Test

1. How can we define argumentation?

A. Argumentation is the activity of a disputant to defend his point of view.

B. Argumentation is ego proof of the truth of a certain statement.

B. Argumentation is the process of influencing an interlocutor.

2. Components of argumentation:

A. Arguments, point of view.

B. Introduction, main part, conclusion.

B. Premises, conclusion.

3. What kind of argumentation requires direct appeal to reality?

A. Theoretical.

B. Empirical.

B. Theoretical and empirical.

4. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. A special case of criticism is refutation.

B. A special case of refutation is criticism.

5. Can proof be a refutation?

6. Components of a point of view:

A. A proposition containing an assertion; an expression that captures a person’s attitude to this statement.

B. A statement containing a proposition; an expression that captures a person’s attitude to this statement.

B. Statement, proposition.

7. Arguments are:

L. Statements with the help of which a point of view is substantiated.

B. Statements with which a point of view is defended.

B. Statements with the help of which a point of view is criticized.

8. Can criticism be progressive?

9. Can argumentation be both progressive and regressive?

ARGUMENTATION

(from Latin argumentatio - bringing arguments) - giving arguments with the intention of changing the beliefs of the other party (audience). Such arguments may include references to, to more general and seemingly reliable principles, to an accepted belief system, to tradition or intuition, to taste, etc. The extremely varied and heterogeneous methods by which beliefs can be formed and changed are studied by argumentation theory. These techniques depend on the specific field of knowledge, on the audience, on social groups and society as a whole, on the uniqueness of the culture or civilization within which they are developed and applied.
In A., there is a distinction between - (or statements), which the arguing party considers necessary to instill in the audience, and an argument, or - one or more interconnected statements intended to support the thesis.
A. theory is a complex discipline that exists at the intersection of a number of sciences involved in the study of human communication and cognition. These sciences include logic, history, linguistics, etc. More or less systematic study of logic began in antiquity, during the period of transition from the mythological interpretation of the world to its rational explanation. The study of the theory of rhetoric, long called “rhetoric,” has always been considered a necessary element of humanitarian education. In mid. 20th century in the theory of A. began, radically changing the style of her reasoning and her methods and giving this discipline, as it were, a second wind.
Theory A. explores the variety of ways to persuade an audience through speech influence. You can influence the beliefs of listeners not only with the help of speech and verbally expressed arguments, but also in many other ways: gestures, facial expressions, visual images, etc. Even silence in certain cases turns out to be a fairly compelling argument. These methods of influence are studied by psychology, the theory of art, but are not affected by theory A. Beliefs can further be influenced by violence, suggestion, subconscious stimulation, medicines, drugs, etc. Psychology deals with these methods of influence, but they clearly go beyond the scope of even the widely interpreted theory. AA is speech, including a system of statements intended to justify an opinion. It is addressed primarily to the mind of a person who is able, after reasoning, to accept or refute it. Thus, the following features are characteristic of A.:
A. is always expressed in language, in the form of spoken or written statements; A. explores the relationships between these statements, and not the ideas and motives that stand behind them;
A. is a purposeful activity: its task is to strengthen or weaken someone’s beliefs;
A. is social, since it is aimed at another person or other people, and it also presupposes an active reaction of the other party to the arguments presented;
A. presupposes the reasonableness of those who perceive it, their ability to rationally weigh arguments, accept them or challenge them.
The goal of A. is the acceptance of the proposed provisions by the opponent or the audience. Truth may be the implied goals of A., but its direct goal is always the audience in the fairness of the position offered to attention, inclination to accept this position and, possibly, to the action proposed by it. This means that oppositions - and goodness - are not central either in A., or, accordingly, in its theory. Arguments can be given not only in support of theses that appear to be true, but also in support of false or vague theses. Not only good and evil can be defended with reason, but also that which seems or will later turn out to be evil.
Just as the ability to speak grammatically correctly existed even before the grammar that describes it, so persuasion, which lies at the basis of human cooperation and activity, existed long before the emergence of Theory A. The vast majority of people even now, with varying degrees of success, convince others without asking for help to a special science and not counting on this help. Although the spontaneous ability to convince others is sufficient in many areas of human activity, there are types of activities and professions that require special study of theory A. In democratic societies this includes law, philosophy and psychology, history, etc.

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

ARGUMENTATION

(from Latin argumentatio)

bringing evidence.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

ARGUMENTATION

ARGUMENTATION - a way of providing a basis for any action (s) for the purpose of public defense, inducing a certain opinion about them, recognition or explanation; a way of persuading someone through meaningful arguments. In this sense, argumentation is always dialogical and broader than logical proof (which is essentially impersonal and monological), since it assimilates not only the “technique of thinking” (logic itself), but also the “technique of persuasion” (the art of subordinating the thought, feeling and will of a person).

The main aspects of argumentation: “factual” (about facts used as arguments), “rhetorical” (forms and styles of speech and emotional influence), “axiological” (value selection of arguments), “ethical” (moral acceptability and permissibility of arguments) and , finally, “logical” (sequence and mutual arguments, them in deductive).

These and other aspects of argumentation are designed to “best influence a given audience” (Lenin V.I. PSS, vol. 21, p. 21). Therefore, they complement each other (the first determines the “matter” of the argument, and the others determine its form, the “form of presentation”). However, they may vary depending on the specific situation. For example, in everyday life purely logical means of argumentation are rarely used. In turn, logical does not depend on the intuitive convincingness of premises and axioms. Its coerciveness (bindingness, universal validity) lies in the mutual connection of judgments, according to the rules of inference. If at the same time he has confidence in the truth of the premises and axioms, then the conclusion becomes a logical proof, that is, the strongest version of the argument.

