CHAPTER 5: Step 3 (Support Your Ideas)Once you’ve researched your topic and collected information, you need to figure out how to use what you've found to meet your communication goals. If you're dealing with a controversial question or problem, throwing facts at your audience won’t be enough -- you'll need to assemble it into a logical argument that can stand up to critical attack. This chapter will give you some helpful pointers on how to build an argument and support your ideas. Logical arguments are instruments of power. They're how you make things happen. It's worth the effort to understand some basics, even if some of this chapter makes your head hurt.U.S. Air ForceUSAF_f44f343c-b6c9-11e2-b3e2-1be1e2f52354Controversial questions and problems are dealt with effectively._1eb9bc12-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3cTo provide helpful pointers on how to build an argument and support your ideas._1eb9bd0c-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3cEvidenceCharacteristics of Good Supporting Evidence -- Though different professions and academic fields have their own standards of what is "good" evidence, there are some common characteristics to consider.TrustIs the information from an authoritative, trustworthy source? Will your audience trust this source and should you? In the previous chapter we stressed the importance of being cautious with Internet sites, but you should be wary of any source’s credibility. Also, remember that it's better to refer back to original material than rely on someone else's interpretation of existing work since people and their research are often misquoted. AccuracyIs the information accurate and free from error? Check and recheck your facts --errors can seriously damage your credibility. Critically evaluate your sources and if you’re uncertain about your facts, be honest with your audience. You can increase your confidence in the accuracy of your information by using multiple sources to confirm key facts.PrecisionIs your information appropriately precise? When we talk about "precision," we mean the information should be specified within appropriately narrow limits. The level of required precision will vary with the topic being discussed. Describing regulations for uniform wear may require a precision of fractions of an inch and telling someone that his operational specialty badge should be in the middle of their shirt or within a meter of his belt buckle is not adequately precise. On the other hand, when reporting on the designated mean point of impact for munitions, a measurement in meters or feet would be an appropriate level of precision. When talking about some subset of a group, explain how many or what percentage of the total you’re talking about. If you find yourself constantly using qualifiers like "some, most, many, almost, usually, frequently, rarely…" you probably need to find some convincing statistics to help you make your case. RelevanceIs your evidence relevant? Evidence can be authoritative, accurate and precise, yet still be totally irrelevant. Don't shove in interesting facts that have nothing to do with the claim; help the reader understand the relevance of your material by explaining its significance. Explain charts, graphs and figures and use transitions in your writing to "connect the dots" for the reader.SufficiencyIs your evidence sufficient to support your claim and representative of the whole situation or group? If you are trying to form some conclusions about a situation or group, you need data that represents the complete situation. For example, if you were trying to form conclusions about the overall military population, you would want to gather evidence from all services, not just one career field in one service. If you find that your evidence is either not representative or not sufficient, you need to find more evidence, limit the claim to what you can prove or qualify your claim. You may have to let go of evidence that doesn’t fit or data that is no longer current. PersuasionPersuade others by building logical arguments._1eb9bdca-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3cThe Logic of Arguments: Fundamentals -- When you present a solution to a problem or answer a controversial question, persuasion is part of the assignment. There are different approaches to persuade members of your audience -- you can appeal to their emotions, their ability to reason or even your own credibility on the topic being discussed. In the Air Force environment, your best approach to support your ideas and persuade others is by building a solid logical argument. Though the word "argument" is commonly used to describe a quarrel or disagreement, it also has a positive meaning -- it's a series of statements intended to persuade others. In this chapter, when we use the term logical argument, we’re referring to a coherent set of statements that provide a position and support for that position based on information and facts, not just emotions. This is important for two reasons. First, you build logical arguments every day: when you talk to your team about duties; when you talk to your boss about your workload and schedules; and when you sort out how best to accomplish the mission. If you build strong arguments, things are more likely to work out the way you think they should. Second, others are aiming arguments at you every day and many of these arguments fail logically. If you understand how arguments are constructed and where they go wrong, you're less likely to buy into a failed logic. Elements of a Logical Argument -- Different textbooks have different terms and approaches to describe logical arguments. This chapter uses terminology found in The Craft of Research, by Booth, Comb and Williams. Logical arguments contain four elements: * a claim * evidence that supports the claim * warrants linking pieces of evidence to the claim * qualifications that limit the claim First we'll describe each of these terms and then we’ll illustrate them in a real-life example of an argument in the next section. The example will help clarify each point.ClaimsState your position on an issue, your answer to a controversial question or your recommendation for resolving a problem._1eb9bfdc-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c1The Claim -- Your claim is simply your position on an issue, your answer to a controversial question or your recommendation for resolving a problem. In academic writing, a claim is also called a thesis.EvidenceProvide evidence to support your