1705133318
The above argument consists of evidence and a claim. The evidence is about observed data regarding the fossil record. The debater making this argument probably did not observe this data directly but read about the observation that was made by others, probably scientists.
1705133319
1705133320
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132325]
1705133321
3.4.2 Claim Supported by Explanation
1705133322
1705133323
Explanation is another way to support an argument. Sometimes an explanation is offered to reveal why the claim is a correct one. The following diagram illustrates this kind of claim:
1705133324
1705133325
1705133326
1705133327
1705133328
The claim that “Robert is afraid of snakes” becomes more believable when an explanation is offered to answer the question “Why is Robert afraid of snakes?”
1705133329
1705133330
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132326]
1705133331
3.4.3 Claim Supported by Analogy
1705133332
1705133333
An analogy is a form of supporting material where an advocate begins with an object or concept for which the audience already has a positive (or negative) evaluation, then compares that object or concept to another for which the audience has no such existing evaluation. The diagram below illustrates this kind of argument:
1705133334
1705133335
1705133336
1705133337
1705133338
In the above argument, the advocate presumes that the audience has a positive evaluation of Mahatma Gandhi. In particular, the advocate presumes that the audience considers Mahatma Gandhi one of India’s greatest leaders. Then the advocate makes an explicit comparison of Mahatma Gandhi and Narendra Modi. By making this comparison, the advocate creates an analogy that becomes supporting material for the claim that Narendra Modi is one of India’s greatest leaders.
1705133339
1705133340
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132327]
1705133341
3.4.4 Claim Supported by Other Claims
1705133342
1705133343
Frequently, claims are supported by other claims. Chapter 20 of this text will describe in greater depth the process of combining claims coherently to support other claims. This chapter will introduce the process of using claims to support other claims. The diagram below illustrates the basic process of using two claims to support a third:
1705133344
1705133345
1705133346
1705133347
1705133348
As this text will discuss more fully in Chapter 20, a frequent pattern of using claims to support other claims involves combining a descriptive claim with an associational claim to support an evaluative claim. The diagram below illustrates this basic pattern:
1705133349
1705133350
1705133351
1705133352
1705133353
Using this pattern, an advocate begins by describing (descriptive claim) some feature of the object or policy to be evaluated, then relates that feature to some effect or value (associational claim). Having described the feature and related the feature to an effect, the advocate is then in a position to evaluate the object or policy (evaluative claim).
1705133354
1705133355
An example of this pattern of using a descriptive and an associational claim to support an evaluative claim is shown in the following diagram:
1705133356
1705133357
1705133358
1705133359
1705133360
Although the argument is incomplete, it illustrates how two claims can be used to support a third. In this case, one claim describes current laws (allowing smoking in public places) and a second claim associates that description with an effect (subjecting non-smokers to health risks). Those two claims are then combined to support an evaluative claim about the current laws: Smoking should not be allowed in public places.
1705133361
1705133362
So far, this chapter has focused on the basic components of arguments: a claim and its supporting material. In the process, this chapter has noted four kinds of claims, focusing on claims of evaluation. In the final section, this chapter will emphasize the means by which evaluations are made, especially two methods that we will call principles and consequences.
1705133363
1705133364
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132328]
1705133365
3.5 Principles and Consequences as Means of Evaluation
1705133366
1705133367
Two methods of evaluating actions, and thus of creating arguments of evaluation, are what this text will call, principles and consequences. Philosophically, these two methods of evaluating actions are consistent with deontology and utilitarianism, respectively. Constructing arguments by principle is consistent with deontology; constructing consequential arguments is consistent with utilitarianism. Principles and consequences are related methods that sometimes lead to the same evaluation, yet they have important differences.