GRASP - Graduate Research Advanced Skills Program

1. RESEARCH WRITING SERIES 1 Argument in research writing GRASP - Graduate Research Advanced Skills Program Clear and cogent argument is the basis of successful research writing. Learn about argument fundamentals in this workshop.

2. 1 Argument in research writing • AIMS OF TODAY’S CLASS • By the end of the workshop, participants will • appreciate the importance of sound argument as the basis for successful writing of papers and theses • be able to define argument, and understand the differences between analysis, critique and argument • understand the basic forms of deductive, inductive, abductive and conductive arguments • understand the difference between formal and informal argument • be able to plan an argument in order to write a short and longer document • be able to quickly identify the premises and the conclusion of a selected written text • have been introduced to Toulmin’s method of argument analysis

3. 1 Argument in research writing Three main dimensions of academic writing ANALYSIS Breaking things down into parts, looking for relations between these parts in order to make meaning. CRITIQUE The systematic application of doubt in order to arrive at a balanced evaluation. ARGUMENT The process of supporting one main, contestable claim, with other claims using reasoning and evidence.

4. 1 Argument in research writing What an argument is – and what it is not… ‘The Argument Clinic’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y (Up to 3 Min. 45 secs)

5. 1 Argument in research writing THREE DEFINITIONS OF ARGUMENT “A unit of discourse which states a proposition and supports that proposition with reasons.” (Ruby, 1970, P.1) “A set of claims that a person puts forward…to show that some further claim is rationally acceptable.” (Govier, 1992, P.2) “Reasoning that seeks to establish the truth of a doubtful claim.” (Allen, 2004, P.175)

6. 1 Argument in research writing ARGUMENT IN RESEARCH WRITING • Understanding the structures and processes of argumentation is crucial for both • performing critique of the arguments of others and • constructing one’s own arguments. • Argument in research writing must follow the basic rules of sound • argumentation, however it often acquires of a level of complexity in the • ways in which it moves between and links different forms of argument.

7. 1 Argument in research writing Definition of terms Proposition Claim Premise Conclusion Assumption Law of non-contradiction Truth/Validity/cogency Fallacy Formal/informal argument Deductive argument Inductive argument Abductiveargument Conductive argument Warrant

8. 1 Argument in research writing DEFINITION OF TERMS Proposition/claim A sentence which states that something is the case. Premise A claim which is provided as evidence to support another claim (a conclusion). Conclusion A claim which is supported by one or more premises. Assumption A claim/condition which can be explicitly stated OR implicitly given. Law of non-contradiction (LNC) Nothing can be said to be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way.

9. 1 Argument in research writing DEFINITION OF TERMS • Truth • Correspondence theorywhena ‘true’ sentence accurately reflects • ‘the world’ as it is. • Coherence theory‘truth’ seen as overall coherence among • sentences or propositions. • Validity An argument is said to be valid, if its • conclusion follows necessarily from its • premises (which are true). • Fallacy A mistaken argument or mistaken step in • an argument. Fallacious arguments • are not cogent.

10. 1 Argument in research writing DEFINITION OF TERMS Formal Argument An argument expressed in either formal or natural language, which is validated solely in terms of its logical form – i.e. the relationships between premises and conclusions. See http://studyskills.curtin.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/5-5-text-version.pdf Informal argument An argument expressed in natural language which may obscure its logical form, and which is validated mainly by the persuasive power of words. See http://studyskills.curtin.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/5-8-text-version.pdf

11. 1 Argument in research writing DECIDING HOW TO ARGUE • Your methodological design should suggest which forms of argument you use. Why? • What does this mean? • Methodological design • ontology • epistemology • methodology • methods • Also consider argument conventions in your own field of research. • Argument forms • deductive • inductive • abductive • conductive

12. 1 Argument in research writing DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT - 3 types A form of argument in which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Categorical ‘All are’ [ All X are Y ] ‘None are’ [ No X are Y ] ‘Some are’ [ Some X are Y ] ‘ Some are not’ [ Some X are not Y] Hypothetical‘If - ‘then’[ If X, then Y ] Disjunctive‘or’ [ Either X or Y ]

13. 1 Argument in research writing (i) Categorical Arguments A categorical argument is made up of categorical statements which show to what extent all or parts of one category are included in all or parts of another category. Examples of categorical statements: ‘All mammals are warm-blooded.’ (All M are W) ‘No mammals are cold-blooded.’ (No M are C) ‘Some politicians are women.’ (Some P are W) ‘Some politicians are not women.’ (Some P are not W)

14. 1 Argument in research writing (i) Categorical Arguments A categorical argument is made up of categorical statements which show to what extent all or parts of one category are included in all or parts of another category. Example of a categorical argument: Premise 1 ‘All mammals are warm-blooded.’ ( All M are W ) Premise 2 ‘Dolphins are mammals.’ ( All D are M ) Conclusion ‘Therefore, dolphins are warm-blooded.’ ( All D are W )

15. 1 Argument in research writing (ii) Hypothetical Arguments A hypothetical argument is made up of hypothetical statements which are comprised of two parts which specify a condition and anticipated consequence by using ‘If’ – then’. Example of a hypothetical statement: ‘If inflation rises, then interest rates will rise.’ ( If X, then Y ) A hypothetical argument: Premise 1‘If the inflation rate rises, then interest rates will rise.’ ( If I, then R ) Premise 2‘The inflation rate has risen.’ ( I ) Conclusion‘Therefore, interest rates will rise.’ (R)