Thus, argumentation, as well as the concept of evidence, can be viewed from different points of view. Its content naturally summarizes what (throughout history) people thought about the processes of intellectual communication, how they described and what rational means and systems they invented when they thought about language and acts of communication.

In antiquity, argumentation is the support of speculative thought as a conversation, dialogue, discussion. Argumentation was listed according to department and rhetoric. The first was understood as the art of argument, the second - as the art of eloquence, “corresponding to dialectics, since both of them concern such subjects, familiarity with which can be considered the property of everyone and which do not belong to the field of any particular science” (Aristotle. Rhetoric. -In the book: Antique rhetoric, M., 1978, p. 15).

But since both meant the ability to find one or another way of persuasion regarding each subject under discussion, the question naturally arose: what could be the methods of persuasion in general and which of them are permissible and which are unacceptable from the point of view of certain ones, for example. moral criteria?

Plato already noted the difference between the concept of “persuading” with the help of a reasonable (let’s say today, logically correct) argument addressed to the mind, and the concept of “inspiring” with the help of arguments addressed to the heart, feeling, intuition.

To the latter he included testimony (in court), confessions made under torture, written contracts, etc. Aristotle called technical methods of persuasion that were created by science using a certain method, or those that are associated exclusively with our speech practice, with discourse. These technical methods of persuasion consist, according to Aristotle, in real or apparent proof.

The division of “proof” into actual and apparent was a turning point in the history of argumentation. In this regard, Aristotle can be considered the first theorist to make the transition from the vague idea of argumentation to a strict definition of concepts, to the separation of “argumentation in general” from the precise concept of logical proof. Even in the field of rhetoric, Aristotle said, only evidence is essential, since “we are then most convinced of something when it seems to us that something has been proven” (Aristotle. Rhetoric. - Ibid., p. 17).

Aristotle became the creator of the first scientific theory of argumentation, which is now called syllogistics and which (in a slightly modified form) is an integral part of modern formal logic. At the same time, Aristotle’s main idea was that argumentation can be considered “good” and, therefore, acceptable if it is generally valid.

Meanwhile, general validity in the strict sense is permitted only where logical proof is possible (see Proof theory). Taken in a broader context, the argumentation does not always meet the conditions of “forced rigor” of this evidence. The validity of an argument “has degrees: it is more or less strong. That is why it is never closed: you can always achieve its strengthening by selecting suitable arguments” (Blanche R. Le raisonnement. P., 1973, p. 223).

True, even in this case, when arguing, you have to follow the laws of logic, selecting arguments so that they are consistent with each other, and avoiding situations where each argument, more or less plausible in itself, turns out to be in contradiction with others.

The emergence of formal logic greatly influenced the fate of argumentation. Reduced to the art of eloquence, argumentation (as a theory of argument or debate) has lost the credibility of exact science, retaining only the everyday intellectual superstructure over discourse. However, over the past two decades there has been a marked change in the way argumentation problems are approached. Argumentation becomes part of the general (information) theory of communication. A new path is being outlined - the study of the psychological mechanisms of persuasion, which can naturally influence the means of argumentation. Ultimately, the argument itself, until it is interpreted one way or another, holds the key to the persuasive power of argumentation. Therefore, the question arises: is it possible to strengthen this power? Many defenders of the theory of argumentation believe that logicians (namely they!) should go in search of new “means of proof” in philosophy, social science, politics, in everyday discussions, and in general in the humanitarian spheres of human activity. And partly this process actually proceeds through the creation of new (non-classical) logics: the logic of questions, epistemic logic, the logic of preferences and choice, the logic of alogical and deontic modalities and many others, which can be called the “logic of humanitarian knowledge.”

Lit.: Philosophical problems of argumentation. Yerevan, 1986; Perelman CA. Traité de l'argumentation. P., 1958; “Logique et Analyse” (La théorie de l'argumentation), n. 21-24, Dec., 1963; fisher W. R. Technical Logic, Rhetorical Logic and Narrative Rationality.- “Argumentation”, 1987, v. l, n. l; Finn V.K. On one version of the logic of argumentation. - “Scientific and Technical Information”, 1996, ser. 2, No. 5-6; Pankratov D. β. On some modifications of the logic of argumentation.-Ibid., 1999, ser. 2, No. 1-2.

M. M. Novoselov

In the verbal aspect, argumentation appears as a complete or partial justification of a statement using other statements. The statement that is justified (judgment, system of judgments, etc.) is called a thesis, and the statements used to substantiate the thesis are called arguments, or grounds, or reasons. The very method of logical substantiation of a thesis through arguments (its logical structure) is called a form of argumentation. Based on the nature of the grounds (arguments), evidentiary and non-evidential arguments are distinguished. In demonstrative arguments, they are statements that have been established, and the form is demonstrative reasoning (reasoning that provides a true conclusion with true premises; demonstrative ones include, for example, deductive inferences, some types of induction and analogies). In non-demonstrative argumentation, the arguments, at least some, are not reliable, but only plausible or those in which non-demonstrative reasoning (both of these possibilities are not excluded, of course). The thesis in such an argument is a plausible statement.

Based on the direction of reasoning, a distinction is made between direct and indirect forms of argumentation. In direct evidence, one is content with available (given) arguments, as in the case of direct proof (for more details, see Logical Inference). With indirect argumentation (one of its types), a statement is put forward in addition to the data, which is a negation of the thesis, i.e. (assumption of indirect argumentation). From the available arguments and antithesis, they deduce (deductively or inductively) (the conjunction of a certain statement and the negation of this statement). As a result, a conclusion is made about the validity (full or partial) of the thesis. This indirect argument is called argumentation by contradiction, or apagogical argument. Another type of indirect argumentation is disjunctive. It is carried out by excluding all members of the disjunctive judgment, except for one thesis (more details: The proof is indirect).

