An argument is an attempt to justify a claim against a dispute. The disputable claim of the argument is the justification for why the argument is needed in the first place. There are usually giveaways that will help you identify an argument, or the lack of one.
Questions, jokes, stories, satire, humor, commands, mathematical and scientific fact, irony, ridicule, conditional statements of the “if A then B” form, exclamations, descriptions, explanations, and poems including song lyrics are not arguments.
It is rude to treat non-arguments as arguments when they are not. On the other hand, it is also rude to use non-arguments to dispute arguments. Rudeness does not discriminate: It goes both ways.
Arguments have premises and a conclusion. They can be presented in any order. There are giveaway words for both premises and conclusions.
Here are some giveaway words and phrases for premises. The technical term is “indicators of premises.” They mean “look out for the premise(s) to an argument.”
- as indicated by
- follows from
- on the grounds that
- as shown by
- given that
- here is the proof
And here are some giveaway words and phrases for conclusions. In other words, these words and phrases mean “look out for the conclusion to an argument.”
- it follows that
- in conclusion
- we can conclude that
- for this reasons we can see that
- proves that
- shows that
- demonstrates that
Argument versus Explanation
Explanations follow the same format as arguments. They use many of the same indicators. Yet, according to Govier, they are not the same. (I am not sure if I agree with this, see below.) For instance, the following sentence is an explanation: “I didn’t turn in the homework. This is because I left it where the dog could get it and the dog ate it.” The next sentence, on the other hand, is an argument: “You should give me a break because I couldn’t turn in the homework after the dog ate it.”
Here is why I think that Explanation is a weak type of Argument. When treated as an argument, any explanation describes why a claim could or should be justified in at least one case. This establishes the claim as factual in at least one circumstance (sometimes true). So it’s impossible for someone to dispute the claim by stating the claim can never be true. Explanation cannot establish a claim as “always” factual, but it certainly covers the “some” territory.
And yet it is awfully rude to dispute someone’s explanatory personal story about his or her own life experiences. It’s hard to avoid mind-reading in such a dispute. And you wouldn’t want to become a rude, combative boor. So beware. Here be dragons.
This article is part of the Ars Argumentorum Series
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, InvestorBlogger, Phastidio.net, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke Gingrich, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.