Chapter 3: Analysis of Argument [b][b]What is an Argument? [b]A strong argument attempts to persuade the reader to accept a point of [b]view. As such, it consists of a proposition, a declarative statement which [b]is capable of being argued, and a proof, a reason or ground which is [b]supported by evidence. The evidence, in turn, is composed of relevant [b]facts, opinions based on facts and careful reasoning. If you are analyzing [b]an argument, you should look for both of these: a proposition and the [b]evidence supporting the proposition. [b]In the same way that an analysis of issue essay must start with a thesis, [b]so also an essay that analyzes an argument must start with a topic sentence [b]which provides for the analysis of a proposition. Every argument should [b]have a proposition, and the identification of this proposition is crucial [b]to the writing of an analysis of an argument. For instance, the following [b]could appear in the analytical writing section of the GMAT: [b]The two clauses beginning with since provide evidence in support of the [b]proposition. In turn, the proposition itself is framed by the second [b]sentence. [b]Since the world population will double to 11 billion people by the middle [b]of the 21st century and since food production will not show a corresponding [b]increase, efforts should be made to limit population growth. Governments [b]must institute population control policies to insure an adequate food [b]supply for future generations. [b]One aspect of argumentation that needs special attention is the use of [b]terms. In an argument, all of the terms should be clear and well-defined. [b]If the terms are unclear, proof is likely to be impossible, creating a weak [b]argument. One type of weak term is the emotionally loaded term. Terms such [b]as "socialized medicine" evoke emotional responses and, thus, obscure the [b]argument. Thus, anyone who writes an analysis of an argument should examine [b]the terms used and be sure that the writer avoids emotive, subjective [b]terms. To the extent of your ability, make sure that the writer defines [b]terms clearly and objectively. [b]In addition, the people who write and grade the analysis of an argument [b]section for the GMAT expect the following: [b][b]i) They want an essay that analyzes the several aspects of the argument [b]with critical insight. [b][b]ii) They want a cogently developed essay that is logical. [b][b]iii) They want a coherent essay with well-chosen transitional devices. [b][b]iv) They also expect an essay that uses varied sentence structure and [b]vocabulary. [b][b]v) They expect an essay that is free of mechanical errors in spelling, [b]punctuation, capitalization, grammar and errors in the use of standard [b]written English. [b][b]As in the case of the analysis of the issue, the topic sentence must [b]contain the germ of the idea that permeates the entire paragraph. Each [b]example or illustration must be connected to that idea with transitional [b]markers such as for example, furthermore, therefore, thus or moreover. [b]3a. Dissect Arguments [b]ASSUMPTION HUNT: On Analysis of Issue questions you try to answer grand [b]issues such as "Should China be in the WTO", or "Should parents have [b]vouchers to send children to the school of their choice". The questions are [b]different than Analysis of Argument, where you look for badly flawed [b]reasoning. The difference between Analysis of Issue and Analysis of [b]Argument is that reasonable people could differ on Analysis of Issue, but [b]no reasonable person would absolutely support something in an Analysis of [b]Argument question. When you are doing Analysis of Argument questions, look [b]for reasoning fallacies. [b]The Stimulus [b]In the first part of the Analysis of Argument topic, the writer tries to [b]persuade you of their conclusion by referring to evidence. When you read [b]the "arguments" in these questions, be on the lookout for assumptions and [b]poor logical reasoning used to make a conclusion. [b]The Question Stem [b]Question stems will ask you to decide how convincing you find the argument. [b]You will be asked to explain why an argument is not convincing, and discuss [b]what might improve the argument. For this task, you'll need to: first, [b]analyze the argument itself and evaluate its use of evidence; second, [b]explain how a different approach or more information would make the [b]argument itself better (or possibly worse). [b]A question stem might look like this: [b]In many countries, including the USA, the postal service is a quasi- [b]governmental organization whose primary mission is to deliver mail to [b]individuals within the borders of the country. Since, it is