The activity opposite to argumentation is called criticism. If argumentation is to develop a belief in the truth or at least partial validity of a position, then criticism consists of dissuading the validity of a position or believing in its falsity. There are two ways of criticism: criticism; argumentation and establishing the falsity or low degree of credibility of a statement. In the second case, it is called counterargumentation, and the criticized position is called a thesis. Particular counterargumentation is overthrow, i.e. establishing the falsity of any position using logical means and proven provisions. The latter provisions are called refutation arguments. In counterargumentation, which is not a refutation, arguments are also distinguished - justified (fully or partially) statements used to establish the falsity or low degree of credibility of the thesis, and form. Counterargumentation cannot be a refutation when the arguments are not fully substantiated judgments, and also when the form is non-demonstrative reasoning.

According to the direction of reasoning (as in the case of indirect argumentation), they distinguish between criticism of the thesis by substantiating the antithesis and criticism, which is called reduction to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum), when the logical basis for criticism is the conclusion of a contradiction from the arguments and thesis, which leads to a conclusion about the falsity or small degree of plausibility of the thesis.

In the process of argumentation and criticism, two types of errors can be made: intentional and unintentional. Intentional errors are called sophistry, and unintentional errors are called paralogisms. Following the rules of argumentation allows you to avoid mistakes. Here are some of the basic rules.

Rule 1. It is necessary to clearly formulate the thesis (in the form of a judgment, a system of judgments, a problem, a hypothesis, a concept, etc.). Compliance with this rule involves (1) identifying the simplest components of a controversial idea, (2) finding points of agreement and points of disagreement between the parties, and then (3) agreeing on a thesis or theses.

Rule 2. The thesis must be formulated clearly and clearly. To implement this rule, it is recommended, firstly, to find out whether all the non-logical terms contained in the thesis statement are completely understandable to everyone. If there are unclear or ambiguous expressions, they should be clarified, for example, by definition. Secondly, we need to clarify logical terms. If the thesis is a judgment in which certain objects are affirmed or denied, then it is necessary to find out whether all objects are being discussed in the judgment or only some (many, majority, minority, etc.). It is necessary to clarify in what sense the conjunctions “and”, “or”, “if... then...”, etc. are used. For example, the conjunction “or” can express both non-strict and strict disjunctive, “if ... then...” -implicative or conditional connection, etc. Thirdly, sometimes it is advisable to clarify the time in question in a judgment, for example, to clarify whether it is stated that the definite always belongs to the object or belongs to it sometimes: to clarify words such as “today”, “tomorrow”, “in so many hours”, etc. Fourthly, it is necessary to find out whether they claim that the thesis is true, or whether they claim that it is only plausible . If the second rule is violated, the error “unclear thesis statement” occurs.

Rule 3. The thesis should not change in the process of argumentation and criticism without special reservations. Violation of this rule is associated with an error called thesis substitution. It occurs when a certain statement is put forward as a thesis, and another, similar to the one put forward, is argued or criticized; in the end it is concluded that the original statement is justified or criticized. Varieties of substitution of the thesis are errors: (1) substitution of the argued thesis with a stronger statement (in relation to the proof, this error has the meaning “he who proves a lot, proves nothing”, (2) substitution of the criticized thesis with a weaker statement (in relation to refutation, it is called “ He who refutes a lot refutes nothing.”

Rule 4. Arguments must be formulated explicitly and clearly. To fulfill this rule, you must: (1) list all arguments; if in the process of argumentation some arguments are abandoned, arguments are changed, or new ones are brought forward, this must be specified; (2) clarify non-logical terms; (3) identify the logical arguments; clarify quantifier words, modal terms; (4) clarify the evaluative characteristics of arguments (whether they are true or plausible statements).

Rule 5. Arguments must be judgments, fully or partially substantiated. In relation to proof and refutation, this is formulated as follows; arguments must be fully justified (logically or factually). If the fifth rule is violated, the “unfounded argument” error occurs. In proofs and refutations, the corresponding error is called “unproven argument.” There are several varieties of the “unsubstantiated argument” fallacy.

1. “False argument” is a variant of paralogism. When making this mistake, an unfounded statement is presented as an argument, and a false one at that, although the person arguing is not aware of the falsity of the argument.

2. “False argument” is a variant of sophism. This (doubtful from the point of view of semantics) name was given by logicians of the past to the presentation as arguments of statements whose falsity is known to the one who uses them. Variants of a false argument are, for example: (1) a “comic false argument” in various kinds of entertaining mathematical problems; (2) “tactical lying argument”, used in the process of arguing with an opponent who seeks to refute all your arguments. In this case, the argument defended is , which is the negation of the implied (true) argument. And if the falsity of this judgment is proven by your opponent, then you declare that you agree with this and offer an argument that you have not previously expressed. The opponent has no choice but to recognize the last argument as true; (3) “blatantly false argument”, when clearly false statements are presented as arguments, assuming that the opponent, due to lack of courage or for some reason, will remain silent. Sometimes this is done when speaking on radio, television, or in print; (4) “a false argument as a premise of the question”; in this case, the argument is not stated, but expressed through a question that is false.

3. The third type of error in argumentation is “unfounded reference to authority.” You can refer to authorities (individuals, communities, etc.), but the following conditions must be met: each - in a certain area, statements of authority regarding such an area can be referred to. But, generally speaking, references to authorities are only probable arguments, they should be used only to confirm direct arguments; It is necessary to cite not words “taken out” of context, but thoughts extracted as a result of analysis of the context. If these are not followed, then any thesis can be supported by quotes. The error described turns into a “false argument” if words are cited that the authority did not utter, or if the authorities are made up.

