5 Limits

It's a big world out there, and many claims we make are not actually 100% true under all circumstances and conditions.

Despite that fact, a lot of ads are absolutely certain about whatever argument they are making.

For instance, this ad for Raid insect spray, if you take it at face value, says it will literally kill Spiderman:

How's that for confidence!?

This ad is very confident about its claim.

Of course, the Raid ad doesn't expect you to actually believe what it is saying. It's only joking!

Instead, the ad uses metaphor and hyperbole and then assumes you are smart enough to understand and recognise the real claim, which is simply that Raid kills insects.

But what about this ad for the British Army? It's also very confident, but is it joking or does it want you to take it seriously?

This ad is also very confident.

Unlike the Raid ad, this British Army ad is serious: it really wants you to believe it.

But is it true? Is being part of the British Army the definition of belonging? Would everyone feel like they belonged there, or only some people, under certain circumstances, at certain times in their lives...?

These kinds of exceptions, conditions, or qualifications in an argument are what we call limits.

Why don't ads limit their claims?

Sometimes it's because they're outright lying
More often, it's because they want to sound confident, because many people find confidence to be persuasive.
Very often it's because of time pressure: they have limited time to communicate their message, and limits make the message slower and harder to read.

However, medical products can have a direct life or death impact on people, so medical ads are often obliged to limit their claims.

For example, this ad for an anti-smoking treatment called Champix uses visual metaphor and hyperbole just like the Raid ad, and it also has a simple, confident claim: "There is a way out of smoking addiction".

But can you see where it uses language to limit its argument? (You may need to open the image in a new tab to read the fine print.)

Champix There's a way out maze ad with fine print

Medical ads are often obliged to limit their claims to be more realistic (look at the fine print).

THERE IS A WAY OUT.

Champix can help you find your way out of smoking. In fact, it can increase your chance of quitting by around four times*. That's why over 40,000 kiwis used Champix last year to try and quit smoking. To find out if Champix is right for you, talk to your doctor or visit champix.co.nz.

* It's been shown that by the end of a 12-week Champix programme, you're four times more likely to have quit than if you'd taken no medication.

Champix ad

What words and phrases limit the argument in this snippet?

This ad uses modal verbs like 'can' to reduce the level of certainty, and it adds clauses and prepositional phrases to narrow the scope of the argument to specific circumstances:

Champix can help you...
Can increase your chance by around...
To try and quit smoking...
To find out if Champix is right for you...
By end of a 12-week programme...

For an advertiser, the ideal claim would be, "Champix cures smoking addiction!"

But limits make the claim more realistic: "There is a way out of smoking addiction, and Champix may, under certain circumstances, help you find it."

Here's another example, an ad for Fortis Hospital in Bangalore.

Again, it has an eye-catching visual metaphor, but it limits both the certainty and scope of the argument:

Fortis ad: Stomach Sounding Strange? It could be a sign of...

How does this ad limit its argument?

What words and phrases are used in this ad to limit the argument?

Again we see the ad limits the certainty and scope of the argument:

It could be a sign...
If not treated, these can lead to...

We said that many ads avoid limits because they want to sound confident, and confidence is persuasive. (And medical ads have to limit their arguments because there are laws that require them to.)

However, some ads use limits to make themselves more persuasive.

For example, how does Robert Lee limit his argument in this ad? And how do those limits make you feel about him and his business?

How does Robert Lee limit his argument in this ad? And how do those limits make you feel about him and his business?

Interestingly, in this ad Robert Lee doesn't limit his confidence at all; he's 100% certain about every statement.

But he does limit the scope of what he says:

These are mobile homes, not mansions...
They come in two pieces...
They're used; some of them have stains...
My wife's boyfriend broke my jaw with a fencepost...

By aggressively limiting the scope of his argument, Robert Lee can accurately describe his product and establish his honesty.

This honesty can build trust, which is as persuasive as confidence, and it lets customers know exactly what they're buying so they can't complain when Robert parks a two-piece, stain-filled shack on their lawn.

This entire lesson is about the building-block components of arguments, such as issue, claim, and evidence.

We can limit any of these components.

For example, here's an article proposing that parents let children resolve their own conflicts.

Can you see where the writers use limits? What argument component/s are they limiting?

