A1'JALYZING ARGUMENTS
·YENTS
123
• Analyze the Reasons Used to Support a Claim
exists,
n that
31 some
m of fact,
"e who in ~, :
con­
-ftyand
Jl the ted '.
erican
Stating a claim is one thing; supporting that claim is another. As a critical
reader, you need to evaluate whether a writer has provided good reasons to
support his or her position. Specifically, you will need to decide whether
the support for a claim is recent, relevant, reliable, and accurate. As a writel~
you will need to use the same criteria when you support your claims.
Is the source recent?
Knowledgeable readers of your written arguments
not only will be aware of classic studies that you should cite as "intellec·
tual touchstones"; they will also expect you to cite recent evidence, evi­
dence published within five years of when yo u are:writing. Of course, older
research can be valuable. For example, in a paper about molecular biology,
you might very well cite James Watson and Francis Crick's groundbreak­
ing 1953 study in which they describe the stru cture of DNA. That study is
an intellectual touchstone that changed the life sciences in a fundamental
way, much as Einstein's theory of relativity changed how physicists think
about the universe. Or if you \I·Jere writing abou t educational reform, you
might very well mention Hirsch's 1987 book Cultural Literacy. Hirsch's
book did not change the way people think about curricular ref<{l-m as pro­
foundly as Watson and Crick's study changed the way scientists think
about biology, but his term cultu ral literacy continues to serve as usefu l
shorthand for a particular way of thinking about curricular reform that
remains influential to this day.
Although citing Hirsch is an effective way to suggest you have studied
the history of an educational problem, it wi ll not convince your readers
that there is a crisis in education today. To establish that, you would need
to use as evidence studies published over the past few years to show, fo r
example, that there has been a steady decline in test scores since Hirsch
wrote his book. And you would need to support your claim that cU1Ticuiar
reform is the one sure way to bring an end to illiteracy and poverty with
data that are much more current than those available to Hirsch in the
1980s. No one would accept the judgment that our schools are in crisis if
your most recent citation is more than twenty years old.
Is the source relevant?
~e\V s-
and minor
:n support
attempts to
Evidence that is relevant must have real bearing
on your issue and also depends greatly on what your readers expect. Sup­
pose two of your friends complain that they were unable to sell their con­
dominiums for the price they asked. You can claim there is a crisis in the
housing market, but your argument won't convince most readers if your
only evidence is personal anecdote. Such anecdotal evidence may alert you
to a possible topic and help you connect with your readers, but you w ill
need to test the relevance of your friends' experience - Is it pertinent? Is
it typical of a larger situation or condition? - if you want your readers to
take your argument seriously. At the very least, you should scan real estate
li stings to see what the asking prices are ~or properties comparable to your
friends' properties. By comparing listings , you are defining the grounds for
124
CHAPTER 7
I IDENTIFYING CLAIMS AND ANALYZlJ\lG ARGUMENTS
your argument. If your friends are disappointed that their one-bedroom
condominiums sold for less than a three-bedroom condominium with
deeded parking in the same neighborhood , it may will be that their expec­
tations were too high . If you aren't comparing like things, your argument
is going to be seriously flawed. If your friends' definition of what consti­
tutes a "reasonable price" differs dramatically from everyone else's, their
experience is probably irrelevant to the larger question of whether the
local housing market is depressed.
Is the source reliable? You also need to evaluate whether the data you
are using to support your argument are reliable. After all, some researchers
present findings based on a very small sample of people that can also be
rather selective. For example, a researcher might argue that 67 percent of
the people he cited bt!Iieve that school and residential integration are
important concerns. But how many people did this person interview? More
important, who responded to the researcher's questions? A reliable claim
cannot be based on a fevv of the researcher's friends.
Let's return to the real estate example. You have confirmed that your
friends listed their condominiums at prices that were not out of line wi th
the market. Now what? You need to seek out reliable sources to continue
testing your argument. For example, you might search the real estate or
business section of your local newspaper to see if there are any recent sto­
ries about a softening of the market; and you might talk with several local
real estate agents to get their opinions on the subject. In consulting your
local newspapers and local agents, you are looking for authoritative
sources against which to test your anecdotal evidence - the confirmation
of experts who report on, study, evaluate, and have an informed opinion
on local real estate. Local real estate agents are a source of expert testi­
mony, firsthand confirmation of the information you have discovered. You
would probably not want to rely on the testimony of a single real estate
agent, who may have a bias; instead , talk with several agents to see if a
consensus emerges.