Rule 6. Argumentation should not include a circle. If this rule is violated, an error occurs called “circle in argumentation.” It arises when a thesis is substantiated with the help of arguments, and one of the arguments, in turn, is substantiated with the help of the thesis.

Rule 7. Arguments must be relevant to the thesis. An argument is relevant in relation to the thesis of the argument (counter-argumentation) if its acceptance, possibly in conjunction with some other arguments, increases (decreases) the credibility of the thesis. The corresponding error is “irrelevant argument”.

Rule 8. The relationship between the arguments and the thesis must be at least a confirmation relationship. If this rule is violated, a “does not confirm” error occurs. When applied to proof, it is called “does not follow.”

When arguing or examining a ready-made argument, it is important to know what the logical connection is between the thesis and arguments: does the thesis necessarily follow from the arguments, or do the arguments only confirm the thesis, although there is no logical connection between the thesis and arguments. To solve this problem, it is necessary to apply the doctrine of logic about deductive and inductive inferences.

Lit.: Alekseev A.P. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. M., 1991; Ivin A., A. Basics of the theory of argumentation. M., 1997; Ivlev Yu. V. Logic. M., 1997; Povarchsh S. Dispute. On the theory and practice of dispute. St. Petersburg, 1996; Kurbatov V.I. Socio-political argumentation: logical and methodological. Rostov n/d, 1991; Ruzavin f. I. Logic and argumentation. M., 1997.

Yu. V. Ivlev

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

Argumentation is a way of persuading someone through logical arguments, a method of proving using arguments. It requires a person to control himself, concentrate attention on the subject of the conversation, possess knowledge and communication techniques, self-confidence in his views, assertiveness and correctness in his statements, while its result largely depends on the interlocutor.

In order for the argument to be successful, you need to put yourself in the position of your partner: What is he striving for? How to win him over to your side?

In argumentation, as a rule, there are two main types:

evidentiary (to substantiate one’s views, sequence of conclusions). With its help, a person seeks to prove or justify something to his partner.
counter-argumentation (to refute the views and conclusions of the interlocutor). With its help, it is possible to refute the theses and statements of the interlocutor.

There are tactical and methodological methods of argumentation. Tactical techniques include specific recommendations of one’s point of view, position or decision. You should:

1. Operate in simple, clear and precise concepts. Speech should be simple, clear, accessible, taking into account the level of competence of the interlocutor. Otherwise, persuasiveness can be “sunk” in a sea of words. Arguments and facts must be reliable and easily verifiable, and even better, generally known.

2. Conduct arguments correctly in relation to your partner:

- openly admit that the interlocutor is right if he is right;

- continue to operate only with those arguments that are accepted by the interlocutor;

- first respond to your partner’s arguments, and then give your own arguments;

- maintain politeness.

3. Take into account the personal characteristics of the interlocutor:

- balance the pace of argumentation with the temperamental characteristics of your partner. Accurately and timely placement of stress and pauses has more impact than a flow of words. You cannot talk to a slow interlocutor at a fast pace: the most convincing arguments will remain for the opposite side beyond the threshold of his speech perception. And, on the contrary, “verbal chewing gum” will alienate the interlocutor with a high rate of reactions, he will get bored and offer to end the dialogue.

- use terminology that is understandable to the interlocutor.

4. Carefully study all the facts and information that can be used, eliminate all possible contradictions in the arguments so that one does not contradict the other, and formulate a clear and logical conclusion in advance.

5. Present evidence and considerations with maximum clarity (the old truth is known: it is better to see once than to hear a hundred times):

- use drawn diagrams, pictures, etc.;

- use paper and pen when presenting your evidence (draw diagrams, take notes on the course of the conversation);

- use comparisons, but without exaggeration, because they cause mistrust.

6. Do not forget that “excessive” persuasiveness causes resistance from the interlocutor; 1 – 2 bright arguments achieve a greater effect.

7. Use special methods of argumentation.

Methods of argumentation

Fundamental method represents a direct appeal to the interlocutor, whom we introduce to the facts and information that are the basis of our evidentiary argumentation. Digital parameters play an important role here and provide an excellent background. Unlike verbal information, numbers always look more convincing. This happens to a certain extent also because at the moment none of those present are able to refute them.

Method of contradiction based on identifying contradictions in the interlocutor’s arguments. Essentially it is defensive.

The “yes...but” method: It often happens that the interlocutor presents well-constructed arguments, but they cover either the advantages or only the weaknesses of the proposed alternative. However, since it is rarely the case that everyone is talking only for or against, it is easy to use the “yes...but” method, which allows you to consider other aspects of the decision. We can calmly agree with the interlocutor, and then the so-called “but” comes. An indispensable condition for success is excellent knowledge of the issue.

Positive response method (“the three yes method”) is a method of constructing a conversation in such a way that your partner answers “yes, I agree” to your first questions, and then continues to agree on more complex issues. This is a method of solving a problem step by step. If the interlocutor does not agree with our step, then we say: “Sorry, I didn’t ask the question quite accurately,” i.e. we go back and take a smaller step.

Dismemberment method. This method involves dividing the partner’s arguments into: a) true, b) doubtful, c) erroneous, followed by proof of one’s point of view and the inconsistency of the partner’s general position. In this case, it is advisable not to touch on strong arguments, but to focus on the weak points and try to refute them. “I completely agree with you that... but there are points that allow me to doubt.”

