Every day you find yourself in many conversations, usually trying to prove a point. Maybe something simple like convincing your spouse to get takeout for dinner rather than leftovers. Or something a bit bigger like convincing your boss to take your recommendation for a project. No matter the scale of the situation, you’re creating an argument.
In these same situations, you also find yourself being argued against. Sometimes you know that what you’re hearing is a “bad” argument, but you don’t know why. Likewise, when you’re trying to make a point, you might feel like you lack the know-how of making a complete coherent argument. Maybe you’re simply trying to explain to your co-worker why socialism is a bad idea, or you’re trying to demonstrate the existence of God, or still trying to win the battle between takeout and leftovers. The purpose of this article is to help you form good, coherent arguments, and to be able to identify weak ones. It boils down to five simple steps you can use in any situation.
- Step 1: Commit to critical thinking
- Step 2: Master two types of logical arguments
- Step 3: Avoid nine illogical arguments (and more)
- Step 4: Build trust with three questions
- Step 5: Follow five tactics of persuasion and overcoming stubborn objections
Let’s get started.
Step 1: Start With Critical Thinking
The term “critical thinking” describes the kind of thinking that enables people to cut through ambiguity to make meaning clear. Richard Paul and Linda Elder from the Center for Critical Thinking say that critical thinking is important because of four false beliefs that often muddle the reasoning process:
- False belief #1: It’s true if I believe it.
- False belief #2: It’s true if we believe it.
- False belief #3: It’s true if I want to believe it.
- False belief #4: It’s true if it serves my interest to believe it.1
Embracing any one of these four false beliefs makes truthful communication almost impossible. They cut against understanding, empathy, honesty, clarity, and true persuasion.
Therefore, we ought to renew our commitment to deep, honest thinking.
Here are eight characteristics of good critical thinking:
- Clarity – to make one’s meaning as plain as possible
- Precision – to make important distinctions in a way that sets apart alternatives
- Accuracy – to present exact information
- Relevance – to state premises and conclusions simply, on topic, and without unwarranted assumptions
- Consistency – to avoid contradictions in thought or actions
- Completeness – to make arguments that are not superficially stated or ignorant of opposing points of view
- Fairness – to be as impartial as possible and open about biases
- Courage – to maintain a humble yet charitable attitude
Step 2: Begin Forming Your Argument
A good argument satisfies the characteristics of good critical thinking by being accurately drawn from true premises (deduction) or formed from a general principle that accurately summarizes what has happened in the real world (induction). Good arguers habitually evaluate their arguments by asking questions like:
- Are the premises true?
- Does the reasoning correctly lead to the conclusion?
- Are the reasons relevant to the conclusion?
- Have I committed any logical fallacies?
- Is the argument complete and fair?
Many things people think are arguments are not actually arguments. For example, reports of information, personally held beliefs, or illustrations are not, strictly speaking, arguments. They may explain why a person might hold something to be the case, but they do not actually argue that it is the case.
As we prepare to make good arguments, it’s important to understand that arguments fall into two types: deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments are those in which the conclusion is “deduced” from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. Generally speaking, deductive arguments move from the general to the specific. If the general principles are true, the specific conclusions must be also. Deductive arguments follow a format like this:
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
This format of making an argument is called a “categorical syllogism.” It is the most recognizable of many types of syllogisms, probably because of this common example:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Another kind of syllogism is called an argument by elimination:
Either Kay walked to the store or she drove to the store
Kay did not walk to the store
Therefore, Kay drove to the store
A third type is called an argument by definition:
All uncles are male
Bill is an uncle
Therefore, Bill is a male
In all of these examples, if the major and minor premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. Deductive arguments can either be valid or invalid. An argument whose form is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, is said to be a valid argument. This confuses people because it is possible for the premises to be false but the form of the argument to still be valid. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and lead to a true conclusion.
An inductive argument “induces” the conclusion from the premises. Whereas deductive arguments take a general principle and draw a specific conclusion, inductive arguments take specific instances and form a general principle. For instance:
Most of the people I have met from Tennessee have been friendly
Therefore, it is likely that most Tennesseans are friendly
Or, an inductive argument may take a predictive form:
Most winters in Minnesota have been cold
Therefore, next winter in Minnesota will probably be cold
It may also take a statistical form:
80 percent of the students at Biscayne College are Protestants
Sam is a student at Biscayne College
Therefore, Sam is probably a Protestant
Other forms of this argument include the argument from analogy (drawing a conclusion based on comparisons). An argument from analogy would be something like, “The best ideas are like trees. The more deeply rooted they are, the stronger they become.”
Inductive arguments can be either strong or weak. A strong inductive argument is one where the conclusion probably follows from the premises. The more likely the conclusion, the greater the argument’s strength. If the premises are true and the conclusion follows with strength, it’s called a cogent argument.
Step 3: Avoid Bad Tactics
Ernest Hemingway was once asked what it takes to be a great writer. He replied, “In order to be a great writer a person must have a built-in, shockproof crap detector.”2 It is true in general life as well.
