8 Backing

We said every argument rests on a foundation of assumptions and that assumptions can be disputed.

When that happens, it becomes clear that an assumption is really just another claim with another argument behind it.

We call that argument the backing for the assumption.

For example, let's go back to this poster:

We listed a few assumptions and possible challenges to those assumptions:

ORIGINAL ASSUMPTIONS AND REBUTTAL

*Authenticity is important*

Who cares about authenticity? Who cares if someone is fake? What's important is the experience you have with a person. If that experience is better when they're fake, then they should be fake!

If it's important to you to feel like you are being "authentic", whatever that means, then that's fine but it's something you want for yourself; it's not necessarily good advice to other people.

*Individualism is valuable*

Individualism is not valuable in and of itself. It's only valuable if the individual is different in a way that is exceptionally valuable to others. The problem is that it's just as likely, if not more so, that an individual is different in a way that makes them less valuable to others, and if that's the case you shouldn't be yourself at all, you should try to be like everyone else.

*We actually know who we are*

"Be yourself"? Who am I? And what is "being me"? Does it mean if I want to sleep all day, and I do, I am being myself? Am I the person who sleeps all day? Or am I the person who does what I want for as long as I want to? And do I really want to sleep all day, or am I just depressed?

Writelike

To respond to any of these challenges, you would have to create a supplementary argument with the assumption framed as the main claim (just as you would if you were responding to any other rebuttal).

For example:

BACKING ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT ASSUMPTIONS

*Authenticity IS important*

By authenticity, we mean acting in accordance with deeply held beliefs and values. This type of authenticity is important because large social systems can enforce values that the majority of individuals don't personally agree with. The only way to change bad norms is by individuals standing up for their authentic beliefs.

*We know who we are NOT*

The assumption is not that "we know who we are" because we could be many things and that range of possibilities makes it impossible to know our "whole selves". The real assumption is that we know who we are *not* because we feel distress and alienation when we are forced to act inauthentically. We don't have to know who we *are* in order to know for certain that *this is not me*, but this distress and alienation is bad and should be avoided.

Writelike

And these otherwise hidden, lower-level arguments are what we would call backing.

(You can see that each one uses familiar argument components.)

In the text box below, we've copied your assumptions from the previous page. Choose one assumption, delete the others, and write a brief backing argument to defend it.

(If your assumptions aren't in the text box, rewrite one from the previous page.)

Choose one assumption, delete the others, and write a brief backing argument to defend it.

To recap

If the assumptions underpinning your argument were challenged, you would have to respond with more arguments to justify those assumptions.
These sub-arguments are called the backing for the assumptions.
Like the assumption, the backing is usually hidden from view. It only comes up when an assumption is challenged, and the speaker needs to explain it.
There's not much more to it!
The hardest part is just understanding that these usually-unstated assumption-backing arguments exist, and can be drawn into view and challenged as needed.

Eight argument components