Slow down method consists of deliberately revealing weaknesses in the interlocutor’s position. This forces the partner to listen more carefully to his evidence.

Classical rhetoric method (visible support method). It is very effective both in relation to one interlocutor and several listeners. Its essence lies in the fact that after the interlocutor’s argumentation, we do not object or contradict him at all, but on the contrary, we come to the rescue, bringing new evidence in favor of his arguments, and then we defeat him with one compelling argument, a counterattack. “You forgot to confirm your point of view also such facts... (we list them). But this will not help, since…” thus creating the impression that we studied the interlocutor’s point of view more thoroughly than he himself and after that we were convinced of the inconsistency of his thesis. The use of this method requires particularly careful preparation.

Refacing method. Gradually leading the interlocutor to opposite conclusions by step-by-step tracing the solution to the problem with him. The course of the partner’s decision is outlined and, with slow steps, one’s point of view is proved to the partner. It is important to find the main misconception and prove the contradiction; the partner must understand the contradiction and realize the mistake.

"Boomerang" method makes it possible to use the interlocutor’s “weapon” against him. This method does not have the power of proof, but it has an exceptional effect if applied with a fair amount of ostnoumia. For example, Demosthenes, a famous statesman and orator, and the Athenian general Phocion were sworn political enemies. One day Demosthenes told Phocion: “If the Athenians get angry, they will hang you.” To which Phocion replied: “And you, of course, too, as soon as they come to their senses.”

Method of two-sided argumentation. This method works when the interlocutor presents both strengths and weaknesses in his argument and in the arguments of his partner.

Manipulative methods of argumentation

You need to know that during a conversation or argument, your interlocutor can use manipulative methods of argumentation. These are ordinary tricks and, of course, you should not use them yourself, the main thing is to be aware of them and be able to resist them.

Exaggeration Method – unreasonable exaggeration of any conclusions. It consists of generalization and any kind of exaggeration, as well as drawing premature conclusions.

Method of discrediting a partner. If it is impossible to refute the essence of the question, then, at the very least, you need to question the identity of the interlocutor (if it is impossible to convince, get personal).

Isolation method is based on “pulling out” individual phrases from a speech, isolating them and presenting them in a truncated form so that they have a meaning completely opposite to the original one.

Appeal method – diverting attention from unresolved problems in the name of compliance with ethical standards. The interlocutor does not act as a specialist, but appeals for sympathy. By influencing our feelings, he cleverly circumvents unresolved issues.

presenting arguments, factors, evidence in order to persuade a certain person or group of people to accept the proposal being made. Argumentation is one of the types of influence, a change in one person under the influence of another, the ability to achieve what is necessary without the use of power and manipulation.

Arguments are statements that we use to confirm the information or conclusion we need. They are logical and psychological.

Logical arguments addressed to the human mind. These include previously proven laws of science, axioms, factual material where accurate data (statistics) are presented. Logical arguments are more effective for persuasion, but for effective influence it is worth using arguments from both groups.

Psychological arguments- addressed to a person’s feelings and emotions. They are aimed at traditions, intuition, beliefs, fears, experiences.

At first glance, influencing through arguments seems quite easy, but in practice, making the right arguments is not so easy.

Let's look at an example: you are buying a winter jacket in a store. Arguments such as warmth, waterproofness, insulated lining, length of the jacket, material from which it is made are logical arguments. You can touch them and check them. And arguments such as “I like her,” “My wife/husband will like her,” “Angelina Jolie wears exactly the same thing” are situational, psychological arguments.

In order for your influence to be effective, try using the following “argumentative influence” scheme. Technique of influence “Argumentation 3+”.

1. Thesis. That is, what exactly you want to inspire, sell or prove.

2. Arguments. At least three arguments, it is better to use logical proven arguments. It's harder to argue against them.

3. Thesis and conclusion. And at the end, you repeat the thesis and main conclusion again. The scheme can be cyclical. If you see that your arguments have not had the desired impact, you can return to the argument point again and provide some new arguments. It should be noted that the arguments may vary depending on the client being influenced. When selling a jacket to a bearded man in his fifties, the argument that Brad Pitt wears this jacket will be ineffective. But the presence of an internal pocket for documents or an insulated lining for winter fishing may convince him to buy this product.

Another technique of influencing through arguments is the “complex argument.” The characteristics of a complex argument are that it must be truthful, logical, interesting and important to the person being influenced. For example, this is the situation. My husband is going away for the weekend. My wife is against the trip. His complex argument:“I worked an irregular schedule all week and, while at home, helped you with the child and with household chores. While I'm away, you can invite your girlfriends or your mother to visit. Moreover, while we are apart for two days, we will be able to call each other and exchange text messages, you really miss this!”

An important point when influencing through argumentation is the correct placement of theses. The most effective system is one in which strong arguments are placed at the beginning and end of the statement, and weaker theses can be inserted in the middle. If you see that your interlocutor is positive, you can start with weak arguments, gradually increasing their strength, and finally bring the most effective ones. Conversely, if the interlocutor is skeptical, it is better to immediately start with the strongest and most convincing arguments. The complex argument must:

Influencing through persuasion when using arguments can be very effective if you can use the right argumentation techniques and arrange your arguments in the right way in the text.

Elena Lyubovinkina - consultant, psychologist.

Do you want to be confident and impressive, learn how to persuade, use powerful arguments, and ask the right questions? But don’t know where to find the time to acquire the necessary influencing skills? Then our online training “Psychology of influence. How to influence people" - this is what will help you with this! You can take it at any convenient time .

The third lesson of the course is devoted to argumentation and its practical features. But before we move on to the main material, let’s talk a little about why, in general, from the position of critical thinking, it is necessary to be able to argue your opinion, and also to trust only reasoned opinions.