argued, mail [b]delivery to rural addresses where the population is sparse cannot be done [b]economically under any acceptable circumstance; the postal service is given [b]a monopoly on mail delivery. Actually, however, mail delivery could be done [b]economically by private corporations as long as each corporation were given [b]a monopoly to service any given area where sparsely populated areas were [b]balanced against densely populated areas. [b]How would you address this argument? [b][b]1) Explain how logically persuasive you find this argument... analyze the [b]argument's line of reasoning and use of evidence. [b]Translation: You should critique the argument. Discuss whether you think [b]it's convincing or not and explain why. [b]2) Explain what, if anything, would make the argument more valid and [b]convincing or help you to better evaluate its conclusion. [b]Translation: Spot weak links in the argument and offer changes that would [b]strengthen them. [b][b][b]Attack the Argument [b]Each argument's stimulus has been intentionally "loaded" with flaws [b](fallacies) that you should acknowledge and discuss. If you fail to see the [b]more fundamental problems in the argument, you will not get a high score. [b]The purpose of the essay is for you to critique the reasoning in the [b]argument (the stimulus will tell you to make this evaluation). Your [b]personal opinions are not relevant. Your essay needs to focus on flaws in [b]the argument. While in the Analysis of Issue you write your opinion on a [b]subject, in the Analysis of Argument you write a logical critique of a [b]flawed argument. Thus, the approaches to the two essays should be different. [b][b]Evaluate the Argument [b]Pick out flaws in the argument by identifying its weaknesses: [b] What is the argument's conclusion? [b] What is the basis of the author's conclusion? [b] Do you find the argument persuasive? What makes it persuasive or not [b]persuasive? [b] What could be done to strengthen the argument? [b] What assumptions does the argument rely upon? (there should be several) [b]SAMPLE ARGUMENT [b]For example, the GMAT test may present a statement such as the following [b]for the analysis of an issue: [b]In many countries, including the USA, the postal service is a quasi- [b]governmental organization whose primary mission is to deliver mail to [b]individuals within the borders of the country. Since, it is argued, mail [b]delivery to rural addresses where the population is sparse cannot be done [b]economically under any acceptable circumstance; the postal service is given [b]a monopoly on mail delivery. Actually, however, mail delivery could be done [b]economically by private corporations as long as each corporation were given [b]a monopoly to service any given area where sparsely populated areas were [b]balanced against densely populated areas. [b][b]How would you address this argument? [b]In the above argument for analysis, the proposition is contained in the [b]last sentence of the stimulus and so the analysis of the argument must [b]focus on this sentence. They are trying to argue for the privatization of [b]the postal system. [b]I. The proposition regarding the privatization of the post office is based [b]on two questionable assumptions and is most likely not true: [b]A. Population in the USA is distributed in such a way that postal market [b]areas can be divided and costly market areas can be balanced against [b]lucrative market areas. [b]B. Private corporations are more cost effective than quasi-governmental [b]organizations. [b]II. Postal markets cannot be distributed so that service to any given [b]market is economical: [b]A. reason for the distribution of population [b]B. effect of that distribution on geographically contiguous areas [b]C. effect of that distribution on geographically non-contiguous areas [b]III. Private corporations are not necessarily more cost efficient than [b]quasi-governmental corporations. [b]A. case of defense contractors [b]B. case of private corporations [b]IV. The case for the privatization of the post office department is based [b]on questionable assumptions. [b][b]The idea that the post office department can be privatized is based on two [b]questionable assumptions: In the first place, it can be shown that [b]population in the USA is not distributed so that postal market areas can be [b]divided with the result that costly market areas are balanced against [b]lucrative market areas. In the second place, it can be shown that private [b]corporations are not necessarily more cost effective than quasi- [b]governmental organizations. It is, therefore, most likely that [b]privatization of the post office department cannot be