To not be fooled by every argument we hear (and to make ones others will listen to), we must be able to discern whether arguments that sound good or even might knock us back on our rear ends are actually true.
Carl Sagan, though an atheist who found religion insulting, hit the nail on the head when he said that if we don’t practice tough habits of thinking “we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us—and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, a world of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who saunters along.”3
The term “fallacy” refers to mistakes that make arguments invalid, unsound, weak, or ineffective. There is no exhaustive list of fallacies. Here are some of the more common ones to avoid if you wish your arguments to be taken seriously:
Ad hominem. Ad hominem means “against the man,” and the name for an argument based on a personal attack. For example, “Bob claims that marijuana does not interfere with a person’s ability to do his job on a construction site, but we all know that Bob was a regular marijuana user in college.” Unless the arguer proves that Bob’s facts are wrong or that his arguments are based on impaired reasoning, accusations of his past marijuana use are not relevant to the argument and would be ad hominem fallacies.
Tu Quoque (Too KWO kwee). Tu Quoque is also called the “Look who’s talking” fallacy. In this fallacy, a person’s argument is rejected because he does not practice what he preaches. Admittedly, it is hard to take exercise advice from an out-of-shape person, but just because the person doesn’t personally heed the advice doesn’t necessarily mean her advice is wrong.
Scare Tactics. In the scare tactic fallacy, a person is threatened physically or otherwise if he does not accept the arguer’s conclusion. For example, “You ought to take my advice; after all, I have been a big financial supporter of your charity.”
Appeal to Pity. An appeal to pity fallacy tries to evoke feelings of pity rather than making actual arguments. For example, a woman in Britain who weighed 350 pounds said, “I’m obese because I don’t get enough taxpayer money” and suggested that she be reimbursed for every pound she loses.4
Bandwagon. The bandwagon fallacy says a person should accept a claim because it is popular, not because it is based on sound reasoning or evidence. For example, “A group of 3,000 scientists have all said that climate change is caused by humans, so you should believe it too.” Of course, such a group might have good reasons for believing something, but to focus on the number who believe rather than the reasons is to commit a logical fallacy.
Straw Man. In the straw man fallacy, an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. For example, “Representative Clyde opposes the bill to limit carbon emissions; therefore, she must think climate change poses no serious threat to the environment.”
Red Herring. The origin of the term is supposedly from hunters using a strong-smelling fish to distract hounds from chasing an animal the hunters did not want chased. In a red herring argument an arguer tries to sidetrack the discussion by raising an irrelevant issue and then claiming that the original matter has been settled by the diversion.
False Dilemma. In the false dilemma fallacy an arguer poses a false either/or choice. Arguing that Christians should support government programs, Craig Watts says:
Some politicians who identify themselves as Christians claim the only way the poor should be helped is by voluntary contributions. To use tax dollars to help them is ‘theft’ and ‘using other people’s money,’ they argue. Oddly, they don’t seem to think that using tax dollars for crop subsidies, energy subsidies, surveillance apparatus or weapons systems constitute theft. The hypocrisy is clear.5
In this instance the arguer creates a false dilemma by assuming that politicians ought to support programs for the poor, or nothing. But that they should spend the money at all or spend it on the poor instead of other things, is exactly what he is obligated to prove, if he wishes to make a cogent argument.
Weak Analogy. A weak analogy fallacy is when an arguer compares things that are not really comparable in relevant respects, such as “Making people without children pay school taxes is like making people who don’t smoke pay taxes on cigarettes.”
Just because someone arrives at a conclusion based on logical fallacies does not mean their conclusion is false; it just means that it is not merited based on the arguments given. New arguments must be made that do not take shortcuts. True principles do not need tricky techniques to show themselves true.
Step 4: Begin Persuasion by Building Trust and Credibility
Persuasion is “The act of influencing the mind by arguments or reasons offered, or by anything that moves the mind or passions, or inclines the will to a determination.”6 To persuade others to reach truthful conclusions requires trust and credibility as well as clear definitions and logical arguments. Even if we are specially gifted by God for some great cause, we still need to grow in favor with others. How do we do this?
Good persuasion takes a high level of credibility. Credibility comes from the root word “Credo” for “I believe”7
We become credible when we live consistently with what we say we believe.
A lack of credibility leads to a lack of trust. In his book The Speed of Trust, businessman Stephen M.R. Covey says,
Simply put, trust means confidence. The opposite of trust—distrust—is suspicion. When you trust people, you have confidence—in their integrity and their abilities. When you distrust people, you are suspicious of them—of their integrity, their agenda, their capabilities, or their track record.8
Building trust has practical benefits. In his book, Covey demonstrates that when business relationships are built on trust, they can develop more quickly and at a lower cost. Conversely, when trust is low, things slow down because those involved must take time to study one another more carefully. Costs also go up, because it takes expensive attorneys to devise the complicated contracts they need to protect their interests. This slows down the process of reaching agreement and can be very expensive.9
The philosopher Aristotle developed a three-part test for developing credibility.10 The first part, Aristotle said, is “ethos”: demonstrating that you are a good person. People are watching; do you display good character? The second part, “pathos,” or passion, is based on how your hearers are led to feel emotion by your approach. Does your message engage them? The third part of credibility is based on a word we’ve already discussed, “logos.” Are your arguments well-constructed based on proper evidence?
