- Sources must be given for factual information so that these can be checked and any relevant questions can be asked about the way the facts were established.
For academics, the question is whether the arguments based on these facts lead to a logical conclusion. This is relevant both to the reading of other's work and to the presentation of your own written work.
- In order to argue - or criticise, you have to analyse, to establish whether another's argument is logically presented and to make sure that you have not omitted any steps in your own argument.
A logical argument is where if the (premises) basic facts are true, the conclusions that follow must be true.
For example, the syllogism has two main forms of presentation - or misrepresentation:
i) All As are B All Bs are C Thus All As are C ii) All Bs are C A is a C Thus A is a B Which of these is correct? Which diagram represents the correct form?
However, the correct argument form will only be correct if the premise is true, as:
All berries are good to eat The deadly nightshade is a berry Thus the deadly nightshade is good to eat. Is this correct?
If the premise is correct, then it is necessary to check that the logical form of the argument is correct.
In the final stage of the argument, is A necessarily a B or only possibly a B? If only possibly, then the argument is false - even if the premise is true.
Cows have horns The devil has horns Thus the devil is a cow If you can spot basic problems in logical structure, then you can use these in your argument or criticism of other's work. Basic problems with premises or logical structure are fundamental and automatically destroy an argument. Arguing from the logic has the advantage of being objective and impersonal and avoids the trap of emotive language or personal opinion which are not based on facts.
- Sometimes issues are fudged with conclusions which use modal forms like 'may' or 'could'. This is a defensive structure because it is a weaker form but avoids total condemnation or criticism and is very common in inductive argument. It opens up other possible conclusions - which you might suggest in your criticism - e.g. other factors, causes or possibly the need to modify the premise. It can be a way of salvaging an argument which has potential. However, beware of the reductio ad absurdum or truism e.g. 'women are female'. (When the definition of one involves the other, so nothing new is given.)
- Changes in definition
Sometimes changes in the use of definition of a word occur throughout an argument which causes the issues to become fuzzy. Definitions are thus important as is consistency in their use. Sometimes a good criticism of a theory or concept can be made by showing that different parties to a project, for example, had a different view of the meaning or interpretation of one of the key issues. Think about different interpretations of government policy, for example.e.g. of change of definition (regarding No horse)
No horse has 2 tails A horse has one more tail than no horse Thus a horse has 3 tails - The correct use of the syllogism is from the general to the particular where the premise is true. Sometimes an (apparently logical) argument proceeds from the particular to the general.
For example :
There are three problems here: a sample of one is insufficient evidence; there are other ways of dying; and other ways to get lung cancer.X smoked 60 cigarettes a day and died of lung cancer Y smokes 60 cigarettes a day Thus Y will die of lung cancer To criticise an argument, it may be possible to show that the initial premise is based on a sample which is statistically too small to make inferences from or where the sample was not discrete enough to focus on the area investigated - i.e. there are too many other possible variables, and other possible explanations.
- Transfer from situation A to situation B
Sometimes an argument is presented that because certain effects have occurred in situation A, the same will necessarily occur in situation B. For example, a successful development project in situation A transferred to situation B. Clearly, unless situation A and B share almost identical geographical, cultural, social, economic and gender relations, then a similar project may have little chance of success in situation B. It would be necessary to indicate (a) the necessary and sufficient conditions as to why the project worked in situation A and (b) show that these same conditions exist in situation B.A similar form of criticism may be made on the transfer from theory to practice - whereby the theory may make certain assumptions that are not present in practice or where the parameters of the theory have not been sufficiently rigorously defined (see 3.) or important elements omitted.
One way to argue/criticise is to see whether the form of an argument or assumption is logical.
To illustrate this, it may be useful to compare/contrast (e.g. situation A/B) to pin-point the fault.
Other forms of argument that you may come across in reading are:-
- 'persuader' words - "As educationalists, we ..." (group loyalty/membership)
- emotive language - style and rhetoric can obscure argument (overuse of 'value' adjectives & adverbs)
- over generalisation - "all women like football"
- conflation - the fusing of two concepts (with 'or' and 'and')
- analogy
- biased or inadequate statistics
- rhetorical questions
- An implication (imply, logical implicature) is something that is not stated but follows from what is said. Often the reader is required to supply the unstated idea.
For example, these two statements "Successful NGOs have strong grassroots support. CELSON is a good example of a successful NGO." suggest that CELSON has strong grassroots support, even though this is not stated. This could be represented as a conclusion:
Therefore CELSON has strong grassroots support.One step of the argument is left out, which the reader supplies. This technique is often used as part of persuader language and in advertising. For example, in a television advertisement: a beautiful woman drops her bag and it is picked up by a handsome young man who looks into her eyes and smiles. The implication is that this is the beginning of a beautiful romance until the young man is joined by a second handsome young man and the two men go off hand in hand. The first implication is replaced by the second - the men are gay - and the romance idea seems less likely.
It is dangerous to rely on the reader to supply the 'missing link' - the implication - as it may be incorrect. It is useful to investigate implications - see Kenneth Fung's critical analysis example - as this can be a useful analysis of a writer's argument and the problems it may present.
-
Pre-suppositions and assumptions are similar to implications. They are what a writer assumes to be true or already exists and does not question. This is another way that basic ideas can be criticised.
For example, the question "When did Jim stop smoking?" presupposes or assumes that Jim used to smoke.
There are many assumptions about the reasons for poverty and unemployment, or how countries should develop, which were based on the socio-cultural environment of the writer, rather than evidence - western or northern norms, for example. These ideas are beginning to be questioned.
Some truths are said to be 'self-evident' - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are not questioned. They are assumed to be true or presupposed/assumed. -
Supposition is often used to talk about a possible (hypothetical) situation so that it can be discussed and the possible results (implications) considered to guide possible future actions.
For example, "Suppose the government were to increase taxation by 1% overall? What would the implications be for government income, unemployment rates, savings, borrowings and interest rates, the government's chances of winning the next election...?"
