Chapter 5. Golden Rule 5: Excel at responding to arguments

As I’ve said several times already, being a good arguer means not only making the points that you want to make, but also responding to the points that other people have made. The best form of argument involves putting forward your best arguments and seeking to counter the other person’s.

There are three ways of responding to an argument:

• Challenging the facts upon which the other person is relying.

• Challenging the conclusions they are reaching.

• Accepting the point they have made, but arguing that there are other points that outweigh what has been said.

This will be clearer if we look at some examples.

All English people dress badly. The Queen is English. Therefore the Queen dresses badly.

Here there are two premises: that all English people dress badly and that the Queen is English. From this there is the conclusion that the Queen dresses badly. The logic here is flawless, but if you wanted to challenge the argument you can challenge the first premise—is it correct that all English people dress badly? Can you think of an English person who dresses well? (Probably not!) You might challenge the other premise—the Queen is English—but that seems harder to challenge. As this example shows, sometimes you cannot fault the logic of the argument, but you can challenge the accuracy of the statements (premises) used as the basis of the argument.

The Pope is Catholic. The Pope opposes abortion. All Catholics oppose abortion.

For this argument there are two premises: that the Pope is Catholic and that the Pope opposes abortion will be readily agreed by most people. But here the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Just because one person who belongs to a group has a view does not mean everyone has that view.

This is another bad argument:

A banana is a fruit. A banana is yellow. All fruit is yellow.

In both these arguments, weak conclusions are reached from indisputable facts. So conclusions do not always flow from the facts. Challenging a conclusion someone has made is the second excellent way of responding to an argument.

The third form of challenging an argument accepts the premise and conclusion, but asserts that the argument ignores other factors.

Walking to school is healthy. We want to be healthy. We should walk to school.

Assuming for the moment the premises and logic of this argument are correct, as they probably are, it’s not the end of the argument. We might want to be healthy, but there are other things that we want (e.g. getting to school on time, arriving in a cheerful mood) that need to be weighed against this argument. Also, there are different ways of being healthier that might fit into the day more easily. So while walking to school is laudable, the conclusion reached could be challenged by raising other factors that might pertain to this particular situation.

Let’s look at these different ways of responding to arguments in more detail.

“Average temperatures in the US are falling, not rising, and therefore talk of global warming is nonsense.”

One way a person concerned about global warming could respond is by challenging the factual basis of the argument. They might be able to produce a survey that showed that in fact average temperatures in the US are rising.

As we have already seen, statistics and studies can be misleading. We saw in Golden Rule 1 how easily statistics can be misused. Remember some of the key things to ask about statistics:

• Who did the study? Was it independent?

• How big was the sample? Was it representative?

• Exactly what does the study show?

It is easy to be taken in by “science.” Beware of someone trying to bamboozle you with long words. Madsen Pirie, a leading expert on logic, gives an example of how something very simple can be made very complex:

The small, domesticated carnivorous quadruped positioned itself in sedentary mode in superior relationship to the coarse-textured rush-woven horizontal surface fabric.

Or, in more simple words: the cat sat on the mat!

It’s a common trick in arguing to make something sound very complicated. You are not then able to understand it and argue against it. Indeed, the trick is to make you believe that you’re not clever enough to understand their point and therefore agree to whatever they say. This is particularly common in academia. My experience is that, in fact, really clever people are able to explain their ideas in a very straightforward way. It’s those who are less clever who feel the need to dress up their ideas with long words or complex ideas. You should never feel embarrassed about asking someone to explain what they’re saying in terms a reasonably intelligent person can understand. If they can’t, the fault lies with them, not with you!

Relying on experts can be a problem if you assume that as they’re expert in one area, they’re expert in all. Of course we can see that they are knowledgeable in a particular field, but in many other areas you could be far better versed. Certainly don’t listen to an academic expert on the topic of cars (an example of my extreme bias in making this presumption). I know many professors who are world experts in their fields, but there are few of them whose views on which is the best barber in Chicago I would accept; indeed, their appearance tells me more about which are the worst!

