I. ARGUMENT

In order to begin to understand what is an argument it is useful to contrast argument with "assertion." An assertion simply indicates what someone thinks, feels, or believes without backing this up, without explaining why this is so, and without attempting to make a case for this thought, feeling, or belief that is capable of persuading others to think, feel, or believe likewise or even to compel others to take the assertion very seriously. An argument, in contrast with an assertion, provides reasons to support one position rather than another in relation to a particular object (any question, issue, problem, or concern worth arguing about). 

A.

1. An argument begins with presuppositions. Presuppositions are the set of values upon which the argument is founded. Presuppositions are the necessary premises which provide the immediate logical foundation upon which an argument is built: they are what, in other words, an argument takes for granted or assumes as the necessary logical condition of possibility for proceeding at all. 

The values that constitute the presuppositions of an argument are the product of the particular vantage point (or perspective) from which an individual or group approaches an object. It is useful furthermore to conceive of this vantage point as always in turn representing a particular subject position -- a particular position, in other words, from which an individual or group can relate to an object as a subject of that object, as the initiator of definite goals and as the performer of definite actions in relation to the object. 

2. On the basis of a particular set of presuppositions, an argument proceeds to formulate and articulate a claim (or contention) about the object: a claim about what has been, is, will be, can be, might be, and/or should be done about the object (the question, issue, problem, or concern). The claim usually is very similar to what we are taught to think of as a thesis: the claim is, in other words, the thesis of the argument.

3. After a claim has been formulated and articulated, it must be explained: this means that the key terms and relationships among terms used in the formulation and the articulation of the claim must be defined. One principal purpose of such an explanation is to make it as clear as possible precisely what is and is not being argued. 

4. After the claim has been explained, it must be supported and defended. Support consists of providing reasons why the claim should be accepted as valid, and defense consists of providing reasons why other, opposing claims about the same object (the same question, issue, problem, or concern) should not be accepted as valid (or why these other, opposing claims are not as adequate or accurate as the claim advanced in the argument).

5. Finally, the argument ends with its consequences. These refer to what must happen if the claim is accepted as valid and if it is carried out, in actual practice, to its (furthermost) logical conclusion. 

B.

1. A good argument is coherent and consistent from beginning to end. That means it is precisely organized, logically valid, and able either to avoid or to account for (potential) contradictions. 

2. An argument is a bad argument if the consequences that follow from accepting the argument and carrying it out to its (furthermost) logical conclusion contradict:

a. the values upon which the argument's claim is founded,

b. the argument's own explanation of what its claim means, and/or c. the reasons the argument gives to support and defend its claim.
 

II. CRITIQUE OF ARGUMENT

A critique of an argument both identifies and explains the principal problems and limitations of an argument. 

A. FIRST STAGE

A critique of an argument begins first by identifying and explaining the parts of the argument and the ways in which these parts are united in the argument.

1. The critique identifies and explains what are the presuppositions of the argument. This means that the critique identifies and explains the values upon which the argument is founded and the particular vantage point or subject position from which these values emerge and develop in relation to its particular object (a particular question, issue, problem, or concern). 

2. The critique identifies and explains the claim the argument formulates and articulates upon the basis of its presuppositions about its object: a claim about what has been, is, will be, can be, might be, and/or should be done about the object (the question, issue, problem, or concern). 

3. The critique identifies and explains the way in which the argument itself explains its claim: the way in which it defines the key terms and relationships it uses in the formulation and the articulation of the claim. 

4. The critique identifies and explains the reasons the argument gives in support and defense of its claim. 

5. The critique identifies and explains the consequences that must follow if the claim the argument advances is accepted as valid and if it is carried out in practice to its (furthermost) logical conclusion. 

6. The critiques identifies and explains whether or not the consequences that follow from accepting the argument and carrying it out to its logical conclusion contradict:

a. the values upon which the argument's claim is founded, 

b. the argument's own explanation of what its claim means, and/or c. the reasons the argument gives to support and defend its claim.

B. SECOND STAGE

On the basis of the analysis (the interpretation) of how the argument works described in the first stage of critique -- A 1-6 -- the critique then proceeds to evaluate the argument by identifying and explaining: 

1. What are the principal problems and limitations of the argument, 

2. Why these are problems and limitations, 

3. What makes possible and what gives rise to these problems and limitations, and 

4. What can (and should) be done to solve these problems and to overcome these limitations by transforming the argument. This can include:

a. simply replacing it altogether with another, different, and opposing argument, or 

b. drawing out and pushing forward the positive potential of the argument so as to resituate this positive potential within a new and superior argument that has solved the problems and overcome the limitations of the old argument. 