Credible people, to Aristotle, are those who can effectively share their passion with others and do so based on good arguments. But there is one more, subtle aspect to this kind of credibility. Credibility is as much an attitude on the part of the persuader as it is an event for those being persuaded. Researchers call this the “Pygmalion effect,” based on an ancient Greek myth about a sculptor whose love for the statue he creates moves the goddess Aphrodite to bring it to life.
So while we want those we’re persuading to be convinced of our character, to find our arguments moving, and to see the logic in what we’re saying, there is also a self-fulfilling prophesy aspect to persuasion: people are unlikely to be convinced if we aren’t convinced ourselves.
Step 5: Form a Persuasive Message
Now you put it all together. You’ve thought clearly. You’ve have formed your argument. You know to avoid (and detect) bad tactics. And you have the necessary credibility with your audience. Not you just have to put it all in message form.
Let’s say you have the opportunity to make a presentation to your local city council encouraging them to pass a bill that fights sex trafficking. You’ve got all your points prepared, but how do you present them in the best way? In the 1940s a researcher named Alan Monroe tested lots of different ways of organizing persuasive messages. He found that one format is significantly more likely than other ways to move people to action. There are five steps to “Monroe’s Motivated Sequence”11:
Attention. Get the attention of your audience using a story, shocking example, dramatic statistic, or memorable quotation. For example, “We thought the Civil War ended slavery in America but we were wrong.”
Need. Audiences are moved to action by their needs. People won’t buy a bottle of water unless they’re thirsty. Focus on the “thirst” by making your point relevant to your audience. For example, “Sex trafficking occurs when young women are held captive emotionally and forced to meet the sexual desires of others. It isn’t just a problem out there. It’s a problem here in our community.”
Satisfaction. Offer a specific, workable solution the people in your audience can actually imagine implementing. “Fortunately, there are legal powers we can give to our police department to effectively fight this travesty.”
Visualization. Help your audience see what will happen if the solution is implemented. For example, “Imagine making our community a place where young women feel safe and protected.”
Action. Ask your audience for a specific action. For example, “I am asking you today to pass a law based on the codes put together by expert attorneys who are skilled at fighting sex trafficking.”
It is hard to imagine community leaders not wanting to do something about an issue like sex trafficking. On many other issues, however, you will encounter opposition. This is true even if your arguments are clearly defined, logically supported, and persuasively organized. Here are some suggestions for turning hostility into agreement:
Avoid fear appeals. Studies show that fear is only an effective appeal if there is a way for people to act to reduce their fear.12 And while fear can lead people to accept certain beliefs and attitudes, positive appeals are more likely to change intentions and behavior.13
Don’t insist on being acknowledged as right. People are most likely to be persuaded if they believe they are persuading themselves, rather than feeling like they are being compelled to admit that they’re wrong.
Don’t take short-cuts. I remember being told by someone who disagreed with my political viewpoint, “Your candidate is scary.” I dropped the point. Clearly the other person wasn’t interested in hearing what I had to say. But this didn’t mean I had been persuaded. Shaming people into believing something, or making them feel that their view is uncool, doesn’t really persuade them. Compelling someone to stop arguing does not mean they’re persuaded that you’re right. People silenced in this way are as likely to switch back to their previous opinion as if they never changed it in the first place.14 An old saying applies here: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Understand the source of the resistance. Why do people resist change? To answer this, we need to understand what change actually means to people. Generally speaking, people don’t resist change per se. Rather, they resist loss of status, security and comfort. It may be the case that what they are resisting is uncertainty not change. In fact, resistance to change can actually be a good trait—it keeps people from going along “just because” and it opens up new ways of thinking about the issue.15 Encourage them to explore why they find it so difficult to agree and ask how you can help.
Make it personally relevant. The personal relevance of a message affects whether people accept it. In a study of students considering whether or not a university-wide exam required for graduation was a good idea, researchers discovered that students told they would be required to take the exam were more likely to consider the strength of the argument than those told the implementation of the exam was many years away.16
Enlist their help. Actual feedback is more important to whether a person is persuaded by an argument, than their belief that the argument is persuasive.17 Say something like, “Why don’t you take this argument to your friends and see if they have any good responses and share them with me.”
It takes practice to make logical, persuasive arguments. It takes courage to call out people who are trying to trick or manipulate others. Stick with it! People may not like what you say, but they’ll see the integrity with which you say it. Truth wins, but only because persistent people continue to insist on it, in spite of opposition.
This article is adapted from Chapter 5 of Jeff Myers’ book Understanding the Culture (Colorado Springs, David C. Cook, 2017).