Argumentation is the act of supporting a claim. While humans are (arguably) natural born arguers (Mercier et al., 2017), there is certainly a lot to gain from practicing with argumentation and thinking about why some arguments are better than others. This page is intended to provide some basics that are helpful if you are working on a project or essay and wish to strengthen the overall reasoning of your work. ## Core terminology When talking about argumentation, it is good to set some definitions. This is mostly because different people have different definitions and it might be confusing if we don't stipulate what we mean by key terminology: - *Argumentation* is a reasoning process that provides *arguments* for *claims*. It can be limited to a single claim and argument, but more often than not it is a series of (connected) arguments and claims that support an overall position. - *Claims* are statements about the world. - *Arguments* are supposed explanations or justifications for claims. For example, someone might tell you that you should lock your bike in Amsterdam. This is a claim. By itself this is not enough to speak of argumentation. But if they say that you should lock your bike in Amsterdam because otherwise your bike will be stolen, then the 'otherwise your bike will be stolen' is an argument. Now there's argumentation. ## Arguments should be CRAP Having claims and arguments is enough to speak of argumentation, but it's not enough for *good* argumentation. Stating you should lock your bike in Amsterdam because polar bears are white is technically an instance of argumentation, but it's not a particularly persuasive specimen. At the very least, a good argument meets four criteria: - **Clarity**: the argument should be formulated clearly. - **Relevance**: the argument should be relevant to the claim at hand - the claim should be logically supported by the argument(s). - **Accuracy**: the argument should hold true. Stating that you should lock your bike in Amsterdam because there are many thieves around is clear and relevant, but it also happens to be entirely false, it's not a good argument. - **Precision**: the argument should be as precise as possible. Stating that an unlocked bike in Amsterdam has a 15% chance of being stolen in the particular postal code of Science Park is better than 'there be thieves'. Taken together, this means a good argument is CRAP. ## Other qualities of argumentation Besides CRAP arguments, overall argumentation needs to satisfy some constraints, too. ### Depth The argumentation should do justice to the complexity of the topic. To take the most boring debate thesis, you could certainly state "the death penalty is a good idea, because it ensures people won't break the law again". This would meet the basic standards for argumentation, but it is skipping over quite a number of moral questions and practical implications. The situation is more complicated than this simple claim is willing to address, meaning the argumentation as a whole would be weak if only this argument were used. ### Breadth Besides dealing with a problem to a deep extent, it is also important to consider multiple perspectives. This is especially true if working with multidisciplinary knowledge, where perspectives can radically differ. Taking the broad view while setting up argumentation makes it stronger. ### Morality Argumentation is an action and all actions have a moral dimension. Reflecting on the consequences of your argumentation and deciding when an argument is appropriate or not is an important part of creating good argumentation. ## Argumentation trees If a claim is supported by a good argument, that does not mean it is necessarily a true claim. There might be counterarguments that are *also good*. Argumentation therefore often comes down to comparing good arguments that point in different directions. To make this comparison, you may need to treat particular arguments as claims in their own rights, and explore the supporting arguments for arguments. By doing so, you will probe which arguments are well supported and which are not, or you will identify particular assumptions hiding beneath particular arguments. As you start exploring deeper layers of argumentation, you are building an argumentation tree. Often when writing a paper, such an argumentation tree is helpful to track your ideas and to critically position yourself with regards to a claim. [[Argument mapping]] is an activity that can help you build argumentation trees with relative ease. ## References Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. _Educational Psychologist_, _52_(1), 1-16.