下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Types of arguments are typically determined by the types of claims they make．Although both primary claims and secondary claims are important to arguments， the type of the primary claim usually determines the type of an argument.Very often we see one argument can combine several types of claims， but there is only one claim that dominates the argument.This claim is often the primary claim.Therefore， when we identify the type of arguments， we typically refer to its dominant type， namely， the type of its primary claim.The following section will make a general introduction to each different type of argument with a focus on the features of each type．
1 .Factual Argument： A factual argument focuses on making a factual claim that aims to establish the factuality of something with evidence.Factual claims can be made about a geological fact， a historical fact， a biological fact， a sociological fact， etc.Factual arguments rely heavily on the truth of other facts or documents， etc.as evidence.The facts that can be used as evidence to support factual arguments include common knowledge facts， facts obtained through personal experiences or observations， facts reported by others， or facts established through methods of generalizations with sufficient samples， such as statistics， surveys， interviews， questionnaires， experiments， etc．Factual arguments typically state their central claim in simple sentences， most typically in subject ＋ be sentence pattern， and are structured according to evidence．
2 .Definitional Argument： The purpose of a definitional argument is to problematize and question the definition of a key term in the issue so as to challenge some established ideas about the issue.Definitional arguments usually have a two-part structure： the criteria part that sets up the boundaries of the definition， and a match part that argues whether a given subject meets the definition-criteria or not.Although in redefining the key term， the new definition may seem not radically different from the established or accepted definition， the act of redefining is rather significant to making a winning argument.This is because if the definition is well developed and well accepted by the audience， the consequence is that our evaluation of the subject， our analysis of the causes of the issue， our proposal to solve the issue， etc.will be significantly different.In other words， redefining the term is like collapsing the foundation of a series of arguments that are constructed with the old definition．
3 .Categorical Argument： The purpose of a categorical argument is to argue that a subject in an issue should belong to a different category.To prove the subject belongs to a different category， a categorical argument also follows a criteria-match structure： it first identifies the criteria of the argued category and then matches some features of the subject with the criteria for that category.Establishing the category of the issue is not hair-splitting but very significant in that most evaluations and proposals can be justified under this category.The ultimate purpose of claiming that the subject belongs to the category of x， instead of to the category of y， is not to have fun with some language game or logical exercise but to argue that our evaluation of the subject or our solution to the problem concerning the subject should be based on the x category， not on the y category．
4 .Causal/effect Argument： Causal/effect arguments argue to establish a probable causal relationship between the event or condition under question and other events or conditions.The causal argument emphasizes a past causal relationship while the effect argument predicts the future causal relationships.For the causal argument， it is important to distinguish necessary cause， sufficient cause， direct and immediate cause，indirect or distant cause， and contributing factor.The structure of a causal argument may follow the pattern that presents individual or isolated causes one after another.A causal argument can also structure according to the causal chain， which means the first cause may lead to the second cause， which leads to the third cause， etc.They can also be developed around inductive reasoning through looking for a common element， a single difference， or correlations． 8 Similarly， effect arguments may also structure according to individual effect pattern or effect chain pattern．
5 .Evaluation Argument： Evaluation arguments aim to make judgments about a subject.There are three major types of evaluation arguments： aesthetic evaluation，ethical evaluation， and functional evaluation.All evaluations follow the criteria-matching structure.Aesthetic evaluations use criteria from the standards， conventions， and professional opinions of artistic fields to make a value judgment about the artistic values of a subject.Ethical evaluations appeal to moral principles and beliefs shared by communities， professions， organizations， religions， cultures or nations as criteria to argue whether a behavior is ethical or not.Functional evaluations evaluate the performance of a subject by using a set of ideal standards or a ranked list of objective criteria．
6 .Resemblance Argument： A resemblance argument argues through analogy or precedents between the subject under question and other subjects which are typically more familiar to readers.Resemblance arguments also follow criteria-match structure：first identify the criteria and then match the features of the subject with the criteria so as to establish strong and significant similarities between the two subjects or events.The real purpose of a resemblance argument does not stop at establishing similarities or commonalities； many evaluations and proposals of actions are justified based on the similarities demonstrated through resemblance arguments.In other words， if x， which is often new， is similar to y， which is a true case in history， or a precedent， then our evaluation， definition， categorization， or action toward x should be justified by previous evaluation， definition， categorization， or action toward y．
7 .Proposal Argument： A proposal argument aims to convince readers of serious consequences of a problem and persuade them to take actions as proposed.Generally speaking， there are three major components of the proposal argument： identification of the problem， proposing solutions， and justification of the proposal.Depending on the nature of the problem or the proposal， or the target audience， proposal arguments may distribute different proportion of attention to each of these three components.If the audience is not fully or clearly aware of the existence of the problem， or of serious consequences of the problem， the proposal argument may dwell longer on the first part—identification of the problem—than other parts.Or when the audience is more responsible for making a detailed and feasible proposal， the proposal argument may simply put more stress on identifying the problem and call for the audience to address the problem.When the problem has already well been discussed and been familiar to the audience， the proposal argument may move quickly to focus more on the second part—proposing solutions to the problem.Sometimes when the problem is familiar to the audience and the proposed solution is easy to implement， but the audience lacks motivation to implement it， the proposal argument may propose the solution and then give more stress to the third part—justification of the solution—by pointing out many benefits that the proposal may bring.A traditional or typical proposal argument often tries to balance its attention to each of the three components to enhance its effectiveness and persuasiveness， or to appeal to the different expectations of a mixed audience．