All children argue. And while this can be tedious for parents and carers, it’s not necessarily a problem.

Conflict can help develop social skills, including learning to negotiate, and accommodate the needs of others.

But if the conflict is physical, if there is any distress, or if children are stuck in a loop of unproductive complaints (“no, it’s mine!”), adults can step in to help restore the peace.

Usually, adults intervene by trying to establish the cause of the problem and then providing a solution. But this type of intervention is not as effective as involving children in the process.

'I had it first!' 4 steps to help children solve their own arguments

Where do the writers use limits in this snippet? And what argument component/s are they limiting?

This snippet is from the beginning of the article, so it is about establishing the issue.

The writers go to considerable effort to limit the scope of the issue to a specific set of circumstances.

The issue is that children argue and sometimes parents have to intervene, but the usual approach to intervention misses an important opportunity.
The main claim is that effective intervention should involve children in the process.

However, the issue is limited by saying:

Children's arguments are not necessarily a problem; in fact, they can build social skills.
But if the conflict is physical, distressing, or stuck, then adults do need to intervene.

These limits make it clear the circumstances under which the advice in the article applies.

Here's one last example, from an article about the way streaks in apps motivate behaviour.

Can you find any limiting language? And what argument components are being limited?

(Note that this snippet comes from the middle of the article, so the question at the start is not the issue, it's the main claim: the issue is that lots of apps use streaks, which raises the question of whether or not streaks keep users on the app, and the claim is that they do.)

WHY DO STREAKS MOTIVATE BEHAVIOR?

In general, a streak adds a higher-level goal (keeping the streak alive) to a lower-level goal (completing an individual activity). Streaks also add structure to an activity, and structure can simplify thinking and decision making. The extent to which goal achievement or structure is important to you would influence your commitment to a streak.

I also found the way a streak is structured can affect the streak-holder’s commitment to it. For example, a streak of meditating at least 20 minutes each day may be more appealing, and lead to more commitment, than a streak of meditating at least 140 minutes each week. While the amount of meditating is the same in both cases, a daily streak adds structure, thus simplifying decision making, and encourages the person to regularly engage in a beneficial behavior.

Streaks can serve to gamify the underlying activity by creating rules and quantifying the outcome, and many people enjoy the challenge of a game.

Keeping a streak alive can be strong motivation to stick with a chosen activity

Where does the writer use limits in this snippet? And what argument component/s do they limit?

Because this snippet comes from the middle of an argument, it's primarily concerned with providing evidence.

Most of the evidence is a combination of observation and field research, and the author uses it to support their cause & effect reasoning.

The limits on the evidence serve to qualify these observations and research results, indicating that none of the evidence is absolute:

In general, a streak adds...
Structure can simplify...
The way a streak is structured can affect...
May be more appealing...

To practice using limits, let's make up a brief Balderdash-style argument and try to limit each component.

For example, imagine a completely make-believe argument about Atlantis. List an issue, claim, reason, & evidence, and use qualifying language to limit the scope or certainty of each component:

The legendary lost city of Atlantis. Image of an ancient and mystical underwater city.

What limits could you put around an argument about Atlantis?

Imagine an argument about Atlantis and list the issue, claim, reason, & evidence, while trying to limit the scope or certainty of each component.

Here's an example of an argument that limits each component:

Issue: There have been claims from a small but vocal group of oceanographers that they have found evidence of the lost city of Atlantis.
Claim: It's unlikely that these claims will turn out to be true.
Reason: This is because it appears that they have misinterpreted much of the evidence they've found on the ocean floor.
Evidence: For example, the photos of an undersea temple appear to be a type of geological formation often found near underwater volcanoes.

To recap

With complex, real-world issues, it can be hard to know what's true and impossible to make absolute statements.
In genuine arguments where we actually care about the truth, we often qualify or limit specific components.
We can limit any component in the argument: issue, claim, reason, evidence, etc.
We usually limit our certainty ("Maybe this is true") and/or the scope of a component ("It's true under these conditions").
Limits increase the accuracy and honesty of our arguments.
- This can make our argument harder to understand.
- It can also make us seem less confident and therefore less persuasive.
- But, depending on how we express it, the extra precision can also make us seem more confident and more persuasive.

Eight argument components