Summary of the material for the workgroup (2021) for Actors in World Politics. INCLUDES notes on
workgroup sessions 1-5 and notes from Anthony Weston’s book “A Rulebook for Arguments”,
introduction and chapters 1-7, 9 and 10 (Total: 19 pages).
1
Actors in World Politics Workgroup Notes
Table of Contents
Workgroup Lecture Notes 2
Workgroup Session #1 2
Workgroup Session #2 4
Workgroup Session #3 5
Workgroup Session #4 6
Workgroup Session #5 7
“A Rulebook for Arguments” 8
Introduction 8
I. Short Arguments: Some General Rules 8
II. Arguments by Example 10
III. Arguments by Analogy 11
IV. Arguments from Authority 12
V. Arguments About Causes 14
VI. Deductive Arguments 15
VII. Extended Arguments 16
XI. Oral Arguments 17
X. Public Debates 19
, 2
Workgroup Lecture Notes
Workgroup Session #1
Objectives
Course objectives:
● Develop critical thinking and analytical skills within actors of state and non-state actors.
● Develop academic skills concerning:
○ The general structure of an argument.
○ What makes a good argument.
○ Common argumentative fallacies.
Construction of an Argument
The general means of persuasion in science and politics is to convince people that your
ideas/reasons/arguments are good and the “way you see them”.
➔ Persuasion: The action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe
something.
➔ Argumentation: The action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea,
action, or theory. They explain a conclusion.
◆ Argument: A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
● Premises give reasons → Conclusions
● Sometimes there exist “hidden premises”.
◆ Reasoning: The action of thinking of something logically and sensibly in support of a
belief or idea.
➔ Steps to follow:
1. “Resolving the premises and the conclusion”: The start of analysing an argument (i.e.
distinguishing the premises/reasons from the conclusion.
➔ Conclusion: The point you’re trying to make (i.e. what you want your reader
to accept). If you’re not working towards a conclusion, you’re not making an
argument. BEWARE, a conclusion is NOT an argument.
➔ Premises: Statements that give your reasons for the conclusion.
➔ Categorical Syllogism: An argument with two premises and a conclusion that
connects through the logic of deduction (i.e. something general → something
particular or vice versa).
2. Assess whether the argument is a good one.
Scientific method:
1. Make an observation; literary/academic research and review.
2. Create a hypothesis: why did it happen?
3. Consider other elements that could affect your research.
4. Carry through an experiment.
5. Develop a theory.
Simple rules about arguments that can be used to analyse the arguments of others:
1. Unfold your ideas in a natural order.
➔ Make your argument unfold smoothly.
2. Start from reliable premises.
, 3
➔ Your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak.
3. Be concrete and concise.
➔ Avoid abstract, vague and general terms.
4. Build on substance, not overtone.
➔ Don’t use emotionally loaded words, but offer actual reasons.
5. Use consistent terms.
➔ Go for the tightest, NOT the most flowery.
Argumentative fallacies are bad examples and that persuade in the short term:
● Ad hominem Arguments: Attacking the person rather than the issue at hand.
● Ad ignorantiam Arguments: Arguing that a claim is true just because it is not false.
● Ad misericordiam Arguments: Appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment.
● Ad populum Arguments: Appealing to the emotions of a crowd and/or appealing to a person
to go along with the crowd (i.e. “it must be true because everyone believes it”).
● Critical Argument: Implicitly using your conclusion as a premise (i.e. repeating an idea
instead of giving valid reasoning).
● Equivocation: Sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument
(i.e. when a key term or phrase in an argument is used ambiguously, with one meaning in one
part of the argument and another meaning in another part of the argument).
● False Cause: The generic term for any questionable conclusion about cause and effect (i.e.
presuming that correlation means causation, thus creating a false relationship between
unrelated factors).
● False Dilemma: Reducing the options to consider to just two, often opposed to each other and
unfair to the people against whom the dilemma is posed (i.e. present the false assumption that
there are only two options).
● Loaded Language: Language that primarily plays on the emotions (i.e. substituting facts and
evidence with words that stir up emotion, with an attempt to manipulate others into accepting
the truth of the argument).
● Non sequitur: Drawing a conclusion that does NOT follow logically based upon the evidence.
● Overgeneralizing: Generalising from too few examples; concluding an entire group, topic or
place based on insufficient evidence.
● Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention
from the main subject (i.e. when one changes the subject to draw attention away from the
main issue).
● Straw Person: A caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to
hold so that it is easy to refute (i.e. simply ignoring a person’s actual position and substituting
a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position).
● Slippery Slope: Rejecting a position or claim on the basis that it will inevitably lead to an
extreme result.
● Appeals to False Authority: Assuming a claim is true because an authority says it is.
● Stacking the Deck: To show only one side of the story; the one in your favour.