What is argumentation and why is it important?

The term “argumentation” comes from the Latin word “argumentatio”, which means “to give arguments”. This means that we present some arguments (arguments) in order to arouse trust or sympathy for the thesis, hypothesis or statement we put forward. The complex of such arguments is an argument.

Argumentation task- make the addressee accept the theory put forward by the author. And by and large, argumentation can be called an interdisciplinary study of conclusions as a result of logical reasoning. Argumentation takes place in the scientific, everyday, legal, and political spheres; always used in conversations, dialogues, persuasion, etc.

The ultimate goal of argumentation consists of convincing the audience of the truth of a position, inducing people to accept the author’s point of view, and inducing reflection or action.

Argumentation is a historical phenomenon and changes over time. It is expressed through linguistic means, such as spoken or written statements. These statements, their relationships and influence on a person are studied by the theory of argumentation.

Argumentation is a purposeful activity, and it can either strengthen or weaken someone’s beliefs. It is also a social activity, because when a person argues his position, he influences those with whom he comes into contact. This implies dialogue and an active reaction of the opposing side to evidence and evidence. In addition, the adequacy of the interlocutor and his ability to rationally weigh arguments, accept or challenge them are assumed.

It is thanks to argumentation that a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm its truth with compelling arguments, and eliminate misunderstandings. Well-reasoned judgments minimize doubts and indicate the veracity and seriousness of the hypotheses, assumptions and statements put forward. In addition, if a person is able to present compelling arguments in his favor, this serves as an indication that he has already critically assessed all the information he has more than once.

For the same reason, you should only trust information that can be adequately substantiated. This will mean that they are tested, proven and true (or at least an attempt was made to this). Actually, this is the purpose of critical thinking - to question something in order to find confirming or disproving facts.

From everything said above, we can conclude that argumentation is the most correct and open way to influence the opinions and decisions of other people. Naturally, for teaching critical thinking to produce results and for argumentation to be effective, it is necessary to know not only its theoretical, but also its practical foundations. We will continue with them.

Practical foundations of argumentation: structure, basic rules, criteria for evaluating arguments

The scope of the concept of “argumentation” is very deep. Considering that this is perhaps the most difficult of the stages of persuasion, it requires a person to have knowledge and mastery of the material, endurance and skill, assertiveness and correctness of statements. It must be remembered that the author of the arguments always depends on his interlocutor, because the latter will decide whether the arguments are acceptable to him or not.

The argument has its own structure. It looks like this:

Proposing a thesis - formulating your position, proposal or opinion
Providing arguments - this includes evidence, evidence and arguments by which the author substantiates his position (arguments should explain why the interlocutor should believe you or agree with you)
Demonstration - this means demonstrating the relationship between the thesis and arguments (it is at this stage that conviction is achieved)

With the help of argumentation, you can partially or completely change the opinion and point of view of your interlocutor. However, to achieve success, you need to follow several important rules:

You need to operate with convincing, precise, clear and simple concepts
The information must be truthful (if the reliability of the data has not been established, then there is no need to use it until everything has been verified)
During the conversation, you need to select a certain pace and specific methods of argumentation, based on the characteristics of your character and temperament
All arguments must be correct; no personal attacks allowed
It is recommended to refrain from using non-business language that makes the information difficult to understand; It’s better to use visual arguments; When covering negative information, its source must be indicated

For a person who is well acquainted with what he is talking about, it will not be difficult to come up with good arguments. But most often, if you have a task to convince your interlocutor, it is better to stock up on convincing arguments in advance. For example, you can sketch out a list of them, and then analyze and determine the most effective ones. But here you should know how to identify strong and weak arguments. This is done using their evaluation criteria:

Effective arguments are always based on facts. Based on this, from a list compiled in advance, you can immediately discard information that cannot be supported by facts.
Effective arguments always have a direct bearing on the subject being discussed. All other arguments should be excluded.
Effective arguments are always relevant to the interlocutor. For this reason, you need to find out in advance what interest the arguments will be of to the addressee.

If you are confident that your arguments meet the proposed criteria, you can proceed directly to the argument. Based on this, the development of critical thinking involves mastering the basic methods of argumentation.

Basic methods of argumentation

The theory of argumentation suggests using quite a few methods of argumentation. We will talk about the most effective of them from our point of view. They are suitable for both business and everyday communication.

Fundamental method

The point of the method is to directly address the person you want to introduce to the facts that represent the basis of your conclusions.

What is most important here is numerical and statistical information, which serves as an ideal backdrop to support arguments. Unlike verbal (and often controversial) data, numbers and statistics are much more convincing and objective.

But there is no need to be too zealous in applying such information. Too many numbers become boring, causing arguments to lose their effect. It is also important that incorrect data can mislead the listener.

EXAMPLE: A university teacher gives statistics about first-year female students. Based on it, 50% of female students gave birth to children. The figure is impressive, but in reality it turns out that there were only two girls in the first year, and only one gave birth.

Ignore method

Most often, ignoring is used in disputes, disputes and conversations. The point is: if you cannot refute a fact your opponent is offering you, you can successfully ignore its meaning and value. When you see that a person attaches importance to something that, in your opinion, is not particularly important, you simply record it and let it pass by.

Method of contradiction

For the most part, this method can be called protective. Its basis is to identify contradictions in the opponent’s reasoning and focus attention on them. As a result, if his arguments are baseless, you will easily win.

EXAMPLE (dispute between Pigasov and Rudnev on the topic of the existence of beliefs, described by I. S. Turgenev):

"- Wonderful! - said Rudin. - So, in your opinion, there are no convictions?