claim._1eb9c0ea-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2Evidence That Supports the Claim -- By definition, every argument has evidence intended to give reasons for your claim. Another term for evidence is support ("support" and "evidence" are used interchangeably in this text). The similarity of these terms is clear in their definitions: Evidence (a noun) is the data by which proof or probability may be based or may be admissible as testimony in a court of law. Support, as a noun, is the information that substantiates a position; as a verb, support is the act to furnish evidence for a position. If a piece of evidence is questionable, it may be attacked as a sub-claim. Then, you either have to provide additional evidence to prove the sub-claim is true, or eliminate it from your argument.ProofProve your point._1eb9c1b2-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1Evidence: Proving Your Point -- As you see, individual pieces of evidence are used to build your argument. In this section, we identify some common types of evidence as well as approaches to help explain your ideas to your audience.DefinitionEstablish a common frame of reference for important or ambiguous words._1eb9c284-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.1A definition is a precise meaning or significance of a word or phrase. In an argument, it can be helpful to establish a common frame of reference for important or ambiguous words, so don't underestimate the importance of definitions.ExamplesClarify an abstract ideas and support claims by citing specific instances to represent broader facts._1eb9c34c-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.2An example is a specific instance chosen to represent a larger fact in order to clarify an abstract idea or support a claim. Good examples must be appropriate, brief and attention arresting. Quite often they are presented in groups of two or three for impact.TestimonyUse the comments of recognized authorities to support your claim._1eb9c41e-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.3Recognized AuthoritiesTestimony uses the comments of recognized authorities to support your claim. These comments can be direct quotations or paraphrases, but direct quotations tend to carry more weight with listeners or readers. When using testimony as support, make sure the individuals being quoted are both generally credible -- no unknown relatives or convicted felons, please -- and knowledgeable in the field under discussion.StatisticsSummarize data that allows your audience to better interpret quantitative information._1eb9c4f0-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.4Statistics provide a summary of data that allows your audience to better interpret quantitative information. Statistics can be very persuasive and provide excellent support if handled competently.Simplicity & Ease of UseKeep statistics simple and easy to read and understand._1eb9c5c2-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.4.1RoundingRound off your statistics whenever possible._1eb9c68a-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.4.2SourcingDocument the exact source of your statistics._1eb9c77a-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.4.3AppropriatenessUse statistics properly._1eb9c860-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.4.4StatisticiansIronically, people who work with numbers for a living are the most cautious about trusting someone else's statistics!The persuasive power of statistics means that you need to be particularly careful to use them properly. Many people will put blind trust in numbers and fall prey to people or papers that spout numbers or statistical proof.AssumptionsExamine the assumptions on which the analysis rests._1eb9c932-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.1.4.4.1Always, always examine the basic assumption(s) on which the analysis rests. Some of the most compelling statistical arguments turn out to be intricate sand castles built on a foundation of shaky assumptions. The math may be technically correct, but the assumptions can’t stand up to scrutiny.ExplanationsMake points plain and understandable and give the causes of effects._1eb9ca18-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.2John RamageJohn BeanJune JohnsonIn their book Writing Arguments, John Ramage, John Bean, and June Johnson define a fact as a noncontroversial piece of data that can be confirmed by observation or by talking to communally accepted authorities. The authors distinguish a fact from an inference, which is an interpretation or explanation of the facts that may be reasonably doubted. They recommend that writers distinguish facts from inferences and handle inferences as testimony. Definitions, testimony, statistics and facts provide data that you can use to construct an argument. This next category -- explanation -- can also be helpful in supporting your ideas. Explanation makes a point plain or understandable or gives the cause of some effect. It can be used to clarify your position or provide additional evidence to help make your case. The following three techniques can be used as part of an explanation:AnalysisSeparate wholes into smaller pieces for further study._1eb9caf4-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.2.1Clarifying a complex issue by examining one piece at a time.Comparison & ContrastUse comparison to dramatize similarities between two objects or situations and contrast to emphasize differences._1eb9cbda-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.2.2Comparison and Contrast are birds of similar feather.DescriptionTell about the claim in detail._1eb9ccca-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c2.2.3To tell about in detail, to paint a picture with words -- typically more personal and subjective than definition.WarrantsAddress assumptions that link the evidence to the claim and explain why the evidence is relevant to the argument._1eb9cfcc-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c3Warrants That Link Evidence to the Claim -- With every piece of evidence, there are often assumptions, either stated or unstated, that link the evidence to the claim and explain why the evidence is relevant to the argument. These linking statements or concepts are called warrants. Warrants are important because they can be potential weaknesses in an argument. QualificationsAddress conditions that limit the claim._1eb9d0da-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c4Qualifications That Limit the Claim -- Sometimes the argument will have qualifications -- conditions that limit the claim. You can think of a qualification as a statement you attach to the claim with a big IF statement. We often notice these qualifications as we critically look at the evidence we have and realize its limitations.Logical ErrorsAvoid flawed arguments._1eb9d1ca-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5Bertrand RussellMany people would sooner die than think -- in fact, they do so.Logical Errors: Flawed Arguments -- Some of you may have studied formal logic in school. These classes used a lot of complex language and theory to describe what makes an argument "good" or "bad." Unfortunately, many real-life arguments outside of math and engineering are more "squishy" … and sometimes it's hard to draw a diagram or write an equation to explain exactly what's wrong. Common errors in reasoning are called informal fallacies. They are called "informal" fallacies because they're harder to pin down than some of the "formal" errors in logic. Still, you see them around you every day -- especially in advertising, talk radio or political debates. Keep them out of your staff work and learn to identify them in others. The informal fallacies below have been grouped into categories that make sense to the editors, but there's no universally accepted approach to categorizing them. Also note that labeling something as a fallacy requires some judgment -- after all, many of these are "gray areas."Asserted ConclusionsAvoid asserted conclusions._1eb9d2ba-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.1An asserted conclusion is the practice of slipping in an assertion and passing it off as a fact. There are two variations of asserted conclusions: circular reasoning and loaded questions.Circular ReasoningAvoid rewording your claim and trying to use it as evidence._1eb9d3aa-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.1.1Circular reasoning (also known as begging the question) involves rewording your claim and trying to use it as evidence, usually with a lot of other “filler sentences” designed to confuse the other person. This is popular in advertising where different versions of the claim are repeated over and over again. If the advertisers have their way, you may not notice that the "support" merely restates the claim using different words -- a textbook case of circular reasoning. After a while, it's easy to forget there's absolutely no support there at all.Loaded QuestionsAvoid embedding assertions within questions._1eb9d4b8-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.1.2A Loaded question has an assertion embedded in it -- it's another form of an asserted conclusion. One example of a loaded question is "Do you think John Smith is going to improve his rude behavior?" The phrasing of the question itself implies that John has behaved poorly in the past -- regardless of how you answer the question. "When are we going to stop sinking money on this expensive program?" has an embedded assumption: the money we've spent to date hasn't been effective.Character AttackAvoid assaulting opponents as individuals._1eb9d5a8-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.2The classic name for a character attack is the ad hominem fallacy (in Latin, Ad Hominem means "to the man"). Character attacks are also sometimes called poisoning the well. A character attack involves an assault on your opponent as an individual, instead of his or her position. It's very common in political advertisements, but you see it in the workplace as well.Emotional AppealsAvoid appeals replacing arguments with emotions._1eb9d6a2-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3Emotional appeals try to persuade the heart, not the head. Though emotion plays a role in persuasion, when emotion replaces reasoning in an argument, you've committed a foul. Often arguers attempt to appeal to our emotions in an argument through biased language, vivid language and stirring symbols. They may try to persuade us using "character" issues such as glowing testimonials from popular but non-credible sources. Here are some examples of logical fallacies in this area: ForceDon't target the audience's fear of punishment._1eb9d7ba-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3.1Emotional appeal (to force): These arguments target the audience's fear of punishment. What characterizes these examples as fallacies is that they make no attempt to persuade using anything other than pressure.PityAvoid appealing solely to emotions._1eb9d8b4-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3.2Emotional appeal (to pity): This is an argument that targets the audience's compassion and concern for others. Though most people would agree that ethics and values should be part of the decision-making process, an appeal solely to emotion, even a positive one, can be dangerous and misguided.Popularity & TraditionAvoid appealing solely to popularity or tradition._1eb9d9ae-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3.3Emotional appeal (to popularity or tradition): Stirring SymbolsAvoid over-reliance on powerful symbols and attractive labels to build support._1eb9daf8-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3.3.1Bandwagon AppealAvoid over-reliance on peer pressure to build support._1eb9dbfc-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3.3.2PrecedentDon't use custom as the only justification for decisions._1eb9dd00-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.3.3.3False AuthoritiesBe thoughtfully critical of both the printed and spoken word._1eb9de22-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.4False authority is a fallacy tied to accepting facts based on the opinion of an unqualified authority. The Air Force is chock-full of people who, because of their position or authority in one field, are quoted on subjects in other fields for which they have limited or no expertise. Don't be swayed (or try to sway someone else). A false authority variant is called the primacy-of-print fallacy, where facts are believed because they are published in a book, periodical or on a website. Be as skeptical and thoughtfully critical of the printed word as you are of the spoken word.False CausesDon't assume an event causes another merely because it precedes the second event._1eb9df30-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.5False cause (also known as the Post Hoc fallacy) occurs when you assume one event causes a second event merely because it precedes the second event. Many people observe that Event B occurred after Event A and conclude that A caused