● Faulty Analogy: Inaccurate or inconsequential comparisons between objects or concepts (i.e.
assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike
in other respects).
workgroup sessions 1-5 and notes from Anthony Weston’s book “A Rulebook for Arguments”,
introduction and chapters 1-7, 9 and 10 (Total: 19 pages).
1
Actors in World Politics Workgroup Notes
Table of Contents
Workgroup Lecture Notes 2
Workgroup Session #1 2
Workgroup Session #2 4
Workgroup Session #3 5
Workgroup Session #4 6
Workgroup Session #5 7
“A Rulebook for Arguments” 8
Introduction 8
I. Short Arguments: Some General Rules 8
II. Arguments by Example 10
III. Arguments by Analogy 11
IV. Arguments from Authority 12
V. Arguments About Causes 14
VI. Deductive Arguments 15
VII. Extended Arguments 16
XI. Oral Arguments 17
X. Public Debates 19
, 2
Workgroup Lecture Notes
Workgroup Session #1
Objectives
Course objectives:
● Develop critical thinking and analytical skills within actors of state and non-state actors.
● Develop academic skills concerning:
○ The general structure of an argument.
○ What makes a good argument.
○ Common argumentative fallacies.
Construction of an Argument
The general means of persuasion in science and politics is to convince people that your
ideas/reasons/arguments are good and the “way you see them”.
➔ Persuasion: The action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe
something.
➔ Argumentation: The action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea,
action, or theory. They explain a conclusion.
◆ Argument: A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
● Premises give reasons → Conclusions
● Sometimes there exist “hidden premises”.
◆ Reasoning: The action of thinking of something logically and sensibly in support of a
belief or idea.
➔ Steps to follow:
1. “Resolving the premises and the conclusion”: The start of analysing an argument (i.e.
distinguishing the premises/reasons from the conclusion.
➔ Conclusion: The point you’re trying to make (i.e. what you want your reader
to accept). If you’re not working towards a conclusion, you’re not making an
argument. BEWARE, a conclusion is NOT an argument.
➔ Premises: Statements that give your reasons for the conclusion.
➔ Categorical Syllogism: An argument with two premises and a conclusion that
connects through the logic of deduction (i.e. something general → something
particular or vice versa).
2. Assess whether the argument is a good one.
Scientific method:
1. Make an observation; literary/academic research and review.
2. Create a hypothesis: why did it happen?
3. Consider other elements that could affect your research.
4. Carry through an experiment.
5. Develop a theory.
Simple rules about arguments that can be used to analyse the arguments of others:
1. Unfold your ideas in a natural order.
➔ Make your argument unfold smoothly.
2. Start from reliable premises.
, 3
➔ Your conclusion will be weak if your premises are weak.
3. Be concrete and concise.
➔ Avoid abstract, vague and general terms.
4. Build on substance, not overtone.
➔ Don’t use emotionally loaded words, but offer actual reasons.
5. Use consistent terms.
➔ Go for the tightest, NOT the most flowery.
Argumentative fallacies are bad examples and that persuade in the short term:
● Ad hominem Arguments: Attacking the person rather than the issue at hand.
● Ad ignorantiam Arguments: Arguing that a claim is true just because it is not false.
● Ad misericordiam Arguments: Appealing to pity as an argument for special treatment.
● Ad populum Arguments: Appealing to the emotions of a crowd and/or appealing to a person
to go along with the crowd (i.e. “it must be true because everyone believes it”).
● Critical Argument: Implicitly using your conclusion as a premise (i.e. repeating an idea
instead of giving valid reasoning).
● Equivocation: Sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument
(i.e. when a key term or phrase in an argument is used ambiguously, with one meaning in one
part of the argument and another meaning in another part of the argument).
● False Cause: The generic term for any questionable conclusion about cause and effect (i.e.
presuming that correlation means causation, thus creating a false relationship between
unrelated factors).
● False Dilemma: Reducing the options to consider to just two, often opposed to each other and
unfair to the people against whom the dilemma is posed (i.e. present the false assumption that
there are only two options).
● Loaded Language: Language that primarily plays on the emotions (i.e. substituting facts and
evidence with words that stir up emotion, with an attempt to manipulate others into accepting
the truth of the argument).
● Non sequitur: Drawing a conclusion that does NOT follow logically based upon the evidence.
● Overgeneralizing: Generalising from too few examples; concluding an entire group, topic or
place based on insufficient evidence.
● Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention
from the main subject (i.e. when one changes the subject to draw attention away from the
main issue).
● Straw Person: A caricature of an opposing view, exaggerated from what anyone is likely to
hold so that it is easy to refute (i.e. simply ignoring a person’s actual position and substituting
a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position).
● Slippery Slope: Rejecting a position or claim on the basis that it will inevitably lead to an
extreme result.
● Appeals to False Authority: Assuming a claim is true because an authority says it is.
● Stacking the Deck: To show only one side of the story; the one in your favour.
● Faulty Analogy: Inaccurate or inconsequential comparisons between objects or concepts (i.e.
assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike
in other respects).
