Chapters 3 and 4: Identifying Claims and Analyzing Arguments: Continue College Debate

3 Types of Claims Or Thesis Statements

Identifying Claims and Analyzing Arguments from Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky’s From Inquiry to Academic Writing, Third Edition

We’ve learned in this class that we can call a thesis a claim, an assertion that must be supported with evidence and refuting counterarguments.

There are 3 different types of claims: fact, value, and policy.

Claims of Fact

According to Greene and Lidinsky, “Claims of fact are assertions (or arguments) that seek to define or classify something or establish that a problem or condition has existed, exists, or will exist.

For example, Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow argues that Jim Crow practices that notoriously oppressed people of color still exist in an insidious form, especially in the manner in which we incarcerate black and brown men.

In The Culture Code Rapaille argues that different cultures have unconscious codes and that a brand’s codes must not be disconnected with the culture that brand needs to appeal to. This is the problem or struggle that all companies have: being “on code” with their product. The crisis that is argued is the disconnection between people’s unconscious codes and the contrary codes that a brand may represent.

Many economists, such as Paul Krugman, argue that there is major problem facing America, a shrinking middle class, that is destroying democracy and human freedom as this country knows it. Krugman and others will point to a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots, a growing class of temporary workers that surpasses all other categories of workers (warehouse jobs for online companies, for example), and de-investment in the American labor force as jobs are outsourced in a world of global competition.

All three examples above are claims of fact. As Greene and Lidinsky write, “This is an assertion that a condition exists. A careful reader must examine the basis for this kind of claim: Are we truly facing a crisis?”

We further read, “Our point is that most claims of fact are debatable and challenge us to provide evidence to verify our arguments. They may be based on factual information, but they are not necessarily true. Most claims of fact present interpretations of evidence derived from inferences.”

A Claim of Fact That Seeks to Define Or Classify

Greene and Lidinsky point out that autism is a controversial topic because experts cannot agree on a definition. The behaviors attributed to autism “actually resist simple definition.”

There is also disagreement on a definition of obesity. For example, some argue that the current BMI standards are not accurate.

Another example that is difficult to define or classify is the notion of genius.

In all the cases above, the claim of fact is to assert a definition that must be supported with evidence and refutations of counterarguments.

Claims of Value

Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of fact is different from a claim of value, which expresses an evaluation of a problem or condition that has existed, exists, or will exist. Is a condition good or bad? Is it important or inconsequential?

In other words, the claim isn’t whether or not a crisis or problem exists: The emphasis is on HOW serious the problem is.

How serious is global warming?

How serious is gender discrimination in schools?

How serious is racism in law enforcement and incarceration?

How serious is the threat of injury for people who engage in Cross-Fit training?

How serious are the health threats rendered from providing sodas in public schools?

How serious is the income gap between the haves and the have-nots?

Claims of Policy

Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of policy is an argument for what should be the case, that a condition should exist. It is a call for change or a solution to a problem.

Examples

We must decriminalize drugs.

We must increase the minimum wage to X per hour.

We must have stricter laws that defend worker rights for temporary and migrant workers.

We must integrate more autistic children in mainstream classes.

We must implement universal health care.

If we are to keep capital punishment, then we must air it on TV.

We must implement stricter laws for texting while driving.

We must make it a crime, equal to manslaughter, for someone to encourage another person to commit suicide.

The Importance of Using Concession with Claims

Greene and Lidinsky write, “Part of the strategy of developing a main claim supported with good reasons is to offer a concession, an acknowledgment that readers may not agree with every point the writer is making. A concession is a writer’s way of saying, ‘Okay, I can see that there may be another way of looking at the issue or another way to interpret the evidence used to support the argument I am making.’”

“Often a writer will signal a concession with phrases like the following:”

“It is true that . . .”

“I agree with X that Y is an important factor to consider.”

“Some studies have convincingly shown that . . .”

