1. For Questions of fact:

• Does X exist?
• Does X lead to Y?
• How can we define X?

1. For Questions of policy:

• What action should we take?

1. For questions of value:

• What is X worth?

E.g., "The United States should not have relationships with states which support terrorist activity." Several terms need to be defined/refined: "relationships" (diplomatic? Military? Economic?); "support" (give refuge to? Give aid to? Don’t extradite member of?) "terrorist activity" (armed groups? Religious groups? How is this defined?)

>>>Exercise: Circle words which need definition in the three claims below:

• In the United States we have a society pervaded from top to bottom by contempt for the law.
• Our government collaborates abroad with the worst enemies of humanity and liberty.
• Government—including the agencies of law enforcement—business, labor, students, the military, the poor no less than the rich, outdo each other in breaking the rules and violating the ethics that society has established for its protection.

• Hard facts and statistics. These should be current, should be reliable, should fairly represent the issue, should be sufficient to establish validity, should be presented in light of opposing evidence discovered, and be comparable sets of data (especially if statistics are being used).
• Expert opinion. Authorities should be qualified and neutral.
• Examples, including personal anecdote and case studies. These should be current, should be reliable, should fairly represent the issue, should be sufficient to establish validity, and should be presented in light of opposing evidence.

• Generalization. This is dicey, but if you give 3 or so examples, you may be able to infer from those examples to a larger group. Best used with claims of fact and value. Example: Claim: Plastic litter kills animals. Evidence: Birds, turtles, sea lions, etc. have died from plastic litter.
• Causation. Here one argues that a set of events or facts caused some result or outcome. Best used with claims of fact or policy, it can easily establish a problem-solution structure to a text. Causation requires substantial proof or evidence, but it is one of the most compelling arguments one can make. Example: Claim: Intensive, single-crop farming leads to severe insect problems. Evidence: Natural vegetative habitats have checks and balances on insect populations; single-crop farming destroys complex habitats.
• Sign. Here two sets of facts or events are related or occur at the same time, but the writer does not claim causation. Example: Claim: Sexuality in advertising is effective for viewers. Evidence: Psychological experiments into human sexual response.
• Analogy. An argument that two concepts or sets of concepts are related. There is no real proof in an analogy, but it can be convincing if well-handled. An analogy is an extended metaphor or comparison; it can become very shaky if applied down to minute details. Example: Claim: A teacher facilitating learning in a classroom is like a conductor leading an orchestra.
• Parallel case. Here one argues that one case resembles another, as in arguing that a legal precedent explains or clarifies another case.

• Establish credentials for the authority cited (including yourself)
• Establish that the authority has first-hand, intense experience with the topic.
• Establish that the authority has been evaluated by experts/peers in the field.
• Prefer public records to private records.
• Prefer information/opinion based on clear widely-accepted procedure.
• Prefer information/opinion drawn from respectable sources; beware of dubious Web resources.
• Examine possible bias, especially sources of income. Rebut bias charges if possible.

• Appeal to the needs of your audience
• Ask audience to share a value with you, and hence also your claim
• Use language which evokes emotion, especially using adjectives and verbs to convey feeling.
• Don’t overplay your hand.

Briefly summarize an opposing claim or point-of-view, carefully controlling the way you express that claim. Redefine terms to your advantage, but give a fair synopsis of the opposite claim. Then offer reasons or evidence which undermines those opposing claims.

• Induction: arguing from specific facts to general claim. The scientific method of arguing.
• Deduction: making a claim and offering specific evidence to back up that claim. (Humanities, politics, law).
• The problem-solution structure:

1. The problem.

1. Detailed description of the problem.
2. Severity of the problem.
3. Current solutions to the problem.
4. Failure of the current solutions.

1. The Solution

1. Detailed description of your solution
2. Solution is practical (will achieve desired effects, is affordable, is implementable)
3. Alternative solutions are less practical.

• Dubious definitions. Definitions of key words in claims must be common-sensible or defined through an authoritative source.
• Faulty generalization. Generalizations based on insufficient evidence, e.g., not enough samples in a poll.
• Faulty cause and effect. A) Two events which are claimed to be causally linked really are not. In Latin, "post hoc ergo propter hoc", "after this, therefore because of this," means that because one event follows another does NOT mean the earlier event caused the later event. B) A single cause is given, when in reality the causation is much more complicated. In other words, beware of oversimplifying when claiming causation. E.g.: "The GM workers will strike over health insurance benefits."
• Confusing correlation with causation. Because two events are related through time, space, environment, etc. does not mean they are causally related.
• Faulty analogy. An analogy just doesn’t properly connect or explain two sets of facts. E.g., writing a paper is like climbing a set of stairs, a neat linear process.
• Either/or or black-and-white reasoning. Claiming that a situation or set of facts is either X or Y, with no middle ground, is fallacious because events/facts are almost always more complicated than that. E.g.: "Either the U.S. must continue to be a real military presence in the world, or we should withdraw from the global arena."
• Personal attacks, or ad hominem fallacies. Attacking a person’s character instead of his/her views and their validity. E.g., "President Clinton has no authority to propose legislation concerning women because he has treated his own wife with shocking disrespect."
• Begging the question. By skipping over a premise, or using a loaded term without definition, a writer can force a superficial and unquestioning reader to agree with his/her viewpoint. E.g.: "All patriotic Americans will support the President in national security issues."