It is remarkable how the press, in particular, is willing to listen to the views of an expert on one area, and assume they are an expert in all areas. Film stars, for example, often weigh in on complex political matters and are asked for their political insight, information that would better come from an analyst in the field.

It’s always wise to ask experts what others in their field think. I’m always careful in my lectures to make it clear what is known as a fact; what most academics think on an issue; what we don’t know for sure; and what I think (which is not always the same). So I will commonly say, “The general view among lawyers is that the courts would interpret the law in this way, but my own view is that the courts should interpret it in another way. Let me give you the arguments on either side ...” A good expert should easily be able to tell you not only their view, but the views of others in their area.

So never be nervous about challenging the facts. If you think they might be wrong, then others would probably think the same. In challenging the facts, you might get an answer that actually substantiates them. This would mean the argument could move forward toward a resolution. But the facts might very well not stand up to query. You won’t know unless you challenge them. If there is any doubt at all in your mind, verify the facts before you move on to the next step.

“Average temperatures in the US are falling, not rising, and therefore talk of global warming is nonsense.”

You might accept Bob’s premise (that average temperatures in the US are falling) but argue that his conclusion is mistaken. For example,

“Bob, you’re right that average temperatures in the US are falling, but in many other parts of the world temperatures are rising. It may be getting colder here, but that doesn’t mean that the world overall is not getting warmer.”

Challenging the conclusion is useful when the facts themselves are not in dispute but you think that the logic leading to the conclusion is flawed. One particular aspect is when individual facts lead to generalized conclusions (as in the earlier example of the Pope being Catholic and opposing abortion). Every now and then a case is reported in the newspapers that produces what appears to be an unfair result and naturally the cry goes up, “the law needs to be changed.” But we need to be careful. Just because the current law has produced an unfair result doesn’t mean that an amended law will not also produce an unfair result. Indeed, it may be that whatever the law says there are going to be some cases where there is an unfairness.

So, if you want to challenge someone’s conclusion you will want to argue that their conclusion does not follow from their premise. There may be other conclusions that could be reached. Ask the person you are arguing with why it is they reach their conclusion, rather than an alternative. Consider this example:

In this example Mary has effectively shown that several conclusions could flow from Bob’s premise (Mary’s son is yawning in class). Bob has concluded that it’s because the son is tired. However, as Mary has pointed out there are a number of other conclusions that could result from the premise (the son may be bored or may be tired). Mary has gone on to introduce evidence to suggest that Bob’s conclusion is less likely to be correct than Mary’s.

“This is excellent news, because it will mean we’ll have a far wider range of goods available in the town than we do at the moment.”

The other person has two choices. One would be to reject the argument:

“I don’t think that’s right because the opening of the supermarket will force many of our specialty shops to close and we will end up with a narrower choice.”

Or he can accept the point but draw his opponent’s attention to other factors that need to be taken into the balance:

“You’re quite right that there will be a wider range of goods. But there will be a lot more traffic in the town. We need to decide which is more important: having a wide range of goods or having a peaceful town.”

Try to be as clear as possible whether you are agreeing with the other person’s point or not. Otherwise you will find they are likely to state their point again.

Compare the following two examples of the same argument.

The second argument is much better because both are acknowledging that the other has made a good point and making it clear they accept the strength of what is said.

Another common technique in argument is to form an alliance with the listener by emphasizing common ground. Consider this point:

“We all want to make the decision that is best for the company and we must therefore accept this plan.”

The message is given that those who don’t support the plan are not seeking the best for the company. Similarly this argument:

“We’re all Muslims in this room and therefore we must combat immorality and oppose this plan.”

Again the listener is given the impression that support for the plan will be being disloyal to Islam. The impression may, of course, be incorrect, but it is a technique that makes the argument sound more attractive.