Identify Counterarguments

Greene and Lidinsky write, “Anticipating readers’ objections demonstrates that you understand the complexity of the issue and are willing at least to entertain different and conflicting opinions.”

Developing a Thesis

Greene and Lidinsky write that a thesis is “an assertion that academic writers make at the beginning of what they write and then support with evidence throughout their essay.”

They then give the thesis these attributes:

Makes an assertion that is clearly defined, focused, and supported.

Reflects an awareness of the conversation from which the writer has take up the issue.

Is placed at the beginning of the essay.

Penetrates every paragraph like the skewer in a shish kebab.

Acknowledges points of view that differ from the writer’s own, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

Demonstrates an awareness of the readers’ assumptions and anticipates possible counterarguments.

Conveys a significant fresh perspective.

Working and Definitive Thesis

In the beginning, you develop a working or tentative thesis that gets more and more revised and refined as you struggle with the evidence and become more knowledgeable of the subject.

A writer who comes up with a thesis that remains unchanged is not elevating his or thinking to a sophisticated level.

Only a rare genius could spit out a meaningful thesis that defies revision.

Not just theses, but all writing is subject to multiple revisions. For example, the brilliant TV writers for 30 Rock, The Americans, and The Simpsons make hundreds of revisions for just one scene and even then they’re still not happy in some cases.

Four Models for Developing a Working Thesis

The Correcting-Misinterpretations Model

According to Greene and Lidinsky, “This model is used to correct writers whose arguments you believe have been misconstrued one or more important aspects of an issue. This thesis typically takes the form of a factual claim.

Examples of Correcting-Misinterpretation Model

Although LAUSD teachers are under fire for poor teaching performance, even the best teachers have been thrown into abysmal circumstances that defy strong teaching performance evidenced by __________________, ___________________, ________________, and _____________________.

Even though Clotaire Rapaille is venerated as some sort of branding god, a close scrutiny exposes him as a shrewd self-promoter who relies on several gimmicks including _______________________, _______________________, _________________, and ___________________.

The Filling-the-Gap Model

Greene and Lidinsky write, “The gap model points to what other writers may have overlooked or ignored in discussing a given issue. The gap model typically makes a claim of value.”

Example

Many psychology experts discuss happiness in terms of economic wellbeing, strong education, and strong family bonds as the essential foundational pillars of happiness, but these so-called experts fail to see that these pillars are worthless in the absence of morality as Eric Weiners’s study of Qatar shows, evidenced by __________________, __________________, ___________________, and _____________________.

The Modifying-What-Others-Have-Said Model

Greene and Lidinsky write, “The modification model of thesis writing assumes that mutual understanding is possible.” In other words, we want to modify what many already agree upon.

Example

While most scholars agree that food stamps are essential for hungry children, the elderly, and the disabled, we need to put restrictions on EBT cards so that they cannot be used to buy alcohol, gasoline, lottery tickets, and other non-food items.

The Hypothesis-Testing Model

The authors write, “The hypothesis-testing model begins with the assumption that writers may have good reasons for supporting their arguments, but that there are also a number of legitimate reasons that explain why something is, or is not, the case. . . . That is, the evidence is based on a hypothesis that researchers will continue to test by examining individual cases through an inductive method until the evidence refutes that hypothesis.”

For example, some researchers have found a link between the cholesterol drugs, called statins, and lower testosterone levels in men. Some say the link is causal; others say the link is correlative, which is to say these men who need to lower their cholesterol already have risk factors for low T levels.

As the authors continue, “The hypothesis-testing model assumes that the questions you raise will likely lead you to multiple answers that compete for your attention.”

The authors then give this model for such a thesis:

Some people explain this by suggesting that, but a close analysis of the problem reveals several compelling, but competing explanations.

Types of Argument

Informal argument is a quarrel, or a spin or BS on a subject; or there is propaganda. In contrast, formal or academic argument takes a stand, presents evidence, and uses logic to convince an audience of the writer’s position or claim.

