Arguments

By the Walden University Writing Center Staff

Merriam-Webster (2010) defined an argument as a coherent series of statements
leading from a premise to a conclusion. Loosely defined, it is any text in which a writer
makes a claim and tries to support it. In scholarly literature, authors present their own unique
insight into a particular subject and try to support it with some type of evidence. Arguments
generally include a series of unstated assumptions and in order for the conclusion drawn to be
acceptable, it is logically necessary for the assumptions to be reasonable. In this section, we do
not delve deeply into the intricacies of formal logic; we cover only the basics of what is
required to understand the structure of an argument.
The Structure of an Argument
Understanding the structure of arguments is important because it enables a reader to
critique various works effectively. Arguments consist of two main parts: conclusion and
evidence.
Socrates is human (premise) Socrates is mortal (conclusion)
In this common argument, one concludes that Socrates is mortal because he is human
(as humans are, in fact, mortal). In this example a single conclusion/claim is drawn from a
single premise. However, most of the arguments readers of academic literature encounter are a
lot more complicated with numerous reasons given in support of an assertion, and the
assumptions that may hold them together may be difficult to uncover.

2010 Walden University Writing Center

A slightly more complex example might look like this:

The example above gives four reasons in support of the main claim. This could have
been a lot more complex; one could add six more copremises and significantly increase the
justifications. The most important part of the analysis for the critical reader is to determine
whether the reasons given really support the main point. For instance, one may ask whether
violating important principles of international law by keeping GITMO open would really
undermine Americas reputation.
Difference Between an Argument and an Explanation
Readers of social science literature sometimes have a difficult time distinguishing
between an argument and an explanation. The former is, as noted earlier, a combination of
assertions supporting a central claim; the latter is a description of the circumstances or an
2010 Walden University Writing Center

interpretation of given information. Thus, one cannot use an explanation to support a claim.
For instance, one might say that the increase in teen pregnancy in the US can be explained by
the permissive media culture, willingness to take risks in sexual relations, or moral decline.
Although these explanations are certainly interesting and may even be true, they are not
evidence. One would need to go further and try to provide some sort of empirical evidence to
support the claim.
Types of Arguments
Inductive and Deductive Arguments
There are generally two types of arguments: inductive and deductive. A deductive
argument is one in which the premises guarantee that the conclusion is true. These occur
when, perhaps by mathematical or definitional necessity, the truth of the premise will definitely
determine the truth of the conclusion. An inductive argument, on the other hand, is one in
which the premises provide a sufficient reason for a reader to believe that a conclusion is likely
to be true. The difference between the two is the level of certainty that can be ascribed to each
one. One can be certain that the conclusion of a deductive argument is correct while one can
bet that the conclusion of an inductive argument is probably correct. Most of the arguments
encountered in social science literature will be inductive as scientists (a) seek to find possible
explanations for varying phenomena, (b) use statistical data to make inferences regarding large
groups based on what is found to be true of smaller ones, or (c) try to find a causal relationship
between two or more variables.

2010 Walden University Writing Center

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument is considered valid or invalid. It is valid when it has the right
form regardless of whether or not its premises are true. For instance:
All fish can run.
Anything that can run can fly.
Therefore, all fish can fly.
Although the two premises in this argument are false, the argument is logically valid. This
means it is possible to have a valid argument that has false premises and a false conclusion.
Validity simply means that if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true; it does not
mean that the premises are true. Thus a deductive argument with false premises and a true
conclusion can be valid. For instance:
All fish have smooth skin.
Anything with smooth skin can swim.
Therefore, all fish can swim.
In an invalid argument, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. It may
look like this:
All American presidents live in Washington, DC.
John lives in Washington, DC.
Therefore, John is an American president.
In this example, the premises may be true, but the conclusion is false. A key point to note is
that invalid arguments are unsound. When one combines true premises with a valid argument,
the argument is said to be sound.

2010 Walden University Writing Center

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are described as either strong or weak,
depending on the strength of the premises/information provided to support the conclusion.
Therefore, by definition, valid arguments cannot be strong and vice versa. One can, however,
speak of any argument as being valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, one may ask whether
it is sound or unsound. If you understand the structure of a writers argument, the easier it will
be to critique. See our section on logical fallacies.
Evaluating Arguments
Critical reading has a lot to do with evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of
arguments. Because graduate students are generally expected to critically assess what they
read, simply having a sense of what might be wrong with an argument is not enough, they must
be able to identify precisely why an argument may be weak. As a general rule, the stronger the
claim, the stronger the evidence provided in support of it must be. It is one thing to say
poverty contributes to war and entirely another to say poverty causes war. One would require
stronger evidence to support the latter claim than to support the former. Both critical readers
and writers must learn how to strengthen and weaken arguments. Writers who master these
skills are able to write authoritative and convincing material and readers who master these
skills are able to critique such material. By learning how to effectively identify assumptions,
one is well on the way to evaluating arguments effectively.

2010 Walden University Writing Center