Argumentation
An argument is a claim plus reasons. The claim says what you believe. The reasons say why anyone else should believe it.
Most weak writing fails here before it fails at style. The sentences might be fine. The thinking is mushy. You can’t edit your way to a clear argument. You have to think your way there.
The structure:
Claim. What are you asserting? Can you state it in one sentence? If not, you don’t have an argument yet. You have a topic.
Evidence. What supports the claim? Facts, examples, data, reasoning. Different claims need different evidence. “The economy is growing” needs data. “Happiness requires purpose” needs reasoning.
Warrant. Why does the evidence support the claim? This is the hidden logic. The “because” connecting evidence to conclusion. Most arguments fail here. The evidence is present but the warrant is assumed.
“Crime is rising [claim] because arrests increased 20% [evidence].”
But wait — do more arrests mean more crime? Maybe policing changed. Maybe definitions changed. The warrant is doing silent work. If the warrant is wrong, the argument collapses.
Know what kind of claim you’re making:
Factual claims assert something is true. Verify with evidence.
Causal claims assert something caused something else. Requires more than correlation. Requires mechanism.
Value claims assert something is good or bad. Requires explicit criteria. “This is a great novel” means nothing without standards.
Policy claims assert something should be done. Requires both evidence (the problem exists) and reasoning (this solution works).
Each type needs different support. Arguing a policy claim with only factual evidence fails. You’ve shown the problem exists but not that your solution works.
Counterarguments strengthen your position.
The reader is thinking objections. If you don’t address them, the reader adds “but what about…” and your argument weakens. Address objections explicitly and your argument gains credibility.
The strong form: steelmanning. State the opposing argument in its strongest possible form. Then respond. This shows you’ve understood the opposition.
The weak form: strawmanning. Attack a weaker version. Easy to defeat but the reader notices.
Common failures:
No claim. You’ve collected facts without a thesis. The reader asks “so what?”
Hidden assumptions. Your argument depends on premises you haven’t stated.
Overgeneralization. One example becomes a universal claim.
Correlation as causation. Two things happened together. You claim one caused the other.
Moving goalposts. The claim shifts when challenged. If your thesis changes mid-essay, you didn’t have a thesis.
Rhetoric is not the opposite of logic.
Aristotle’s three appeals: logos (logic), ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion). All three are legitimate. The question is proportion.
An essay that’s all logos feels cold. All pathos feels manipulative. All ethos feels unsubstantiated.
Good writers use examples, vivid language, strategic repetition — not to replace argument but to make argument land. Logic convinces. Rhetoric moves.
How confident are you? Signal it.
“This is true” is strong. “This seems likely” is weaker. “I suspect but can’t prove” is weaker still.
Distinguish between things you’re confident about and things you’re speculating about. The reader trusts the writer who acknowledges uncertainty more than the writer who claims certainty about everything.
Go Deeper
Books
- The Craft of Research by Booth, Colomb & Williams — How research becomes argument.
- Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs — Rhetoric made practical.
Related: writing, essay structure, epistemic posture, research, explanatory writing