Basic Types of Argument and How to Use Them?

Are you struggling to construct compelling arguments and effectively communicate your ideas? 

Do you find the different types of arguments and logical fallacies confusing? 

As students, it's crucial to master the art of persuasive communication and understand various argument types.

In this comprehensive guide, we'll explore types of arguments in-depth, along with examples. We'll also delve into common logical fallacies to help you identify and avoid them. 

By the end, you'll have the knowledge and skills to construct strong arguments and critically evaluate information.

So why wait? Let’s dig in!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Order Now

Types of Arguments

There are three basic types of arguments in writing that you will encounter while writing an argumentative essay to persuade others or present your point of view. 

Let’s discuss each type in detail.

Classical Argument

The classical or Aristotelian argument is a form of argument developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. 

The goal is to convince the audience using strategies about a certain side of the issue. The classical argument uses ethos, pathos, and logos in the most persuasive way possible.

If you are drafting an essay using the classical argument, use the following format to structure your essay. 

1. Introduction: Capture the audience's attention, and provide context.
   
2. Thesis Statement: Concisely state the main argument or claim.
   
3. Background Information: Establish context, and provide relevant details.
   
4. Main Points: Present supporting reasons with evidence.
   
5. Counter Arguments and Rebuttal: Address opposing viewpoints, and provide counterarguments.
   
6. Conclusion: Restate the thesis, summarize the main points, and provide a ‘Call-to-Action’ to leave a lasting impression.

Rogerian Argument

A Rogerian argument is an argument type that focuses on finding a middle ground between the audience and the writer. In many situations, the audience doesn’t fully agree with the writer’s argument. 

This argument time is extremely convincing and helps the writer understand his own biases. 

The Rogerian argument strategy structures your document in the following way:

1. Introduction: Establish the issue and the importance of respectful communication.
   
2. Understanding Opposing Views: Demonstrate empathy and understanding of opposing perspectives.
   
3. Statement of Position: Present your own argument objectively and respectfully.
   
4. Exploration of Shared Ground: Identify areas of agreement or shared values.
   
5. Presentation of Evidence and Support: Provide evidence that supports your position while emphasizing shared values.
   
6. Addressing Counterarguments: Respectfully address and respond to counterarguments without direct refutation.
   
7. Conclusion: Emphasize the importance of respectful dialogue and suggest further steps for collaboration.

Toulmin Argument

A Toulmin argument is a structure developed by Stephen Toulmin to analyze arguments.

This argument type is used when there are no clear or absolute solutions to the issues and problems. It takes into account the complexity of the situations.

According to the Toulmin method, there are seven elements to analyze and present the argument:

Let’s discuss them in detail.

1. Claim: Present a clear and concise thesis statement.
   
2. Data: Provide evidence, examples, or statistics that support the claim is true.
   
3. Warrant: Explain the logical reasoning that connects the data to the claim.
   
4. Backing: Offer additional support or evidence for the warrant.
   
5. Qualifier: Acknowledge limitations or conditions under which the claim is valid.
   
6. Rebuttal: Address potential counterarguments or opposing viewpoints.
   
7. Conclusion: Restate the claim and summarize key points, reinforcing the argument's strength.

Types of Arguments in Critical Thinking 

Critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating arguments. 

Various types of arguments are encountered in this process, each with its own characteristics and logical structure. 

Here are some types of arguments commonly encountered in critical thinking, along with examples:

Analogical Arguments 

Analogical arguments draw comparisons between similar situations or cases to support a conclusion. 

They rely on the assumption that if two or more situations share relevant similarities, they are likely to have similar characteristics or outcomes. 

For example:

Causal Arguments 

Causal arguments aim to establish cause-and-effect relationships. They propose that one event or factor is responsible for bringing about another. 

Causal arguments often rely on empirical evidence, statistical data, or logical reasoning to support the claim of causation.

For example: 

Statistical Arguments 

Statistical arguments utilize statistical data or probabilities to support a conclusion. They draw on the principles of probability and inferential statistics to make claims about a population based on a sample. 

For example:

Moral Arguments 

Moral arguments employ ethical principles or values to support a claim or position. They appeal to moral reasoning and address questions of right and wrong, justice, and fairness. 