In a formal argument, we are taking a stand on which intelligent people can disagree, so we don’t “prove” anything; at best we persuade or convince people that our position is the best of all the positions available.

Thesis Must be Debatable

Therefore, in formal argument the topic has compelling evidence on both sides.

The thesis or claim, the main point of our essay, must therefore be debatable. There must be substantial evidence and logic to support opposing views and it is our task to weigh the evidence and come to a claim that sides with one position over another. Our position may not be absolute; it may be a matter of degree and based on contingency.

For example, I may write an argumentative essay designed to assert America’s First Amendment rights for free speech, but my support of the First Amendment is not absolute. I would argue that there are cases where people can cross the line.

Groups that spread racial hatred should not be able to gather in a public space. Nor should groups committed to abusing children be able to spread their newsletters and other information to each other. While I believe in the First Amendment, I’m saying there is a line that cannot be crossed.

Thesis Is Not a Fact

We cannot write a thesis that is a statement of fact. For example, online college classes are becoming more and more available is a fact, not an argument.

We cannot write a thesis that is an expression of personal taste or preference. If we prefer working out at home rather than the gym, our preference is beyond dispute. However, if we make the case that there are advantages to home exercise that make gym memberships a bad idea, we have entered the realm of argumentation.

It is an over simplification to reduce all arguments to just two sides.

Should torture be banned? It’s not an either/or question. The ban depends on the circumstances described and the definition of torture. And then there is the matter of who decides who gets tortured and who does the torturing? There are so many questions, qualifications, edicts, provisos, clauses, condition, etc., that it is impossible to make a general for/against stand on this topic.

Why Argumentation Is Relevant

You make arguments for daily life problems all the time:

Should I go on Diet X or is this diet just another futile fad like all the other diets I’ve gone on?

Should I buy a new car or is my old car fine but I’m looking for attention and a way to alleviate my boredom, so I’m looking for the drama of a colossal purchase, which will be the source of conversations with others? In other words, am I looking for false connection through my rampant consumerism?

Should I break up with my girlfriend to give me more time to study and give me the “alone time” I need, or continue navigating that precarious balance between the demands of my job, my academic load, and my capricious, rapacious, overbearing, manipulative, emotionally needy girlfriend? (here the answer is embedded in the question)

Should I upgrade my phone to the latest generation to get all the new apps or am I just jealous that all my friends are upgrading and I fear they’ll leave me out of their social circle if I’m languishing with an outdated smartphone?

Should I go to Cal State and graduate with 20K debt or go to that prestigious private college that gives my résumé more punch on one hand but leaves me with over 100K in debt on the other?

Do I really want to get married under the age of thirty or am I just jealous of all the expensive presents my brother got after he got married?

Whether you are defining an argument for your personal life or for an academic paper, you are using the same skills: critical analysis, defining the problem, weighing different types of evidence against each other; learning to respond to a problem intellectually rather than emotionally; learning to identify possible fallacies and biases in your thinking that might lead you down the wrong path, etc.

We live in a win-lose culture that emphasizes the glory of winning and the shame of defeat. In politics, we speak of winning or losing behind our political leaders and their political agendas. But this position is doltish, barbaric, and often self-destructive.

Many times, we argue or I should say we should argue because we want to reach a common understanding. “Sometimes the goal of an argument is to identify a problem and suggest solutions that could satisfy those who hold a number of different positions on an issue” (8) Sometimes the solution for a problem is to make a compromise. For example, let's say students want more organic food in the college cafeteria but the price is triple for these organic foods and only one percent of the student body can afford these organic foods. Perhaps a compromise is to provide less processed, sugar-laden foods with fresh fruits and vegetables, which are not organic but at least provide more healthy choices.

Your aim is not to win or lose in your argument but be effective in your ability to persuade. Persuasion refers to how a speaker or writer influences an audience to adopt a belief or to follow a course of action.

