80

3

Critical Reading: Getting Deeper into Arguments

He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.

— EDMUND BURKE

Persuasion, Argument, Dispute

When we think seriously about an argument, not only do we encounter ideas that may be unfamiliar but also we are forced to examine our own cherished opinions — and perhaps for the first time really see the strengths and weaknesses of what we believe. As John Stuart Mill put it, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little.”

It is useful to distinguish between persuasion and argument. Persuasion has the broader meaning. To persuade is to convince someone else to accept or adopt your position, which can be accomplished in a number of ways, including

Argument, we mean to say, represents only one form of persuasion, one that relies on the cognitive or intellectual capacity for reason. Rhetoricians often use the Greek word logos, which means “word” or “reason,” to denote this aspect of persuasive writing. An appeal to reason may by conducted by using such things as

81

We can put it this way: The goal of argument is to convince by demonstrating the truth (or probable truth) of an assertion, whereas the goal of persuasion is simply to convince by one means or another. Logos, the root word of logic, means appealing to the intellect to make rational claims and reasoned judgments.

The appeal to the emotions is known as pathos. Strictly speaking, pathos is Greek for “feeling.” It covers all sorts of emotional appeals — for instance, appeals that elicit pity or sympathy (derived from the Greek for “feeling with”), or one’s sense of duty or patriotism.

Notice that an argument doesn’t require two speakers or writers with opposing positions. In practice, of course, they may, but it is not a requirement that arguments advance claims in opposition to another position. Dispute is a special kind of argument in which two or more people express views that are at odds. But the Declaration of Independence is also an argument, setting forth the colonists’ reasons for declaring their independence. An essay showing indecisiveness to be Hamlet’s tragic flaw would present an argument. Even when writing only for oneself, trying to clarify one’s thinking by setting forth reasons and justifications for an idea, the result is an argument.

Most of this book is about argument in the sense of presenting reasonable support of claims, but reason is not the whole story. If an argument is to be effective, it must be presented persuasively. For instance, the writer’s tone (presentation of self, topic, and audience) must be appropriate if the discourse is to persuade the reader. The careful presentation of the self is not something disreputable, nor is it something that publicity agents or advertising agencies invented. Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) emphasized the importance of impressing on the audience that the speaker is a person of good sense and high moral character. (He called this aspect of persuasion ethos, the Greek word for “character,” a basis of persuasion different from logos, which involves persuasion by appealing to reason, and pathos, which persuades by appealing to emotion.)

Writers convey their ethos, their good character or trustworthiness, by doing the following:

In short, writers who are concerned with ethos — and all writers should be — employ devices that persuade readers that the writers are reliable, fair-minded, intelligent persons in whom their readers can have confidence.

We talk at length about tone, along with other matters such as the organization of an argument, in Chapter 5, Writing an Analysis of an Argument, but here we deal with some of the chief devices used in reasoning, and we glance at emotional appeals.

We should note at once, however, that an argument presupposes a fixed topic. Suppose we’re arguing about Thomas Jefferson’s assertion, in the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal.” Jones subscribes to this statement, but Smith says it’s nonsense and argues that some people are obviously brighter than others, or healthier, or better coordinated, and so on. Jones and Smith, if they intend to argue the point, will do well to examine what Jefferson actually wrote:

82

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is room for debate over what Jefferson really meant and whether he is right, but clearly he was talking about equality of rights. If Smith and Jones wish to argue about Jefferson’s view of equality — that is, if they wish to offer their reasons for accepting, rejecting, or modifying it — they must first agree on what Jefferson said or probably meant to say. Jones and Smith may still hold different views; they may continue to disagree on whether Jefferson was right and proceed to offer arguments and counterarguments to settle the point. But only if they can agree on what they disagree about will their dispute get somewhere.

83