1705136420
1705136421
1705136422
The link8is sometimes not even stated in the argument. Whether stated or unstated, the link is the reasoning process that connects evidence to claim. Different kinds of links frequently separate arguments into common types. For instance, certain kinds of links regularly appear in “arguments from principle,” while others are used in arguments by “analogy.”9Still other links are apparent in “arguments by dissociation.” In each of these cases, as well as others, links more clearly identify the type of argument employed.
1705136423
1705136424
Unlike evidence and claims, links are frequently unstated. Because links are so closely associated with patterns of reasoning, audiences will usually understand the link even if it is not explicitly stated. Thus, debaters can take advantage of those familiar patterns and leave the links unstated.
1705136425
1705136426
This chapter does not discuss all of the kinds of links that debaters have at their disposal, but it does describe several of the more commonly used kinds of links. Links discussed in this chapter represent some very frequently used methods of connecting evidence and claims. Those links are briefly described in the following illustration, and then more completely in the remainder of this chapter.
1705136427
1705136428
1705136429
1705136430
1705136431
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132488]
1705136432
17.1 Argument by Authority
1705136433
1705136434
An authoritative link is used to create a positive association between an arguer’s claim and the statement of some authority. But what exactly is “an authority?” People who have engaged in certain positive acts become “authorities,” and their words carry more weight than those of persons who are not authorities. For example, persons who have earned advanced degrees in nuclear physics are considered authorities in that subject, and audiences tend to accept, without further argument, what they say regarding nuclear physics. A person with a degree in French literature would not be accepted as an authority on nuclear physics.
1705136435
1705136436
To assess the adequacy of an authoritative link, debaters should ask at least three questions about the particular source used to support the claim:
1705136437
1705136438
1) Is the person an expert? Many qualities identify people as experts, but usually, experts hold advanced degrees or have particular experiences that give them access to information beyond that which is available to the general public.
1705136439
1705136440
2) Is the person an expert in a field relevant to the claim? Even if a person is a well-recognized expert, his or her expertise might not be in an area relevant to the argument. A person trained in nuclear physics may be a qualified source about nuclear energy but is not likely to be qualified to talk about international relations.
1705136441
1705136442
3) Is the person trustworthy? Even if a person is an expert in a relevant field, that person may not be trustworthy. Trustworthiness is related to a person’s ability to make relatively unbiased conclusions. As an authority, a person may lack trustworthiness because of either a lack of honesty or unwillingness to change his or her pre-formed opinions. For example, in the statement by the former director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, to US President, George W. Bush, Tenet told Bush that the prospects of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a “slam dunk”.10 Tenet’s prediction proved to be false. Some believe that Tenet was being dishonest; some believe he was simply unable to get past his previous beliefs about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
1705136443
1705136444
Authoritative links are used to connect experts’ statements directly to the claim that a debater wishes to make. Debaters need to make sure to only use authoritative links to support appropriate kinds of claims, and to ensure that the authority is an expert in the particular field under consideration, and is trustworthy.
1705136445
1705136446
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132489]
1705136447
17.2 Argument by Generalization
1705136448
1705136449
An argument by generalization can be used to describe an entire group by presenting evidence from specific cases selected from within that group. Such an argument almost always relies on examples as evidence (discussed in the previous chapter). Generalization is based on the probability that examples selected from a group are likely to exhibit many of the same features of the group as a whole. In other words, by examining a representative sample of a group, one is able to make a statement about the group as a whole. The assumption is that characteristics observed in the group probably belong to not only the sample, but also to the group as a whole.
1705136450
1705136451
Thus, an argument by generalization moves from evidence about specific examples to a claim regarding the group as a whole. For instance, a debater wanting to argue that student athletes will become successful business people should begin by examining examples of students who were athletes in school and who later became successful in business. To construct such an argument, the debater would describe several representative examples of student athletes, then would show how each of them turned out to be successful in business. The point of the argument is not to merely describe the members of the group—the examples of student athletes—but to argue that the entire population of student athletes (or at least a substantial portion of them) shares the characteristic of becoming successful business people. Thus, the argument is designed to link examples chosen from a sample group of student athletes to the entire population of student athletes.
1705136452
1705136453
The above example illustrates a descriptive claim, the most common type of claim supported by argument by generalization. The argument only shows that they become successful business people. It does not explicitly state that being a successful businessperson is good or bad. This description however, like most descriptions, has evaluative dimensions. If one believes that successful business people are fundamentally unhappy, the argument could be used to argue that participation in athletics is a bad idea. If, on the other hand, one believes that becoming a successful businessperson is valuable—because it provides a good income, stability for a family, etc.—then this argument can be used to argue that participation in student athletic programs is valuable. Probably, most people believe that success in business is valuable, but the point is that, although the argument is explicitly and primarily descriptive, it contains implicit evaluative dimensions, as well.
1705136454
1705136455
Some arguments using generalization links are better than others. The adequacy of a generalization link is based on at least two assumptions: 1) that a sufficient number of examples are presented as evidence, and 2) that the examples are representative of the entire group. For example, to argue that student athletes become successful business people by pointing to only a couple of examples would not be sufficient as a generalization. In that particular case, two examples are not sufficient to allow the debater to make a statement about student athletes in general. The second question to be asked about the adequacy of a generalization link is whether the examples are representative of the group as a whole. If the examples of student athletes came, for instance, from a single university, one might not be able to argue that they are representative of the entire population of student athletes. More will be said about the adequacy of this and other kinds of links in Chapter 21, “Fallacies in Argumentation.”
1705136456
1705136457
Argument by generalization functions because several examples drawn from a group are linked to the overall group. This link allows debaters to create descriptive arguments. Other kinds of links can also be used to create descriptive and other kinds of arguments.
1705136458
1705136459
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132490]
1705136460
17.3 Argument by Analogy
1705136461
1705136462
In an argument by generalization, a claim about a group is based on information about selected members of that group. The link created by analogy is different. Analogy, based on an association of similarity, occurs when the arguer makes a claim about one member of a group based on the features of some other member. As a generalization link moves from specific cases to a generality, a link by an analogy moves from one specific case to another.
1705136463
1705136464
Two subtly different kinds of analogy will be discussed in this chapter, using the first kind, the debater argues that one example is similar to another; in the second kind, the debater argues that two examples are so similar in known regards that they should be expected to also be similar in unknown regards.
1705136465
1705136466
With regard to the first kind of analogy, a debater might simply want to establish the similarity between two examples. For instance, consider the claim that “Life in 21st century China will be like life in 20th century United States.” That argument makes a statement about 21st century China based on the similarities between it and the life in the United States in the 20th century. To make such an argument, an arguer needs to describe some features of life in 20th century United States, then show that those features are likely to be present in 21st century China. The similarities of the features of those two examples then allow the arguer to make the general claim that, “Life in 21st century China will be like life in 20th century US.”
1705136467
1705136468
The conclusion of that analogy is a general one about similarities between the United States and China. That type of analogy might be used for evaluative purposes. If life in 20th century US was good, life in 21st century China might be expected to also be good. So, in a general way, something we know about the first example (life is good in 20th century US) predicts something we do not know about the second (life will be good in 21st Century China). However, that prediction is only implied and is not an explicit part of the analogy. The prediction becomes explicit in the second kind of analogy.
1705136469