C. MORE ON PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS, PART ONE 

The problems and limitations of an argument can include problems and limitations in:

1. How the argument works, 

2. How well the argument works, 

3. For what the argument works, and

4. Why the argument works to advance this end and to serve this interest rather than to advance another end and serve another interest.

D. MORE ON PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS, PART TWO

1. Problems and limitations can be "internal": Problems and Limitations in the Incompleteness, Incoherence, Inconsistency, and/or Inaccuracy of the argument. 

2. Problems and limitations can also be "external": Problems and Limitations in what follows from accepting, identifying with, taking up, and carrying out the argument to its (furthermost) logical conclusion.

E. TIPS ON STRENGTHENING THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT 

To insure that a critique of an argument is as effectively convincing and compelling as possible, it is often very helpful to make sure that the critique recognizes the strengths and the achievements of the argument in the course of identifying and explaining the argument's problems and limitations, or at least recognize what others are likely to consider to be the argument's strengths and achievements. It can be especially helpful, in the course of identifying and explaining problems and limitations in an argument, to recognize what problems the very same argument itself at least attempts to solve and what limitations the very same argument itself at least attempts to overcome. Finally, it is very important to try to explain why the argument has the problems and limitations it does, why it does not -- and especially cannot -- solve or overcome these itself, and why, moreover, it very often does not -- and often also cannot -- even recognize these problems in itself as problems and these limitations in itself as limitations. 

III. A FEW ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PRESUPPOSITIONS 

A.

Presuppositions refer to what is "presupposed," what is assumed, taken for granted, unspoken or unwritten and yet at the same time clearly accepted and obviously believed about any or all of the following:

1. What exists and what does not (or what is real and what is unreal);

2. What is true and what is false (or what is correct and what is incorrect, or what is valid and what is invalid) about that which exists;

3. What is good and what is bad (or what is right and what is wrong, or what is fair and what is unfair, or what is just and what is unjust, or what is equitable and what is inequitable, or what is responsible and what is irresponsible, or what is legitimate and what is illegitimate) about that which exists;

4. What has caused and what has not caused (or what has given rise to and what has not given rise to, or what has made possible and what has not made possible, or what has made necessary and what has not made necessary) that which exists; and 

5. What can and should be done and what cannot and should not be done, how so, and why so (or what is possible and what is impossible, how so, and why so) with and about that which exists to change it. 

B.

These presuppositions are themselves the product of approaching what exists from the vantage point of a particular (social) subject position or nexus of (social) subject positions.

Subject positions are always positions within each of the following: 

1. --> within a particular (social) discourse or nexus of (social) discourses, (a discourse = a particular way of speaking or writing in a particular area of language use, a particular "frame of intelligibility," or a particular "structure of meaning").

2. --> within a particular (social) ideology or nexus of (social) ideologies, (an ideology = an articulation of a comprehensive and systematic understanding of what exists, what is good, and what is possible, for whom, when, where, how, how far, and why within and about the general mode of organization of social relations within a particular society at a particular historical time).

3. --> within a particular (social) relation or nexus of (social) relations, (a relation = any relationship involving the interaction and exchange between any two or more entities).

4. --> within a particular (social) process or nexus of (social) processes, (a process = any movement from an origin to an end through various phases and stages).

5. --> within a particular (social) institution or nexus of (social) institutions, (an institution = any structure designed to organize, govern, regulate, administer, and control interactions and exchanges among human beings that involve these human beings in particular movements through stages and phases from origins to ends). 

6. --> within a particular (social) practice or a particular nexus of (social) practices (a practice = a particular kind of action that can be repeatedly performed and which is performed as part of a particular process, within a particular relation, within a particular institution to meet a particular end or goal).

C.

To be more precise in understanding how all of these "positionings" fit together, it is important to know the following:

1. Discourses are combined, consolidated, and concentrated to form ideologies. 

2. Ideologies represent the objective ends and interests of particular social classes, particular class fractions and class strata, and particular "cross-class" social groupings (as well as the organizations and movements which represent these classes, class fractions and strata, and cross-class social groupings) in conflict and struggle (as well as in the resolution and dissolution of conflict and struggle) with other social classes, class fractions and class strata, and cross-class social groupings over right of access and opportunity to exercise the natural and cultural resources, powers, and capacities of a particular society. 

3. Particular relations take place within and across particular institutions, within and as a part of particular processes, in the concrete form of particular practices, and are rendered intelligible and articulated through particular discourses and particular ideologies. 

This material is copyrighted (©)