Complex Structures of an Argument

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.

The model explored in the last post was a simple argument with a simple claim. Simple arguments develop sequentially through conversation. Most arguments, in contrast, are complex and are developed based on the premises that the audience accepts or rejects. In this posts we will explore more complex structures and how to formulate stronger arguments. I have also provided a review on Cognitive Biases as well.

Complex Structures of an Argument

Complex arguments begin with a resolution which is a single declarative statement or sentence that captures the substance of the controversy being explored. The resolution may be implicit or explicit and is the ultimate claim upon which judgement is made. There are different types of resolutions such as fact, definition, value, and policy of which all require proofs by the audience.

Part of a complex argument are issues, used loosely in everyday language, which are implicit with resolutions as well as questions inherent to the controversy. Thus, they are vital to the success of the resolution. One may observe issues by examining the text of the resolution, underlying context, or from the pattern of claims and responses, Figure 1. The actual issues are the potential issues less the uncontested issues within an complex argument.

Figure 1: General Complex Argument Structure

Source: The Teaching Company, Argumentation Course

Figure 2 illustrates the three major patterns for constructing an argument which are series, parallel, or convergent,. A series argument builds on earlier arguments and all the arguments must yield to free ascent in order for the resolution to be accepted.  In the parallel argument all the arguments are independent. However, any one of them is sufficient for acceptance of the resolution.In a convergent argument, each argument is independent but converges on the resolutions and, again, all must yield to free ascent in order for the resolution to be accepted.

Figure 2: Complex Argument Structures

Source: The Teaching Company, Argumentation Course

The use of argument models has been criticized as useful for analyzing and identifying argument structure but not useful for constructing them. The criticism is that models "Abstract Out" subtle features of language, emphasis, and presentation integral to the argument. Additionally, some argue that models incorrectly demonstrate a linearity in the thread line of an argument suggesting an evidence-to-claim relationship ignoring the inferential leap found in informal argumentation. The benefits of using models to structure an argument includes:

1. Identifying the components of an argument
2. Alerting to the internal dynamics of the argument
3. Allowing to make a transition to a common form for comparisons.

Commentary: The use of a model to structure an argument before offering the argument to the audience is left up the arguer. Mapping the arguments components may yield insight that strengthens the resolution that should realize a  free ascent more easily. For example, a project manager may be confronted with principles and stakeholders who are polarized having strong opinions. The project manager must broker a resolution that makes sense to all of them. Most likely there will need to be some compromise and some gains for each. Carefully, structuring the model the project manager may seek either unilateral or popular support for his resolution. Unilateral support will be difficult to achieve as everyone must agree with the claims and resolution. Whereas with popular support the project manager only needs a majority in agreement.

Once the project manager decides on the level of support required, he will select a model. In the case of popular support the parallel model works because not all the arguments need to come to free ascent in order to be accepted. So the project manager may focus energy and strengthen arguments for primary stakeholders or issues that once won over will result in acceptance of the resolution. The issuers of lesser importance may be resolved too but if they are not the resolution still moves forward. There is potential risk found in this approach and those risk may be dealt with in a timely manner through an operational risk management approach rather than the more formal, deliberate, and lengthy method PMI suggests.

Next week's post will be case construction. 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.