3 Means of Persuasion

According to Aristotle, there are three means of persuasion that a speaker or writer can use to persuade his audience:

The appeal of reason and logic: logos

The appeal of emotions: pathos

The appeal of authority: ethos

Smoking will compromise your immune system and make you more at risk for cancer; therefore, logic, or logos, dictates that you should quit smoking.

If you die of cancer, you will be abandoning your family when they need you most; therefore an emotional appeal, or pathos, dictates that you quit smoking.

The surgeon general has warned you of the hazards of smoking; therefore the credibility of an authority or expert dictates that you quit smoking. If the writer lacks authority or credibility, he is often well served to draw upon the authority of someone else to support his argument.

The Rhetorical Triangle Connects All the Persuasive Methods

Logos, reason and logic, focuses on the text or the substance of the argument.

Ethos, the credibility or expertise from the writer, focuses on the writer.

Pathos, the emotional appeal, focuses on the emotional reaction of the audience.

The Elements of Argument

Thesis Statement (single sentence that states your position or claim)

Evidence (usually about 75% of your body paragraphs)

Refutation of opposing arguments or objections to your claim (usually about 25% of your body paragraphs)

Concluding statement (dramatic restatement of your thesis, which often also shows the broader implications of your important message).

Thesis

Thesis is one sentence that states your position about an issue.

Thesis example: Increasing the minimum wage to eighteen dollars an hour, contrary to “expert” economists, will boost the economy.

The above assertion is an effective thesis because it is debatable; it has at least two sides.

Thesis: We should increase the minimum wage to boost the economy.

Antithesis: Increasing the minimum wage will slow down the economy.

Evidence

Evidence is the material you use to make your thesis persuasive: facts, observations, expert opinion, examples, statistics, reasons, logic, and refutation.

Refutation

Your argument is only as strong as your understanding of your opponents and your ability to refute your opponents’ objections.

If while examining your opponents’ objections, you find their side is more compelling, you have to CHANGE YOUR SIDE AND YOUR THESIS because you must have integrity when you write. There is no shame in this. Changing your position through research and studying both sides is natural.

Conclusion

Your concluding statement reinforces your thesis and emphasizes the emotional appeal of your argument.

Learn to Identify the Elements of Argument in an Essay by Using Critical Thinking Skills

To read critically, we have to do the following:

One. Comprehend the author's purpose and meaning, which is expressed in the claim or thesis

Two. Examine the evidence, if any, that is used

Three. Find emotional appeals, if any, that are used

Four. Identify analogies and comparisons and analyze their legitimacy

Five. Look at the topic sentences to see how the author is building his or her claim

Six. Look for the appeals the author uses be they logic (logos), emotions (pathos), or authority (ethos).

Seven. Is the author's argument diminished by logical fallacies?

Eight. Do you recognize any bias in the essay that diminishes the author's argument?

Nine. Do we bring any prejudice that may compromise our ability to evaluate the argument fairly?

Critical Analysis of Dinesh D'Souza Essay

Lesson for Rhetorical Analysis (Chapter 4 from Practical Argument, Second Edition)

Rhetoric refers to “how various elements work together to form a convincing and persuasive argument” (90).

“When you write a rhetorical analysis, you examine the strategies a writer employs to achieve his or her purpose. In the process, you explain how these strategies work together to create an effective (or ineffective) argument.”

To write a rhetorical analysis, you must consider the following:

The argument’s rhetorical situation

The writer’s means of persuasion

The writer’s rhetorical strategies

The rhetorical situation is the writer, the writer’s purpose, the writer’s audience, the topic, and the context.

We analyze the rhetorical situation by doing the following:

Read the title’s subtitle, if there is one.

Look at the essay’s headnote for information about the writer, the issue being discussed, and the essay structure.

Look for clues within the essay such as words or phrases that provide information about the writer’s preconceptions. Historical or cultural references can indicate what ideas or information the writer expects readers to have.

Do a Web search to get information about the writer.