16. 1 Argument in research writing (iii) Disjunctive Arguments A disjunctive argument is made up of disjunctive statements which are statements which present an alternative using ‘or’. Examples of disjunctive statements: (i) Either the government will be re-elected or defeated. ( either X or Y ) (ii) Either my son has borrowed my car or it has been stolen.( either X or Y ) Example of a disjunctive argument: Premise 1 ‘Eithermy son has borrowed my car or it has been stolen.’( either X or Y ) Premise 2 ‘My son has not borrowed my car.’ ( not X) Conclusion ‘Therefore it has been stolen.’ ( therefore Y )

17. 1 Argument in research writing Inductive Arguments (Most commonly used in scientificand experiment-based enquiry. Based on experience and observation ) A form of argument in which, even if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true, but not necessarily true. Premise 1 In 98% of observed cases, where there is smoke, there is fire. (presence of X, usually indicates presence of Y) Premise 2 There is smoke on the mountain. (X is present) Conclusion Therefore, there is probably a fire on the mountain. (Y is probably the case) For examples of various kinds of inductive argument, see http://studyskills.curtin.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/5-7-text-version.pdf

18. 1 Argument in research writing • Abductive Arguments • (pragmatic/creative guessing) • Premise 1 You arrive home and are surprised that the front door is open. (X) • Premise 2 But if your daughter had arrived home before you, this would be (If Y, then • unsurprising.unsurprisingly X) • Premise 3 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that your daughter (therefore, presumably Z) • opened the door. • There is sufficient (but not necessary) reason to allow for the guess • to be true. It is the most ‘economical’ and pragmatic explanation. • (Abductive reasoning can often yield creativeand imaginativeconclusions, because it • is not bound by purely ‘logical’ relations.)

19. 1 Argument in research writing Conductive Arguments (good reasons arguments) An argument wherein each premise is separately relevant to the conclusion, and wherein these premises, taken together,provide good grounds in support of the conclusion. A Premise 1 B Premise 2 C Premise 3 D Premise 4 E Conclusion http://studyskills.curtin.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/5-7-text-version.pdf

20. 1 Argument in research writing Toulmin’s critique of conventional logical form

21. 1 Argument in research writing The Toulmin model of argument Stephen Toulmin (1958) proposed a model of argumentation which attempts to describe what often happens when we formulate an argument. Toulminclaims that AN ARGUMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED VALID PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ITS FORM The Toulmin model shows that as an argument develops by adding more evidence, its logical structure does not necessarily conform to the strict rules of the classical syllogism.

22. 1 Argument in research writing The Toulmin model of argument Data The evidence used to support a claim. Warrant A reason or principle used to connect the data with the claim. ClaimThe conclusion about the observed data.

23. 1 Argument in research writing • The Toulmin model of argument • “argument fields” • “field-dependent” • “field-independent’ • Start: 3.45 secs End: 11.46 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifc3FQ0WccU • Start: 3.45 secs End: 11.46

24. 1 Argument in research writing The Toulmin model of argument An example Data: All members of the family were granted refugee status by the American government. Warrant: The law provides that all those granted refugee status may apply for American citizenship. Claim: Presumably, all members of the family have the legal right to apply for American citizenship.

25. 1 Argument in research writing The Toulmin model of argument An example Data All members of the family were granted refugee status by the American government. (Complicating factor: one family member has a criminal record.) Warrant The law provides that all those granted refugee status may apply for American citizenship. (Complicating factor: those with criminal records may not apply for citizenship.) ClaimAll members of the family (except, presumably, the member with the criminal record) have the right to apply for American citizenship.

26. 5 The Literature Review A simple argument using Toulmin’s model (Machi & McEvoy, 2016, p. 51) Dataa Organized evidence CLAIM Warrant Logical Bridge Data n “Given the data on the subject, this is what we can conclude.”

27. 5 The Literature Review A more complex argument using Toulmin’s model (Machi & McEvoy, 2016, p. 53) Simple claim n Premise n Simple claim 3 Premise 3 Major Claim Simple claim 2 Premise 2 Simple claim 1 Evidence Claim Warrant Warrant Premise 1

28. 1 Argument in research writing Three levels of premise specificity 1. High level premises Broadest level of generality - can perhaps be indicated by chapter headings. 2. Intermediate level premises Support and/or clarify the nature of the broad premise - can perhaps be indicated by or derived from section headings. 3. Low level premises Closer/more immediate to the data and the analysis of data. Can also be indicated by section headings, but will often appear in closely argued language at the level of the paragraph in the form of inductively or deductively arranged paragraphs. Can sometimes occur within a sentence.

29. 1 Argument in research writing • Remember: use the argument(s) in your literature review as a foundation for your broader argument. • Argument of Discovery (inductive) • An argument proving that the findings of fact represent the current state of knowledge regarding the • research topic. • Argument of Advocacy (implicative) • An argument based on claims that have been proven as fact and that serve as premises for logically driving a • conclusion – in this case, the thesis statement of the literature review.

30. 1 Argument in research writing ARGUMENT MAPPING An argument map is a visual representation of the logical structure of an argument – it is not to be confused with a ‘concept map’. Premise (1) ‘Paris is in France’ Premise (2) ‘France is in Europe’ Conclusion (3) ‘Paris is in Europe’ [A10] Argument mapping See: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php

31. 1 Argument in research writing REFERENCES Allen, Matthew. (2004.) Smart Thinking.Melbourne: OUP. Critical Thinking (2017.) Curtin University. The Learning Centre – Online Programs. Accessed 25th March 2018 http://studyskills.curtin.edu.au/critical-thinking/ Critical Thinking Web (2018.) Hong Kong University. Accessed 28th March 2018. http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ Fisher, Jennifer. (2008.) On the Philosophy of Logic. London: Thomson - Wadsworth. Govier, Trudy (2014.) A Practical Study of Argument.Boston: Wadsworth. Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016.) The literature review: Six steps to success (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Ruby, Lionel. (1970.) Logic and Critical Thinking. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.