- No and does not exist.

- Is this your belief?

- How can you say that they don’t exist? Here's one thing for you, for the first time. “Everyone in the room smiled and looked at each other.”

“Yes, but” method

The presented method gives the best results when the opponent is prejudiced about the topic of the conversation. Considering that objects, phenomena and processes have both positive and negative sides, this method makes it possible to see and discuss alternative ways to solve a problem.

EXAMPLE: “Like you, I am well aware of all the benefits you listed. However, you did not take into account some shortcomings...” (Then the one-sided opinion of the interlocutor is consistently supplemented with arguments from a new position).

Comparison method

This method is highly effective because... makes the author’s speech bright and impressive. This method can also be called one of the forms of the “inference drawing” method. Thanks to him, the argument becomes weighty and explicit. To enhance it, it is recommended to use well-known analogies with phenomena and objects.

EXAMPLE: “Life in the Arctic Circle can be compared to being in a refrigerator whose door never opens.”

Boomerang method

“Boomerang” allows you to use his own “weapon” against your opponent. The method lacks evidentiary force, but despite this, it has a very serious influence on the listener, especially if wit is used.

EXAMPLE: During V.V. Mayakovsky’s speech to residents of one of the Moscow districts regarding the solution to problems of an international nature in the USSR, someone from the audience suddenly asked: “Mayakovsky, what nationality are you? You were born in Baghdati, which means you are Georgian, right?”

Mayakovsky looked at this man and saw an elderly worker who sincerely wanted to understand the problem and just as sincerely asked his question. For this reason, he kindly answered: “Yes, among Georgians I am Georgian, among Russians I am Russian, among Americans I would be an American, among Germans I am German.”

At the same time, two guys from the first row decided to be sarcastic: “And among the fools?”

To this Mayakovsky replied: “And this is my first time among fools!”

Partial argumentation method

One of the most popular methods. Its meaning boils down to the fact that the opponent’s monologue is divided into clearly distinguishable parts using the phrases “this is clearly false,” “this question can be looked at in different ways,” “this is accurate,” etc.

It is interesting that the basis of the method is a well-known thesis: if in any argument and conclusion you can always find something dubious or unreliable, then confident pressure on your interlocutor allows you to clarify even the most difficult situation.

EXAMPLE: “Everything you told us about the principles of operation of treatment facilities is theoretically absolutely correct, but in practice it is often necessary to make serious exceptions to the rules” (The following are justified arguments in favor of your position).

Visible Support Method

Refers to methods for which you need to prepare. It should be used in situations where you are the opponent, for example in a dispute. The essence of the method is this: let’s say the interlocutor voiced to you his arguments regarding the problem under discussion, and the floor goes to you. Here lies the trick: at the beginning of your argument, you do not say anything to counter the words of your opponent; you even bring up new arguments in support of it, surprising everyone present.

But this is only an illusion, because a counterattack will follow. It is carried out approximately according to this scheme: “But.... in support of your point of view, you forgot to cite several other facts... (list these facts), and that’s not all, because..." (Your arguments and evidence follow).

Your ability to think critically and argue your position will greatly develop, even if you limit yourself to mastering the above methods. However, if your goal is to achieve professionalism in this field, this will be extremely little. To begin to move forward, you need to study other components of argumentation. The first of these is the rules of argumentation.

Rules of Argumentation

The rules of argumentation are quite simple, but each of them has a different set of features. There are four rules in total:

Rule one

Use compelling, precise, clear, and simple terms. Keep in mind that persuasiveness is easily lost if the arguments presented are vague and abstract. Also take into account that in most cases people perceive and understand much less than they want to show.

Rule two

It is advisable to select the method of argumentation and its pace in accordance with the characteristics of your temperament (you can read about the types of temperament). This rule assumes:

Evidence and facts presented individually are more effective than those presented together
A few (three to five) of the most striking arguments are more effective than many average facts
Argumentation should not take the form of a “heroic” monologue or declaration
With the help of well-placed pauses you can achieve better results than with a stream of words
Active rather than passive construction of statements has a greater impact on the interlocutor, especially when it is necessary to provide evidence (for example, the phrase “we will do it” is much better than the phrase “it can be done”, the word “conclude” is much better than the phrase “draw a conclusion” etc.)

Rule three

The argument should always appear correct. This means:

If a person is right, admit it openly, even if the consequences may be unfavorable for you.
If the interlocutor accepted any arguments, try to use them in the future
Avoid empty phrases that indicate a decrease in concentration and lead to inappropriate pauses to gain time or search for the thread of a conversation (such phrases can be: “it was not said”, “you can do it this way or that”, “along with this”, “otherwise speaking”, “more or less”, “as I already said”, etc.)

Rule four

Adapt your arguments to the personality of your interlocutor:

Build an argument taking into account your opponent’s motives and goals
Remember that so-called “excessive” persuasiveness can cause rejection from your opponent
Try not to use wording and expressions that make it difficult to understand and argue
Strive to present your evidence, considerations and ideas as clearly as possible, giving examples and comparisons, but remember that they should not diverge from the experience of the interlocutor, i.e. must be close and understandable to him
Avoid extremes and exaggerations so as not to arouse your opponent’s mistrust and cast doubt on your entire argument.

By following these rules, you will increase the attention and activity of your interlocutor, minimize the abstractness of your statements, link arguments much more effectively and ensure maximum understanding of your position.

Communication between two people, when it comes to disputes and discussions, almost always occurs according to the “attacker-defender” pattern. Obviously, you can end up in either the first or second position. Argument structures are also formed according to this principle.

