which specific claims" ae advance — Our wo pro football enthusiasts ar aking together, and one of them declares, “"The Oakland Raiders are a certainty forthe Super Bowl this — Two frends have come home from seeing the latest movie spectacular, and one of them remarks, “Well, this new version of King Kong may be prety comy, bu it at any rate makes more psychological sense than the egal.” — A newly fired employee turns up atthe local Fair Employment Prac tices office to allege unlawful discrimination and insists, “Iam entitled 2“TH RASIC PATTERN OF ANALYSIS to have acess to any papers relevant to my dismissal inthe firm's per sonnel ies. fer loking into 4 mysterious epidemic in one wing of a hospital he ‘pvestigator reports, "The eause of the epidemic was an infection that thas cari from ward to ward on fod-service trays and walle. _ Tye nancial manager of a business company that temporarily has Tupls eashin-hand recommends to the board of directors, “The Bes interim policy forthe company i to put this money into shor-term municipal bonds. In each of these situations, «different kind of claim is advanced, and di ferent kinds of reasoning will have to go on if the claim isto be given any sp port But whichever example we conser the asta, A, must do more than put Focward his position asa bare assertion ("Take it o leave i”) if he is to make the {isin on "ational basis—as the opening move in a posible “argumeat”— ‘faker than asa simple personal opinion, If his poston is vo be open to riisism lind discus hy thers, 4 must ave further grounds, reasons, or other consider tons which can be added (if necessry) to demonstrate thatthe claim js “well founded,” tha it is claim whose acceptability can be acknowledged ressonably by otter people aso. tthe fist stage, in the absence of further support and clarification, cher pats to the discussion may be inno position to sare the assertor's view ofthe tmater in hand, There are three possblitis: They may begin wih a different view ofthe matter from the asserts The may be uncle about just what kind of support the assertor ean provide for his own position, — Faoy may have no basis fr taking any iil position on the mater st all In all three evens, they will need to explore the nature of the argument—the frounde” and cher “Teasors"” capable of supporting, the asertor's inital ciaim_—by subjecting that claim toa series of extica questions Trev us refer to the individual who leads the criticism of 4"s claim asthe questioner, ce Q. Ifthe argument isto be caried through completely and fruit faiy. O's examination will require 4 to bring 0 the surface, and make explicit that co of supporting seasons by which he ean explain, spell ou, andor justify his poston And @ must gress these questions clay enough and in enough detail For other parties to judge whether 4 has made his case and given them reason to teknowicge, for themselves, that hs intl assertion was sound oF soli [Q's examination beings the discussion toa point at which al parties ae in 1 position to acknowiedge the fore of 4s reasons, then this particular “are nent wil have been competed. At this point in the argument, ether the other Fates to the discussion wil be ready to endorse A's original claim or ese (at &firm's per- rosptal, the fection that lle.” docaily has “The best, 3 shorter ef, and it cen any sup ‘ore than put vo make the gument = ver consider vin is well 4 reasonably sation, other View of the the mater at ‘pument—the claim as the aly and fruit rake explicit foe justi his nough detail sold partes are in feular “argu- ther the otber sor ese (ata acerca | wsmmopuction 25 minimum) they will agsee that, given 4°s argument, the nial claim would be sound, provided only thatthe supporting facts ae relly as alleges — Granted thatthe Oakland Raiders’ supponer puts forwant an argument that hangs together el, it still has to be asked whether bis asamp. ions about the strengths’ and weaknesses ofall the pro football teams tre themselves comet. — Similarly, ina more serous context, many people would concede that ‘he case for capital punishpent might be a strong one only if it were clear that executions do in fact deter other people from committing rave crimes—rather than encouraging "copycat crimes or having no effect om them at all. Tat is, they would acknowledge the strength of the arguments for capital punishment conditionally: "Your argument hangs together well, But are the fats on Which you hase it really rst worthy? ‘THE ELEMENTS OF ANY ARGUMENT tn Capers 3-6, we sal ke up sx ses of gestions in a, We shal lok n soto, aa elon, aca te Tan ina Why xp tren Tee a (1) can) 248886 0) nara) Decking (3) sda halifaons ad (©) plat toutal, Let w bey expla wha thse sk Tit of cles rand how hye nme peer 1 Claims. When we are asked to embatk on an argument, thee is always some “destination’” we are invited to avve at, and the fst step in ana Iyzing and eritiizing the argument is 10 make sure what the precise character ofthat destination is, So the Grs set of questions is ‘What exactly are you claiming? Whete precisely do you stand on this, issue? And what position are you asking us to agree (0 as the outcome of your argument? 2. Grounds. Having clarified the claim, we must consider what kind of un-