Skip to main content
note
This page was translated from the German original, partly by machine. Some passages may read awkwardly or contain inaccuracies. When in doubt, please read the original.

Introduction

In the previous chapters we got to know the foundations of critical thinking. Now we turn to a central question: What is a good argument?

Before we distinguish good from bad arguments, the first parts clarify what argumentation actually is, what role it plays and how an argument is structured.

Why we argue​

We use arguments in everyday life and in discussions to justify our views, to support our positions and to convince other people. Argumentations are mostly dialogues in which we put forward reasons to support a claim.

But we do not always argue with the same goal. The following examples show typical conversational situations:

  • Sometimes we argue cooperatively, in order to find the best solution together.
Example

Example of a cooperative argumentation

  • Hans: Which phone provider are you with?
  • Lotte: With Cheap-Tel
  • Hans: And are you happy with the service? (What are your reasons?)
  • Lotte: They have free texts and enough mobile data for a good price. (Reason one and two, etc.)
  • Sometimes we want to talk someone round, by changing their opinion and showing them that there is a better way.
Example

Example of a persuasive argumentation with reasons

  • Hans: Are you still with Dirty-Energy Ltd?
  • Lotte: Sure, for years now, and I'll be staying too.
  • Hans: But now there's EasyGreen. They're cheap, use only renewable energy and are a local cooperative. (Reason one, reason two, ...)
  • Lotte: I don't care about the environment, but cheap and local sounds good, show me. (Reasons are rejected or accepted)
  • Often, however, we rather use emotions such as fear or hope to persuade or convince people.
Example

Example of a persuasive argumentation with emotions

  • Hans: We have to spend more on defense.
  • Lotte: Why?
  • Hans: Otherwise Putin's army will soon be in Europe.
  • Sometimes we argue against each other, as often happens in politics.
Example

Example of an adversarial argumentation

  • Hans: The government wants to raise the inheritance tax. Isn't that terrible.
  • Lotte: That you don't like it, with your three houses, I can understand, but I think it's right.
  • Hans: Why on earth. It's always those who work hard who get punished. I want to leave something to my children and not give it away to the freeloaders.
  • Lotte: Taxes are redistribution; without them there would be no social justice.
  • Hans: Too much tax kills the tax base. If this keeps up, I'll move to the USA.

As different as these situations are, they have one thing in common: we want to show that we are not mindlessly doing or deciding something, but are acting for good reasons. So we always have something that we believe and want to justify. Exactly how such an argument is structured, we will see in the next part.

Overview of the chapter​

What is an argument?​

We clarify the structure of an argument out of premises and conclusion, introduce the central terms (premise, conclusion, validity, soundness) and, with the Toulmin model, get to know a universal model that makes the internal construction of an argument visible.

Types of reasoning​

With deduction, induction and abduction you get to know the three basic forms of inference: what they presuppose, what they achieve and where their limits lie.

Patterns of valid arguments​

Here you get to know classical valid inference patterns, such as the categorical syllogism, the reductio ad absurdum and the argument from analogy, and practice recognizing them in everyday arguments.

Good and bad arguments​

The ability to distinguish good from bad arguments is a core competence of critical thinking. We clarify criteria such as relevance, truth of the premises and logical supporting force, so that you make better decisions in everyday life and protect yourself against manipulation.

Rhetoric vs. argumentation​

We distinguish between rhetorical persuasion and argumentative justification and show how emotions, stylistic devices and framing work, and when they support or replace arguments.

Formal and informal reasoning​

We clarify the difference between the formal inference rules of logic and informal arguing in natural language, and when which checking strategy is appropriate.

Analyzing arguments and hidden assumptions​

Finally, we practice breaking down an argument, exposing its premises and conclusion and making implicit assumptions visible and examining them.