B. Single CausesDon't assume a single cause for an outcome when multiple causes may exist._1eb9e03e-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.6A single cause fallacy occurs when you assume there is a single cause for an outcome, when in fact multiple causes exist.Faulty AnalogiesAvoid false implications that because two things are alike in one way, they are alike in all the ways that matter. _1eb9e160-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.7The faulty analogy is very common. Though we often make analogies to make a point, sometimes they go astray -- there's something about the comparison that isn't relevant. A faulty analogy implies that because two things are alike in one way, they are alike in all the ways that matter. Faulty DilemmasAvoid false implications of lack of middle ground between options._1eb9e278-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.8A faulty dilemma implies there is no middle ground between two options.GeneralizationsAvoid hasty generalizations._1eb9e386-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.9A hasty generalization results when we "jump to conclusions" without enough evidence. A few examples used as proof may not represent the whole... One of the challenges with this fallacy is it's hard to determine how much evidence is "enough" to form a reasonable conclusion. The rules will vary with the situation; more evidence is needed to form a conclusion if the stakes are high. The Food and Drug Administration may require a great deal of evidence before deciding a drug is safe for human use, while SSgt Snuffy may require very little evidence before forming a generalized conclusion about which candy bars should be sold at the snack bar.Non SequitursDon't draw conclusions that do not necessarily follow from the facts presented._1eb9e4bc-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.10Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow" and is the generic term for a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the facts presented. The facts may not be relevant, or there may be some sort of illogical leap made. Several fallacies, such as hasty generalization and faulty analogy, can be thought of as different types of non sequitur. For example, "John Doe will make a great squadron commander because he is an expert in his career field." This is a non sequitur error because it implies strong technical skills equate to the skills needed to command. A similar non sequitur argument assumes athletic prowess indicates strong leadership skills.Slippery SlopesAvoid false all-or-nothing implications._1eb9e5d4-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.11The slippery slope implies that if we take one small step in an unpleasant or dangerous direction, we'll have to go all the way -- like slipping down a hill. Here's an example from Writing Arguments by Ramage, Bean and Johnson: "We don’t dare send weapons to Country X. If we do so, next we will send in military advisors, then a Special Forces battalion and then large numbers of troops. Finally, we will be in an all-out war." Though not every slippery slope argument is false, in some cases we can identify lines that we will not cross. In general, it is best to evaluate each argument on its merits using a foundation of agreed-upon principles.Red HerringsDon't bring up irrelevant information to get the audience off track._1eb9e6ec-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.12Red herring fallacies occur when an arguer deliberately brings up irrelevant information to get the audience off track. The origins of the "red herring" name are debatable, but the central idea is to divert attention from the topic with content that has no bearing on the outcome. Stacked EvidenceDo not withhold facts or manipulate support so that the evidence points in only one direction._1eb9e82c-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.13Stacked evidence is the tendency to withhold facts or manipulate support so that the evidence points in only one direction. This happens when you gather only the data or opinions that support your position. This may be done deliberately or may occur due to unconscious bias or carelessness. We may not see counterarguments or alternative interpretations of the facts because of our firm belief in our own position, or we just stop gathering information once we we’ve found enough support to make our case. Even if you decide to push for your favorite interpretation of the data, never stack evidence by misrepresenting or manipulating the basic information. If you decide that you don’t want to discuss the opposing viewpoint, you should at least be aware of it, so you can prepare a counterpunch if needed.Straw MenAvoid attacking a weaker, grossly simplified version of the opponent's argument._1eb9e94e-fa20-11e7-bdbd-1565f2215f3c5.14Straw man is a fallacy where you attack a weaker, grossly simplified version of the opponent's argument rather than directly addressing the argument presented. In effect, you are attacking a "straw man" -- the argument that you wished your opponent made, not the one he actually did. The straw man fallacy is popular in political campaigns. For example, suppose a candidate believed that a major goal of prisons should be rehabilitation, not just punishment. An opponent could exploit that with a straw man attack: "My opponent coddles convicted felons and wants to make life easier behind bars than on the street. Prison should be a deterrent, not a reward for bad behavior!" This list of fallacies captures most of the common errors we hear and see daily. Our challenge is to sharpen our professional senses so we can quickly sniff out the rational from the ridiculous and avoid adding to the epidemic of poor reasoning and weak support we encounter around us. We’ve all had experience with using logical arguments to persuade someone else. In the middle of such a discussion, you may have asked yourself, "What's my goal -- to persuade the other guy and make my case; or to find out the truth and the best answer to the problem?” (This usually comes up when your opponent comes up with a valid point you hadn’t considered before.) Ever since the ancient Greeks were walking around in togas, people have struggled with this issue. The next section introduces this tension between truth and persuasion so that you are aware of it in both your arguments and those of others.2015-11-192018-01-15http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/publication/afh33-337/afh33-337.pdfOwenAmburOwen.Ambur@verizon.net