Argument Analysis

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

In the last, posting we discussed the need for a transition from formal towards informal argumentation. I had several readers comment on the series. One reader desires a discussion on cognitive bias as it applies to argumentation in project management. Cognitive bias is a tendency to acquire and process information by filtering it through one's own likes, dislikes, and experiences. In general, the term of cognitive bias is used to describe effects within the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. I have  provided a review on Cognitive Biases.. In the next few post, we will consider the argument's structure and process.

Argument Analysis and Structure

Arguments begin with a controversy or disagreement that is nontrivial. There is no easier means of resolving the disagreement through empirical methods or recognition of some authority and the outcome cannot be deduced from existing knowledge. New information must be introduced and supported. Assent of  the other party is desired or required to settle the dispute. Thus, the situation cannot be abandoned. Recall that respect for the other party and confidence in the outcome makes free assent essential. Thus, the argument is over significant controversies between the parties. The origin of the controversy arises from several possible sources. For example:

1. A statement that was made during a conversation, presentation, or in a meeting. Sometimes people conflict information, do not make sense, or offer an opinion. The other party seeks clarification in order to accept the statement. Commentary: For example, blue is a better color than red. The challenge to this opinion is why?
2. Given multiple choices, options, solutions, or outcomes only one selection can be made. The result is sometimes difficult to discern and requires discussion. The selection of a particular option or solution may be the consensus or assent of the group.Commentary: There are often tools to aid in making these selections for project managers. One methodology is to use a non-dimensionalized performance matrix.  In this approach a series of characteristics common to all the options are made then compared relative to each other using formulas in a spreadsheet that reduce the dissimilar dimensions to performance indexes in order to compare the apples to oranges.  The formulas seek to optimize toward the maximum or minimum values as determined in the formulation of the selection criteria. This kind of argument approach can be managed more discretely and formally reducing the conflict and disagreement in the decision making.  
3. Cognitive bias affecting knowledge, methods, or judgments. Often people commingle their personal views with a claim. This is especially true when politics, money, religion, or power is involved.  They tend to align the view to their understanding rather than forming the view to the information available or presented. Commentary: For example, many Young Earth Creationist hold to a 24 hour solar creation day claiming a day is a day not a month or year but a day. However, empirically a solar day varies on the planet Earth and is defined as an evening-to-evening event in the immediate scriptural references. The evening-to-evening event at the Equator is 24 hrs and at the poles an evening-to-evening event is one year. Hence, based on a natural observation the support for a definitive 24 hour solar creation day is not present but instead what is supported is an evening-to-evening event which demonstrates temporal variance in the present.   
4. Defense of a position taken.  Often the challenge arrives as "How do you know?" or "What do you mean?" as a means of further evaluation. The arguer must present valid reasons and free assent must accept those reasons in order to settle the position or claim. Commentary: For example, the claim may be that Global Warming effects are impacting a projects progress as PVC pipes are breaking down in the exposed sunlight and leaking. The arguer may show evidence of UV radiation and increased temperatures. The challenge to this argument may show an exception that the PVC pipe is not designed or rated for outdoor use. Thus, exceptions can re-examine a claim altogether by presenting the new information.
5. A critical position taken in prose or public speaking as though engaged in dialogue. Often the speaker or author will assume both positions as they argue a point. They attempt to demonstrate strengthens and weaknesses of each position in a non-bias manner in order for a third party to make a reasonable decision. The speaker or author will make claims of generally four types; fact, definition, value, and policy.  Claims of fact involve descriptions that are verifiable. Claims of definition are a matter of interpretation that provide perspective. Claims of value are judgments that appraise as absolute or comparative as well as instrumental or terminal. Classifying the claim is important in order to determine the kind of proof necessary. Commentary: Although considered informal as inferential links are made this includes a formal approach as the sides are presented in third person in a structured manner. Critical writing or speaking methods attempt to remove bias and focus on the real outcomes. Readers and listeners have little opportunity if any to dispute the claims and justifications made at the time they review the argument. Although with the advent of YouTube and other social media channels dissection and commentary is becoming pervasive to the point that learning is no longer taking place. Instead, many are unmovable or pigeon holed while attempting to support a personal view often with abusive mannerism. The American Forefathers admired the notion of the public sphere yielding to common people the ability to debate topics of nobility through free speech and freedom of the press but not at the expense of civility.      

The structure and components of an argument are just as important as the claims made. The basic structure of the argument consists of the claim, evidence, an inferential link between the claim and evidence, and a warrant that justifies the inference. 

These components are not always apparent and the advocate advances the claim which is not immediately accepted. This results in the advocate producing evidence and support for the claim. If the truth of the claim is not accepted then a separate argument addresses the truth. If the truth and evidence is accepted but does not justify the claim then a warrant is made making the inferential link between the evidence and claim. If the warrant is not accepted then another argument is made to support the inferential link. An exception or other explanations may be noted and the claim may need to be further qualified. This process repeats until the dispute is settled.

David Zarefsky adapted the work of Stephen Toulmin who identified the major components of an argument in this review. Claims are the statements that we want listeners to believe and act upon. Evidence is the grounds for making a claim and supports it but is not the claim itself. Evidence must be accepted by the audience as truthful.  The inference is the main proof line leading from the evidence to the claim. The warrant is the license to make the inference and a general rule to recognize the possibility of exceptions. Exceptions to the warrant qualify the claim. Figure 1 illustrates the simple argument.

Source: The Teaching Company (C) 2005

Commentary: Informal argumentation is structured and makes an inferential linkage between the claim and the evidence.  In making this inferential linkage, the project manager must have a reasonable degree of technical knowledge in the supporting background to make sense to the audiences. This may mean the project manager should be well studied in many disciplines in order to  be able to converse reasonably well during the dialogues. Listening and skimming skills become important. Even small talk is important. The book series such as the "Intellectual Devotionals" aid in growing foundational knowledge from which to build.

In the next posting, we will look at complex structures of an argument.  If you have any comments or ideas please feel free to forward them to me at james.bogden@gmail.com.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.