For example:

Pragmatic Arguments

Pragmatic arguments focus on practicality, usefulness, or pragmatic considerations. They weigh the costs, benefits, and practical consequences of different courses of action. 

Pragmatic arguments often involve considerations of efficiency, feasibility, societal impact, or individual well-being.

For example:

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Order Now

Types of Arguments in Philosophy 

In philosophy, various types of arguments are used to explore and analyze different aspects of knowledge. 

Here are some of the key types of arguments used in philosophy:

Deductive Arguments 

Deductive arguments in philosophy follow the principles of deductive reasoning. 

These arguments aim to establish conclusions that necessarily follow from the given premises. If the premises are true and the logical structure of the argument is valid, the conclusion must also be true. 

Deductive arguments play a fundamental role in formal logic and are used extensively in philosophical debates.

Example: 

Inductive Arguments 

Inductive arguments in philosophy rely on observations, evidence, or patterns to draw general conclusions. These arguments reason from specific instances or data to broader generalizations. 

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive arguments provide probabilistic support rather than absolute certainty. 

Inductive reasoning is common in scientific inquiries and empirical investigations.

Example:

Abductive Arguments 

Abductive arguments are employed to propose plausible explanations for observed phenomena. 

These arguments involve generating hypotheses or explanations that best account for the available evidence. 

The goal is to identify the most reasonable or likely explanation, even if it cannot be proven definitively. Abductive reasoning aids in hypothesis formation and theory building.

Example:

Teleological Arguments 

Teleological arguments, also referred to as arguments from design, explore the existence and purposeful order in the world. 

These arguments suggest that the complexity, order, and apparent design in nature indicate the existence of a smart creator or designer.

Teleological arguments often draw upon examples from biology, cosmology, or fine-tuning of physical constants.

Example:

Ethical Arguments 

Ethical arguments delve into moral principles, values, and ethical theories to support claims about what is right, wrong, or morally permissible. 

These arguments explore questions of ethics, moral duties, and normative judgments.

Ethical arguments often involve discussions on consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, or ethical relativism.

Example:

Types of Argument Fallacies 

In critical thinking, fallacies refer to common errors or flaws in reasoning that can weaken or invalidate an argument.

By understanding these different types of argument fallacies, individuals can identify and avoid faulty reasoning.

Here are several types of argument fallacies, along with detailed explanations and examples:

Ad Hominem 

The ad hominem fallacy involves attacking the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of their argument.

It attempts to undermine the credibility or character of the person rather than engaging with their ideas.

In this example, Person B dismisses Person A's argument by attacking their expertise instead of addressing the merits.

Appeal to Ignorance 

The appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when the absence of evidence is used as evidence for a claim.

It asserts that something must be true or false simply because it hasn't been proven otherwise.

In this example, the lack of evidence disproving unicorns is used as a basis for asserting their existence. This is a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

Appeal to Authority 

The appeal to authority fallacy relies on citing an authority figure or expert to support an argument. 

Even if the authority figure's expertise lies outside the relevant domain or if there is disagreement among experts.

In this example, the appeal to authority uses the celebrity status of Dr. Smith to endorse a weight loss product, despite the lack of relevant expertise in the field.

False Dilemma Fallacy 

The false dilemma fallacy is also known as the black-or-white fallacy.

It presents a limited set of options or viewpoints as the only possibilities. When, in reality, there are more alternatives or shades of gray.

In this example, the false dilemma fallacy presents only two extreme options, disregarding the possibility of alternative perspectives or nuanced positions.

Straw Man 

The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting or distorting someone's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. 

Instead of addressing the actual argument, a weaker or distorted version is attacked.

In this example, Person B misrepresents Person A's argument by implying they advocate for unlimited funding without accountability. This is not what Person A originally stated.

Slippery Slope Fallacy 

The slippery slope fallacy suggests that a small, initial action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly negative consequences. 

Without sufficient evidence to support the causal link between the actions.

In this example, the slippery slope fallacy suggests an unsupported chain of events. It implies that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to extreme and unfounded consequences.

Hasty Generalization 

The hasty generalization fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. 

It involves making a broad generalization about a whole group based on a limited sample.

In this example, the fallacy draws a sweeping conclusion about an entire group based on the behavior of only two individuals.

