Eight argument components

The claim is that "If you like us on Facebook, we will vaccinate zero children against polio."

The reason (why) is "Because vaccine costs money."

Note that the ad doesn't explicitly use the word "because", but we can insert that word in order to identify and clarify the reason for ourselves.

The claim is that "we should embrace de-extinction, not shun it". (FYI this is a proposal claim.)

The reason is because "it would be really cool."

(More specifically, the reason is "the very fact that science has advanced to the point that such a spectacular feat is possible".)

The reason type is valuational. (Because we're saying de-extinction would be cool and spectacular, which are value statements.)

What do we make of the fact that we have a proposal claim and a valuational reason? Should they be the same type?

It's completely normal. In most arguments, the issue and claim tend to have the same argument type because the question defines the answer. However, after that, everything gets more fluid, especially as the argument gets more complex.

(FYI It's worth noticing that a proposal claim is still fundamentally about values (what action will bring a good result?), so values-based reasoning makes total sense.)

So far we've said that an argument begins with an issue, which leads to someone making a claim, which is justified by a reason. (And next, we'll say that claim & reason are supported by evidence.)

If you look at the highlighting of the snippet above, you'll see the components we've highlighted are not exactly in that order.

Is that a problem? What's going on?

No, it's not a problem, and what's going on is that there is a difference between the structural reasoning behind an argument and the way in which that reasoning is presented.

Imagine a complex argument as a giant museum full of rooms and exhibits.

In presenting that argument to another person, we might walk them through every room in order, from the front entrance to the gift shop exit. 

However, that would probably take a while and could be a little stale and predictable, so instead, we might take a few detours, skip some of the boring rooms, and present a few things out of order to provide a more compelling tour.

Similarly, when constructing an argument for ourselves, we might lay it out room by room, with everything in order. But when we present the argument, we will often cherry-pick the best parts and present them in the most interesting order.

We've talked about types of reasoning and types of reason, which sound similar but mean slightly different things, so if you're confused, it might help to remember that reasoning is a process and a reason is a thing.

We use cause & effect and criteria & match reasoning (as well as principal-based reasoning, which we don't cover in these lessons) throughout the process of making an argument.

Using those two types of reasoning, we can come up with seven types of reason (factual, causal, proposal, definitional, etc).

The two concepts overlap because each of the seven argument types tends to have a default reasoning type. (For example, a causal argument will use more cause & effect reasoning, while a valuational argument use more criteria & match reasoning.)

"We should give everyone bionic legs..."

Possible reasons could be:

• Factual: "...because they are now so cheap."
• Causal: "...because they let people jump higher."
• Definitional: "...because they are a human right."
• Resemblance: "...because bionics are like an urban infrastructure upgrade for the human body."
• Valuational: "...because bionics are so much fun."
• Proposal: "...we should be helping everyone become machine hybrids."
• Ethical: "...because everyone should get the benefit of super-limbs."

Every claim needs at least one reason to justify it.

But a claim can have more than one reason.

For example:

• Claim: "We should give everyone bionic legs..."
• Causal reason: "...because they let people jump higher..."
• Valuational reason: "...and because bionics are so much fun...."
• Proposal reason: "...and because we should be helping everyone become machine hybrids..."
• Factual reason: "...and because they are now so cheap..."
• Ethical reason: "...and because everyone should get the benefit of super-limbs."

You can see there are lots of reasons to justify giving everyone bionic legs!

However, to make them believable, we might need to support these reasons with evidence, which will be our next argument component.

• A reason is not evidence.
• A reason is essentially another claim—but ideally a less-contested claim that supports the more contentious claim you're trying to get the audience to accept.
• This is an insight into how arguments work: they use less-contested claims to build a bridge towards more-contested claims, so that by the end, the audience can stroll to the desired conclusion without being forced to make leaps that they might reject.
• Once you realise that an argument is claims all the way down, you understand why we have to make assumptions.