Example of How the Rhetorical Situation Gives Us Greater Understanding About the Text

I came across a book about the alleged limitations of alternative energy only to find that the author is paid by the oil industry to write his books.

I came across a book by an author who writes about nutrition and I learned that his findings were contradicted by new research, which the writer did not address because the research refuted his book’s main premise and the publisher had already paid him a .75 million-dollar advance.

I came across a book that refuted the health claims of veganism only to find that the author blamed her severe health problems on a twenty-year vegan diet. This last example could hurt or help the argument depending on how the argument is documented. Was the author showing a strong causal relationship between her illness and her vegan diet? Or was her connection correlational?

When we examine the writer, we ask the following:

What is the writer’s background? Does he work for a think tank that is of a particular political persuasion? Is he being paid by a lobbyist or corporation to regurgitate their opinions?

How does the writer’s background affect the argument’s content?

What preconceptions about the subject does the writer seem to have?

When we analyze the writer’s purpose, we ask the following:

Does the writer state his or her purpose directly or is the purpose implied?

Is the writer’s purpose simply to convince or to encourage action?

Does the writer rely primarily on logic or on emotion?

Does the writer have a hidden agenda?

How does the author use logos, pathos, and ethos to put the argument together?

When we analyze the writer’s audience, we ask the following:

Who is the writer’s intended audience?

Does the writer see the audience as informed or uninformed?

Does the writer see the audience as hostile, friendly, or neutral?

What values does the writer think the audience holds?

On what points do the writer and the audience agree? On what points do they disagree?

Consider the Author’s Stylistic Techniques

Simile: A simile is a figure of speech that compares two unlike things using the word like or as.

Example: “We must not educate the masses because education is like a great flame and the hordes of people are like moths that will fly into the flames at their own peril.”

In the above example “like a great flame” is a simile.

“Gorging on plate after plate of chicken fried steak at HomeTown Buffet, I felt like Jonah lost in the belly of a giant, dyspeptic whale on the verge of spitting me back into the throng of angry people.”

Metaphor: A metaphor is a comparison in which two dissimilar things are compared without the word like or as. “We must educate the masses to protect them from the disease of ignorance.”

Allusion: An allusion (not to be confused with illusion) is a reference within a work to a person, literary or biblical text, or historical event in order to enlarge the context of the situation being written about.

“Even though I am not a religious man, I would agree with Jesus who said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to Heaven, which is why rich people are in general against the minimum wage and the social and economic justice a healthy minimum wage exacts upon our society.”

Parallelism: Parallelism is the use of similar grammatical structures to emphasize related ideas and make passages easier to follow.

“Failure to get your college education will make you languish in the abyss of ignorance, weep in the chasm of unemployment, and wallow in the crater of self-abnegation.”

Repetition: Intentional repetition involves repeating a word or phrase for emphasis, clarity, or emotional impact (pathos).

“Are you able to accept the blows of not having a college education? Are you able to accept the shock of a low-paying job? Are you able to accept the disgrace of living on life’s margins?”

Rhetorical questions: A rhetorical question is a question that is asked to encourage readers to reflect on an issue, not to elicit a reply.

“How can you remain on the outside of college when all that remains is for you to walk through those open gates? How can you let an opportunity as golden as a college education pass you by when the consequences are so devastating?”

Checklist for Analyzing an Argument (your own or a reading you’re evaluating)

What is the claim or thesis?

What evidence is given, if any?

What assumptions are being made—and are they acceptable?

Are important terms clearly defined?

What support or evidence is offered on behalf of the claim?

Are the examples relevant, and are they convincing?

Are the statistics (if any) relevant, accurate, and complete?

Do the statistics allow only the interpretation that is offered in the argument?

If authorities and experts are cited, are they indeed authorities on this topic, and can they be regarded as impartial?

Is the logic—deductive and inductive—valid?

Is there an appeal to emotion—for instance, if satire is used to ridicule the opposing view—is this appeal acceptable?