accomplished. [b]In the first place, due to mechanization, one worker on the farm can [b]support at least three hundred people living in the city. Large combines [b]with relatively small crews can roll across the prairies harvesting 500 ton [b]of wheat in a day, enough to feed hundreds of people for a year. As a [b]result, there has been less and less employment in rural areas and, as a [b]further result, people have left the rural areas for life in the city, [b]creating the contemporary dilemma for postal planners. It is easy to [b]distribute tons of mail to big city dwellers in high rise buildings at a [b]reasonable cost. But who is going to find a cost effective way to deliver a [b]single first class letter twenty miles down a country road in a snowstorm [b]in January? Therefore, postal markets cannot be distributed so that service [b]to any given market is economical using contiguous geographical markets. [b]Perhaps the answer lies in distributing the cost of mail delivery by [b]balancing a cost intensive market area such as rural up-state New York with [b]a lucrative market area such as New York City. On examination, however, [b]this turns out to be an impossibility because population simply is not [b]distributed in neatly balanced areas for reasons noted in the preceding [b]paragraph. Albany, New York, probably has a greater population than the [b]entire state of Wyoming. Is a single company going to be given Wyoming and [b]Albany as a single market area? If so, that company will not be able to [b]service the area economically because the costs of doing business over such [b]a long distance are extremely high. The current post office department, in [b]effect, already does this and it has found it to be not economical. [b]Clearly, it is also true that postal markets cannot be distributed using [b]noncontiguous geographical markets, so that service to any given market is [b]economical. [b]Furthermore, not all private corporations are economical. The federal [b]government has always subsidized defense contractors rewarding them for [b]their inefficiencies with huge cost over-runs. Besides this, any number of [b]large private corporations have gone bankrupt including Continental [b]Airlines and Pan American Airways. Would any social planners want postal [b]delivery discontinued to any area because a large, privatized postal [b]company declared bankruptcy? [b]The argument that the post office department can be privatized is based on [b]two questionable assumptions. It is therefore most likely that this [b]argument is invalid (1) because populations are not distributed in such a [b]way that large, regional post offices could be run economically, and (2) [b]because private corporations are not necessarily cost efficient and [b]economical. [b][b]Notice that this essay states two assumptions and then spends three [b]paragraphs elaborating on the two main assumptions. The overall structure [b]is tight (perhaps a few sentences could have been edited and paragraphs 2 [b]and 3 condensed into one paragraph). Either way, this is a 5 or 6 essay. [b][b]One element here is that problems with the stimulus is strictly [b]assumptions: about the economics of running a post office and the [b]assumption of private sector superiority over public sector. In most of the [b]essays there are glaring logical flaws. We identify these common errors in [b]the next chapter. [b][b]3b. Analysis of Argument: Finding Errors [b][b]The Usual Suspects: Common Logical Fallacies [b]We have identified seven logical errors that appear commonly in the essay [b]questions. When writing your essay argument you should explicitly identify [b]the logical flaw. These flaws also tend to occur in the critical reasoning [b]section of the Verbal GMAT, so your preparation here will benefit you when [b]taking the Verbal section. [b][b]The E-rater will look for how well you express that you have identified the [b]logical reasoning flaws. When you find an error, specifically identify it [b]in the essay "this is a biased-sample fallacy." The E-rater will detect [b]that you have identified the argument's flaw and will favor your essay. [b]1. Circular Reasoning [b]Here, an unsubstantiated assertion is used to justify another [b]unsubstantiated assertion, which is, or at least could be, used to justify [b]the first statement. For instance, Joe and Fred show up at an exclusive [b]club. When asked if they are members, Joe says "I'll vouch for Fred." When [b]Joe is asked for evidence that he's a member, Fred says, "I'll vouch for [b]him." [b]2. The Biased-Sample Fallacy [b][b]The Fallacy of the Biased Sample is committed whenever the data for a [b]statistical inference are drawn from a sample that