Argument components

Practical arguments are all built from the same kit of 8 components.

On this page, we'll introduce each component and explain its purpose.

At the back of the lesson, you'll find more detailed explanations and examples.

1. ISSUE

An argument, by definition, is contested.

So, every argument begins with an issue: a problem or question to be resolved.

Issue

2. CLAIM

To resolve the issue, we make a claim: the answer or conclusion we want the audience to accept.

Claim

3. REASON

To get our audience to agree with our conclusion, we provide a reason: a statement that justifies our claim.

Crucially, a reason is a because statement. It is causally linked to the claim. 

Reason

THE CORE ARGUMENT

A claim plus a reason is a minimum viable argument.

We'll call this a core argument: this solution because this reason.

Core argument

Core argument is a Frankenstories term.

We also like to call it a nutshell argument.

You could use the term thesis although it's broader.

Most formally, it's called an enthymeme, which roughly means an argument made "in the mind" of the audience (because they have to fill in the missing evidence.)

4. EVIDENCE

Sometimes, a core argument is all you need to convince an audience.

However, most of the time you need to provide evidence: facts, data, and other material that you connect through reasoning to support the core argument.

Evidence

MULTIPLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE

Usually, we'd provide more than one piece of evidence to support an argument. 

And evidence can take many forms: lived experience, research reports, data & charts, and so on.

Evidence multiple

5. REBUTTAL

Since arguments are contested, they are subject to rebuttal: counter-claims and evidence that challenge our stated reasons and evidence.

Rebuttal

Knowing this, a well-crafted argument will often anticipate and address potential attacks (by making its own rebuttal and then providing a counter-rebuttal).

6. LIMITS

Because arguments can be challenged, we often include limits: qualifying the scope and certainty of components.

We might do this defensively, to make our argument a smaller target for attackers, or simply as a way of being honest and accurate.

Limits

MULTIPLE REASONS (AND EVEN MORE EVIDENCE)

Even a simple argument usually includes several pieces of evidence.

But more complex arguments often require multiple reasons (producing multiple core arguments).

Reasons multiple

And more reasons mean more supporting evidence!

Evidence multiple

THE SCARY TRUTH

By this stage, we're building an increasingly elaborate architecture composed of issues, claims, reasons, and evidence (plus limits and rebuttal).

The existential crisis comes when you realise that all these components are, actually, just claims with fancy job titles.

Everything's a claim, because everything can be challenged.

"Evidence" is made of "facts", but facts are just claims that everyone already agrees on and take for granted.

Even the most elemental fact can be challenged. Not necessarily correctly or in good faith—but argument is a social process, and sometimes people will dispute even the most basic facts.

(This is why trust is fundamental to argumentation.)

BUILDING A LADDER FROM GROUND TRUTH

This brings us to the basic epistemological function of an argument.

An argument builds a ladder—from less contested claims that an audience readily accepts to a more contested claim that they don't (yet).

ARGUMENT AS A LADDER

7. ASSUMPTIONS

If everything is potentially a contested claim, how do we establish a ground truth?

Since we can't include every fact or respond to every objection, we eventually have to make some assumptions.

What key facts do the audience need to believe, and what values do they need to hold, for our reasoning to make sense?

These assumptions exist whether or not the argument mentions them!

Assumptions

8. BACKING

In case you hadn't noticed, our assumptions are also claims, which means they have their own unstated evidence that supports the assumptions.

We call this assumed evidence backing.

Backing

CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS

While the assumptions and backing behind an argument might be invisible and unstated, they are there—which means they can be exposed and challenged.

Often this is one of the key lines of attack in an argument: exposing faulty or problematic assumptions, attacking their backing, and suggesting alternatives.

Rebutting assumptions and backing

PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER

That's argument structure in a nutshell!

Here's everything in one diagram. (Right-click and open to download.)

TWFS Argument components

IMPORTANT!

Remember, this is an architectural framework; it's not a writing template.

Every argument will have all of these components, but they may not be stated, and the argument could be organised, presented, and expressed in a nearly infinite variety of ways.

We'll explore the expressive side in a separate Persuasive Writing lesson.

We've tweaked a few labels from Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation, for the sake of accessibility:

  • Evidence = Grounds
  • Assumptions = Warrants
  • Limits = Qualifiers

While they are initially more opaque, Toulmin's terms are probably better once you get the hang of them.

For example, "evidence" implies concrete facts, data, and observations, whereas "grounds" also captures the idea that some claims are supported more by propositional logic.

And "warrant" helps convey the idea that a speaker relies on the audience's permission to make many links in reasoning.

So if you feel like being a little more sophisticated in your terminology, feel free to switch back to Toulmin's labels.