Is the source accurate? To determine the accuracy of a study that you
want to use to support your argument, you have to do a little digging to
find out who else has made a similar claim. For instance, if you want to
cite authoritative research that compares the dropout rate for white stu­
" dents with the rate for students of color, you could look at research con­
ducted by the Civil Rights Project. Of course, you don't need to stop your
search there. You could also check the resources available through the
National Center for Education Statistics. You want to show your readers
that you have done a relatively thorough search to make your argument as
persuasive as possible.
The accuracy of statistic s - factual information presented numeri­
cally or graphically (for example, in a pie or bar chart) - is difficult to ver­
ify. To a certain extent, then, their veracity has to be taken on faith. Often
ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
)O m ,·it.h
pec­
aent
::;.sti­
'h eir
. the
YOU
he-­
be
of
are
or e
.aim
-'l
'our
lh
::nue
:e or
: sto­
al
ur
a tive
rion
~_:-~on
esti· . You
. . :are
~ .f
a
125
the best you can do is assure yourself that the source of your statistical
information is authoritative and reliable - government and major research
universities generally are "safe" sources - and that whoever is interpreting
the statistical information is not distorting it. Returning again to our real estate example, let's say you've read a newspaper article that cites statistical
information about the condition of the local real estate market (for example,
the average price of property and volume of sales this year in comparison to
last year). Presumably the author of the article is an expert, but he or she
may be interpreting rather than simply reporting on the statistics. To reas­
sure yourself one way or the other, you may want to check the sources of the
author's statistics - go right to your source's sources - which a responsible
author will cite. That will allow you to look over the raw data and come to
your own conclusions. A further step you could take would be to discuss the
article with other experts - local real estate agents - to find out what they
think of the article and the information it presents.
Now, let's go back to Myra and David Sadker's essay. How do they
develop their assertion that girls are treated differently from boys in class­
rooms from "grade school through graduate schoo!"? First, they tell us (in
paragraph 4) that they have been conducting research continuously for
"almost two decades" and that they have accumulated "thousands of hours
of classroom observation." This information suggests that their rese'ftrch
is both recent and relevant. But are their studies reliable and accurate?
That their research meets the reliability criterion is confirmed by the grants
they received over the years: Granting institutions (experts) have assessed
their work and determined that it deserved to be funded. Grants confer
authority on research. In addition, the Sadkers explain that they observed
and refined their analyses over time to achieve accuracy: "As we watched,
we had to push ourselves beyond the blind spots of socialization and gradu­
ally focus on the nature of the interaction between teacher and student." In paragraph 7, the authors provide more evidence that the observa­
tions that support their claim are accurate. Not only have they observed
many instances of gender bias in classrooms, so have trained "raters." The
raters add objectivity to the findings because they did not share the Sad­
kers' interest in drawing a specific conclusion about whether gender bias
exists in classrooms. Also the raters observed a wide cross-section of stu­
dents and teachers from "different racial and ethnic backgrounds." At the
end of their study, the Sadkers had collected thousands of pieces of data
and could feel quite confident about their conclusion - that they had "dis­
covered a syntax of sexism so elusive that most teachers and students were
completely unaware of its influence." .
• Identify Concessions
.....r-
Part of the strategy of developing a main claim supported with good reasons
is to offer a concession, an acknowledgment that readers may not agree
with every point the writer is maIGng. A conc~ssion is a writer's way of
126
CHAPTER 7
I
IDENTIFYING CLAIMS AND AJ'IALYZl.t\lG ARGUMENTS
saying, "Okay, I can see that there may be another way of looking at the issue
or another way to interpret the evidence used to support the argument I am
making." For example, you may not want your energy costs to go up, but
after examining the reasons why it may be necessary to increase taxes on
gasoline - to lower usage and conserve fossil fuels - you might concede
that a tax increase on gasoline could be useful. The willingness to make con­
cessions is valued in academic writing because it acknowledges both com­
plexity and the importance of multiple perspectives. It also acknowledges
the fact that information can always be interpreted in different ways.
