Persuasion is the Primary Reason for an Argument

Persuasion is the Primary Reason for an Argument

When someone offers an argument to persuade you, she gives reasons for accepting its conclusion.

Consider a prediction about Team X: let’s say that Peter and a bunch of other folks are sitting in the bleachers just before the championship game is about to begin, and Peter makes the claim, “Team X probably will win the championship game today” – he obviously wants any and all persons (himself included) to believe that this claim is in fact true. However, Paul is sitting next to Peter, he’s an intensely inquisitive kind of person, and he wants to know why Peter believes this and why anyone should believe this, so he says to Peter, “Oh yeah, prove it. Demonstrate it. Show me why I should accept that claim as true. I’m not convinced. I’m not persuaded. I want you to convince me, to persuade me, that the claim is true.” Basically, Paul is asking for Peter’s argument that concludes to the claim, “Team X probably will win the championship game today.” So, Peter lays out his reasons for why anyone should accept his conclusion as being true, and those reasons take the form of premises in an argument.

“Well,” Peter continues, “Team X won the championship game the last two years. And Team X has had the best statistics of all of the teams this season. And those are the reasons that support my conclusion. Another way to say it is this: that Team X will win the championship game today follows from, or can be inferred from, the fact that Team X won the championship game the last two years and Team X has had the best statistics of all of the teams this season.”

Paul then may say, “Well, if it’s true that Team X won the championship game the last two years and it’s true that Team X has had the best statistics of all the teams this season, then I, too, am convinced that Team X probably will win today.”

A definition, an account, or an explanation can look like an argument. Consider:

1. Since Catholics are Christians.
2. And Christians are believers in One God.
3. Therefore, Catholics are believers in One God.

Suppose someone doubts the statement “Catholics are believers in One God.” The premises can then be offered as reasons to accept it. If the listener already accepts the definitions and their implications, the same sequence may simply explain what the terms mean. In that context, consider the statement “Catholics are believers in One God.” It expresses what the listener already accepts.

Also, this argument really has the flavor of an explanation:

1. The car starts only if the battery works.
2. The battery does not work.
3. Thus, the car does not start.

We could easily see someone’s asking an auto mechanic, “Hey, why doesn’t my car start?” and the auto mechanic’s responding, “Well, the battery doesn’t work, and the car won’t start if the battery isn’t working. So, there’s the explanation for your problem. If he’s a competent, experienced, trusted auto mechanic, then “The battery doesn’t work” is what explains the car’s not starting, and the claim is not really something about which one need debate or argue.

The next example can function as an account in a road-trip conversation. Imagine someone waking from a long nap in the car and asking, “How much further to Chicago?”

1. The sign says Chicago is 10 miles away from here.
2. Qualified highway personnel placed the sign where it is located.
3. Chicago is (most likely) 10 miles away from here.

Notice that if someone claimed, “Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” this would be easy to show as true or false by virtue of historical evidence. However, if someone claimed, “Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” then we can see that it “cries out” for a justification in terms of an argument. The person making this claim would need to convince others that Thatcher was the best PM of the UK by providing an argument complete with evidence for the truth of any premises.

Usually any prescriptive claim – a claim communicating that one should, ought to, or must do something – requires an argument. For example, the typical person will kill a spider he sees in his home, usually with a shudder and an “Ewww” right after. If someone said, “Hey, you shouldn’t kill the spiders you see in your home,” the argument might look like the following:

1. Spiders set up webs near cracks and crevices of your home and eat insects that would become nuisances if they got inside your home, like ants and mosquitoes.
2. That spiders do this is a good thing, and they need to be alive to do it.
3. You should do and/or promote what is good and, conversely, you should not do and/or promote what is bad.
4. Thus, you shouldn’t kill the spiders you see in your home.

The following disputed claims likewise call for reasons and evidence. They are examples of claims to evaluate, rather than conclusions established here:

The love of money is the root of human‐perpetuated evils in this world.

Welfare programs actually create more poverty and should be abolished altogether.

Abortion is immoral.

There is an all‐powerful, knowledgeable, and good God who cares deeply for humanity.