Circular Argument 

The circular argument is also known as circular reasoning. 

This is a fallacy where the conclusion is restated or presupposed in the premises, resulting in circular or tautological reasoning.

In this example, the circular argument relies on assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premise and vice versa. Without providing independent evidence.

Red Herring Fallacy 

The red herring fallacy involves diverting attention from the main issue or topic by introducing an irrelevant or unrelated point or argument.

In this example, the red herring fallacy deflects attention from the discussion about climate change by introducing an unrelated concern about the economy.

Appeal to Hypocrisy 

The appeal to hypocrisy fallacy attempts to discredit an argument or position by pointing out inconsistencies in the person making the argument. Rather than addressing the argument itself.

In this example, the appeal to hypocrisy disregards the merits of the argument by attacking the person's behavior instead.

Causal Fallacy 

The causal fallacy is also known as the post hoc fallacy. It assumes that one event follows another. 

The first event caused the second event without considering other potential causes or factors.

In this example, the causal fallacy assumes a cause-and-effect relationship between wearing lucky socks and winning. Without considering other factors that may have contributed to the outcome.

Fallacy of Sunk Costs 

The fallacy of sunk costs occurs when past investments (time, money, or effort) are used as a reason to continue with a course of action. 

Even when it no longer serves the present or future interests.

In this example, the fallacy of sunk costs ignores the current situation and decision-making based on past investments. Even if continuing with the project may not be rational or beneficial.

Equivocation 

Equivocation is a fallacy that relies on the use of ambiguous or multiple meanings of a word or phrase to mislead or confuse the audience. 

It involves shifting the meaning of a term within an argument to support a particular conclusion.

In this example, equivocation occurs by shifting the meaning of "man" from referring to all humans to exclusively referring to males. This leads to an invalid and biased conclusion.

Appeal to Pity Fallacy 

The appeal to pity fallacy is also known as the argument from pity or the ad misericordiam fallacy. 

It seeks to evoke sympathy or pity from the audience in order to support a claim. It relies on emotional manipulation rather than sound reasoning or evidence.

In this example, the appeal to pity attempts to gain special treatment or leniency. 

It is done by appealing to the sympathy generated from personal circumstances. Rather than addressing academic performance.

Bandwagon Fallacy 

The bandwagon fallacy is also known as the appeal to popularity or the argumentum ad populum fallacy. 

It suggests that an idea or action is valid or desirable simply because it is popular or widely accepted.

In this example, the bandwagon fallacy assumes that the popularity of a fitness product automatically makes it effective or necessary. 

It disregards individual needs or other viable options.

How to Structure an Argument for an Essay?

Having a strong argument and good supporting information is worthless if the argument is not structured. When drafting a formal document, it is essential to shape your statement to make it effective.

The following are the professional steps used in structuring an argument:

1. Come Up With an Interesting Topic: For your document, choose an arguable and strong argumentative essay topic. Your topic should motivate the audience to read your entire essay. Drafting an argumentative essay will become more comfortable if your topic is debatable or controversial.

2. Identify the Type of Claim: When drafting an argumentative essay, five general claims can be selected. Choose a claim that suits your purpose:

• Fact - Is your argument true or false?
• Definition - Meaning of the argument
• Value - Importance and significance of the argument
• Causes and effects of the problem
• Policy - What to do to solve the problem?

3. Decide on the Argument Type: Whether it is Toulmin, deductive, and inductive, etc. Then decide the structure you want to follow in shaping your essay.

4. Consult Credible and Authentic Sources: Gather information for your deductive, inductive argument, etc.

5. Draft Argumentative Essay Outline: Organize the gathered data accordingly.

6. Write the Introduction: Create a strong claim or premises.

7. Develop a Logical Claim: Ensure that your argument is logically sound.

8. Write the Conclusion: Conclude with a statement that perfectly aligns with the argument type you chose for the essay.

In conclusion, understanding the different types of arguments and fallacies is essential for developing strong critical thinking skills. 

By recognizing the structure and characteristics of various argument types, students can effectively communicate their ideas and persuade others.

If you still feel stuck, experts suggest getting professional help from qualified essay writers. 

Our custom essay writing service provides expert help for all your academic assignments. 

So why wait? Try our AI essay generator today and save time!