The Sadkers make a concession when they acknowledge in the last
paragraph of the excerpt that "it is difficult to detect sexism unless you
know precisely how to ob~erve." And, they explain, "if a lifetime of social­
ization makes it difficul t to spot gender bias even when you're looking for it,
how much harder it is to avoid the traps when you are the one doing the
teaching." Notice that the~ concessions do not weaken their argument.
The authors' evidence appears overwhelmingly to support their thesis. The
lesson here is that conceding a point in your argument shows that you have
acknowledged there are other ways of seeing things, other interpretations.
This is an important part of what it means to enter a conversation of ideas.
Often a writer will signal a concession with a variation of the phrase
"It is true that ..." (for example, "I agree with X that Y is an important fac­
tor to consider" or "Some studies have convincingly shown that ...") . Gen­
erally, the wliter will then go on to address the concession, explaining how
it needs to be modified or abandoned in the light of new evidence or the
writer's perspective on the issue.
• Identify Counterarguments
As the term suggests, a counterargument is an argument raised in response
to another argument. You want to be aware of and acknowledge what
your readers may object to in your argument. Anticipating readers' objec­
tions is an important part of developing a conversational argument. For
example, if you were arguing in support of universal health care, you
would have to acknowledge that the approach departs dramatically from
the traditional role the federal government has played in providing health
insurance. That is , most people's access to health insurance has depended
on their individual ability to afford and purchase this kind of insurance.
You would have to anticipate how readers would respond to your pro­
posal, especially readers who do not feel that the federal government
:'\
snould ever playa role in what has heretofore been an individual responsi­
bility. Anticipating readers' objections demonstrates that you understand
the complexity of the issue and are willing at least to entertain different
and conflicting opinions.
In the excerpt from "Hidden Lessons," the Sadkers describe the initiai
response of Dateline staffers to what they observed in the classroom they
were videotaping: "This is a fair teacher.... [TJhere's no gender bias in this
ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
127
teacher's class." Two women whom the Sadkers describe as "intelligent"
and "concerned about fair treatment in school" agreed: "We've been play­
ing this over and over. The teacher is terrific. There's no bias in her teach­
ing. Come watch" (para. 9).
Notice the Sadkers' acknowledgment that even intelligent, concerned
people may not see the problems that the Sadkers spent more than twenty
years studying. In addressing the counterargument - that sexism does not
exist - the authors are both empathetic to and respectful of what any rea­
sonable person might or might not see. This is in keeping with what we
would call a conversational argument: that writers listen to different points
of view, that they respect arguments that diverge from their own, and that
they be willing to exchange ideas and revise their own points of view.
In an argument that is more conversational than confrontational, writ­
ers often establish areas of common ground, both to convey to readers that
they are understood and to acknowledge the conditions under which read­
ers' views are valid. Writers do this by making concessions and anticipating
and responding to counterarguments. This conversational approach is
whal many people call a Rogerian approach to argument, based on psy­
chologist Carl Rogers's approach to psychotherapy. The objective of a
Rogerian strategy is to reduce listeners' sense of threat so that they are open
to alternatives. For academic writers, it involves four steps:
1. Conveying to readers that they are understood
2. Acknowledging conditions under which readers' views are valid
3. Helping readers see that the writer shares common ground with them
4. Creating mutually acceptable solutions to agreed-on problems
The structure of an argument, according to the Rogerian approach, grows
out of the give-and-take of conversation between two people and the topic
under discussion. In a wlitten conversation , the give-and-take of face-to­
face conversation takes the form of anticipating readers' counterargu­
ments and uses language that is both empathetic and respectful to put the
readers at ease.
Steps to Analyzing an Argument
o Identify the type of claim. A claim of fact? Value? Policy?
D
Analyze the reasons used to support the claim. Are they recent?
Relevant? Reliable? Accurate?
II
Identify concessions. Is there another argument that even the
author acknowledges is legitimate?
a Identify counterarguments. What arguments contradict or
challenge the author's position?
"10.