is not representative of [b]the population under consideration. The data drawn and used to make a [b]generalization is drawn from a group that does not represent the whole. [b]Here is an argument that commits the fallacy of the biased sample: [b]ln a recent survey conducted by Wall Street Weekly, 80% of the respondents [b]indicated their strong disapproval of increased capital gains taxes. This [b]survey clearly shows that increased capital gains taxes will meet with [b]strong opposition from the electorate. [b]The data for the inference in this argument are drawn from a sample that is [b]not representative of the entire electorate. Since the survey was conducted [b]of people who invest, not all members of the electorate have an equal [b]chance of being included in the sample. Moreover, persons who read about [b]investing are more likely to have an opinion on the topic of taxes on [b]investment different from the population at large. [b][b][b][b]3. The Insufficient Sample Fallacy [b]The Fallacy of the Insufficient Sample is committed whenever an inadequate [b]sample is used to justify the conclusion drawn. [b][b]Here's an argument that commits the fallacy of the insufficient sample: [b]I have worked with 3 people from New York City and found them to be [b]obnoxious, pushy and rude. It is obvious that people from New York City [b]have a bad attitude. [b]The data for the inference in this argument are insufficient to support the [b]conclusion. Three observations of people are not sufficient to support a [b]conclusion about 10 million. [b][b]4. Ad hominen [b]One of the most often-employed fallacies, ad hominen means "to the man" and [b]indicates an attack that is made upon a person rather than upon the [b]statements that person has made. An example is: "Don't listen to my [b]opponent, he's a homosexual." [b][b][b]5. The Fallacy of Faulty Analogy [b]Reasoning by analogy functions by comparing two similar things. Because [b]they are alike in various ways, the fallacy is that it is likely they will [b]share another trait as well. Faulty Analogy arguments draw similarities [b]between the things compared that are not relevant to the characteristic [b]being inferred in the conclusion. [b]Here's an example of a Faulty Analogy fallacy: [b]Ted and Jim excel at both football and basketball. Since Ted is also a [b]track star, it is likely that Jim also excels at track. [b]In this example, numerous similarities between Ted and Jim are taken as the [b]basis for the inference that they share additional traits. [b][b]6. Straw Man [b]Here the speaker attributes an argument to an opponent that does not [b]represent the opponent's true position. For instance, a political candidate [b]might charge that his opponent "wants to let all prisoners go free," when [b]in fact his opponent simply favors a highly limited furlough system. The [b]person is portrayed as someone that they are not. [b][b]7. The "After This, Therefore, Because of This" Fallacy (Post hoc ergo [b]propter hoc) [b]This is a "false cause" fallacy in which something is associated with [b]something else because of mere proximity of time. One often encounters - in [b]news stories- people assuming that because one thing happened after [b]another, the first caused it, as with "I touched a toad, I have a wart, the [b]toad caused the wart." The error in arguments that commit this fallacy is [b]that their conclusions are causal claims that are not sufficiently [b]substantiated by the evidence. [b]Here are two examples of the After This, Therefore Because of This Fallacy: [b]Ten minutes after walking into the auditorium, I began to feel sick to [b]my stomach. There must have been something in the air in that building that [b]caused my nausea. [b]The stock market declined shortly after the election of the president, [b]thus indicating the lack of confidence the business community has in the [b]new administration. [b]In the first example, a causal connection is posited between two events [b]simply on the basis of one occurring before the other. Without further [b]evidence to support it, the causal claim based on the correlation is [b]premature. [b]The second example is typical of modern news reporting. The only evidence [b]offered in this argument to support the implicit causal claim that the [b]decline in the stock market was caused by the election of the president is [b]the fact that election preceded the decline. While this may have been a [b]causal factor in the decline of the stock market, to argue that it is the [b]cause without additional information and auxiliary hypotheses that make a [b]causal connection plausible is to commit the After This, Therefore, Because [b]of This Fallacy. [b]