China Debate Education Network:
Elements of Arguments:
Linking Evidence to Claims
Movement from Evidence to Claim
Evidence is not the Claim
 Evidence is not the same as claim.
 Some movement is required to make the “trip”
from evidence to claim
 That movement involves what we are calling a
“link.”
The Nature of Link
• Links frequently are unstated.
• Different kinds of links appear in different
argument types
• In fact, the kind of link frequently defines the
argument type
– Argument by principle
– Argument by analogy
– Argument by cause and effect
Kinds of Argumentative Links
Category
Definition
Example
Authority
Support a claim by associating
that claim with the opinion of
experts in the field.
Former UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan has announced
repeatedly that millions in
Africa are dying of AIDS.
Generalization
Create an association between
particular examples and a more
general rule.
I have three debaters who are
failing my class, so I am
beginning to question how
serious debaters are about their
classes.
Analogy
Create associations between
things that are similar or
dissimilar. This kind of link is
used to create or criticize claims
of similarity.
China’s economic power in the
twenty-first century will be like
America’s in the twentieth
century.
Kinds of Argumentative Links
Category
Definition
Example
Causal links
Create associations between
causes and effects. This kind of
link is used to create claims of
causal association.
Smoking leads to heart disease.
Principle
Connect a particular situation to Capital punishment is always
a general principle.
unjust because it violates the
principle of the right to life.
Incompatibility Evaluate one thing as
incompatible with something
else.
Persons who oppose abortion by
arguing that taking a life is
immoral are logically bound to
oppose capital punishment as
well.
Dissociation
Opposition to abortion is not a
matter of a “right to life.” It’s a
matter of a right to human life.
Create new categories by
dividing an old category into
two new ones.
Kinds of Links: Authority
• A positive association between an arguer’s
claim and the statement of an authority.
• What is an authority?
– An expert in the field
– A recognized expert in a field relevant to the
claim.
– A trustworthy person
Kinds of Links: Generalization
• This argument describes an entire group by
presenting evidence from specific cases within
a group and moving to a general claim about
the whole group.
• Generalization is based on probability
• Assumptions:
– That a sufficient number of examples are
presented as evidence.
– That the examples are representative of the
group.
Kinds of Links: Analogy
• Makes a claim about one member of a group
based on similarity to other members of the
same group.
• Movement is from one specific case to
another.
• 2 Kinds:
– That two examples are similar to one another
– That two examples are similar in known regards
and therefore will be similar in unknown regards.
• Analogies are descriptive and evaluative.
Kinds of Links: Causality
• Causes cannot be observed, only inferred.
• Three ways to infer cause and effect
– Absence and presence
– Change over time
– Correlation
– Controlled empirical studies
• Used to judge actions based on their
consequences
Kinds of Links: Principles
• Unlike the argument of causality, this kind of argument
judges an action based on – as the name implies –
principles.
• Three parts:
– Select a principle
– Argue for the importance of the principle
– Apply the contemplated action to the principle
• Assumptions:
– Is the principle sound? Universal?
– Does the action apply unambiguously to the principle?
Kinds of Links: Incompatibility
• A kind of argument used to support an opponent’s
argument and thus support one’s own.
• By showing how 2 views are incompatible, the arguer
implies that one must be discarded
• Different ways incompatibility is used:
– Two different statements made in different times
and/or places
– Views are incompatible with accepted facts and/or
values
– Refusal to act in this situation is incompatible with our
values.
Kinds of Links: Dissociation
• Starts with a unified concept and divides it
into two different concepts
• Starts with a concept the audience is assumed
to value
• Divides that concept into two new concepts:
one of which is valued and one of which is
not.
• The argument by dissociation can thus argue
against an argument of incompatibility.