Argumentation structures and argumentation techniques

There are two main argument structures:

Evidence-based argumentation (used when you need to justify or prove something)
Counterargumentation (used when you need to refute someone’s statements and theses)

To use both structures, it is customary to operate with the same techniques.

Argumentation techniques

Whatever your persuasive influence, you should focus on ten techniques, the use of which will optimize your argumentation and make it more effective:

Competence. Make your arguments more objective, credible and deep.
Visibility. Use familiar associations as much as possible and avoid abstract formulations.
Clarity. Connect facts and evidence and beware of understatement, confusion and ambiguity.
Rhythm. Intensify your speech as you get closer to the end, but don't lose sight of the key issues.
Directionality. When discussing something, stick to a specific course, solve clear problems and strive for clear goals, introducing them to your opponent in general terms in advance.
Suddenness. Learn to connect facts and details in unusual and unexpected ways and practice using this technique.
Repetition. Focus your interlocutor's attention on the main ideas and provisions so that your opponent can better perceive the information.
Boundaries. Define the boundaries of your discussion in advance and don’t reveal all your cards to keep the conversation lively and the interlocutor’s attention active.
Saturation. When presenting your position, make emotional accents that force your opponent to be as attentive as possible. Do not forget to also lower your emotionality in order to consolidate your opponent’s thoughts and give him and yourself a little break.
Humor and irony. Be witty and joke, but don't overdo it. It is best to act this way when you need to parry the attacks of your interlocutor or express arguments that are unpleasant for him.

Using these techniques, your argumentative arsenal will be replenished with serious weapons. But, in addition to the methodological aspects, which mostly include the technique of argumentation, the art of critical thinking and consistent reasoning is excellently developed by the tactics of argumentation.

Argumentation tactics

Mastering argumentation tactics is not as difficult as it might seem. To do this, you just need to understand its basic provisions.

Using Arguments

The argument must begin confidently. There should be no hesitation. The main arguments are presented at any appropriate moment, but it is better to do this constantly in a new place.

Selection of equipment

The technique (methods) must be chosen taking into account the psychological characteristics of the opponent and one’s own.

Avoiding Confrontation

In order for the argumentation phase to proceed normally, one should strive to avoid, because different positions and a charged atmosphere, like a flame, can spread to other areas of communication. And here we must point out a few nuances:

Critical issues are addressed either at the very beginning or at the very end of the argumentation stage
Sensitive issues are discussed in private with the interlocutor even before the conversation or discussion begins, because one-on-one, much greater results are achieved than with witnesses
When the situation is difficult, there is always a pause, and only after everyone has “let off steam” does communication continue

Maintaining interest

It is most effective to offer options and information to your interlocutor to proactively arouse his or her interest in the topic. This means that the current state of affairs is first described, focusing on the likely negative consequences, and then possible solutions are identified and their benefits are described in detail.

Two-sided argumentation

With its help you can influence a person whose position does not coincide with yours. You need to point out the pros and cons of your proposal. The effectiveness of this method is affected by the intellectual abilities of the opponent. But, regardless of this, it is necessary to present all the shortcomings that could become known to him from other people and from other sources of information. As for one-sided argumentation, it is used when the interlocutor has formed his own opinion and when he has no objections to your point of view.

Sequence of pros and cons

Based on the conclusions, the main formative influence on the opponent’s position is provided by such a presentation of information, where the positive aspects are first listed, and then the negative ones.

Personalized argumentation

It is known that the persuasiveness of facts depends on the perception of people (people, as a rule, are not critical of themselves). Therefore, first of all, you need to try to determine the point of view of your interlocutor, and then insert it into your argumentation structure. In any case, you should try to avoid inconsistency between your opponent’s arguments and your own argumentation. The easiest way to achieve this is to directly contact your counterpart, for example:

What do you think about this?
You're right
How do you think this issue can be resolved?

When you acknowledge that your opponent is right and show him your attention, you will encourage him, which means he will be more receptive to your argument.

Drawing conclusions

It happens that the argumentation is excellent, but the desired goal is not achieved. The reason for this is the inability to summarize information and facts. Based on this, for greater persuasiveness, you must make your own conclusions and offer them to your interlocutor. Remember that facts are not always obvious.

Counterargumentation

If suddenly you are presented with arguments that seem flawless to you, there is no need to panic. Instead, you should keep a cool head and apply critical thinking:

Are the facts presented correct?
Is it possible to refute this information?
Is it possible to identify contradictions and inconsistencies in the facts?
Are the proposed conclusions (at least partly) wrong?

The tactics presented can be the final element of your entire argumentation strategy. And by and large, the information you have become acquainted with is quite enough to learn how to professionally argue your point of view, position and arguments. But still, this lesson will not be complete if we do not give a few more recommendations.

We would like to conclude the third lesson of our course with a short conversation about convincing arguments - another important element of influencing the opinion of an individual and a group of people.

A little about persuasive arguments

What is belief? If you don’t understand the mass of all kinds of interpretations, persuasion can be called the use of words that will persuade your communication partner to accept your point of view, believe your words, or do as you say. And how can this be achieved?

The famous American radical organizer and public figure Saul Alinsky created a completely simple theory of persuasion. It says that a person perceives information from the perspective of personal experience. If you try to convey your position to another without taking into account what he wants to tell you, you may not even count on success. Simply put, if you want to persuade someone, you need to give them arguments that match their beliefs, expectations, and emotions.

With this in mind, we can distinguish four main options for making arguments:

Factual data. Although statistics can sometimes be wrong, the facts are almost always undeniable. Empirical evidence is considered one of the most persuasive tools for constructing the basis of an argument.
Emotional impact. As one of the best American psychologists, Abraham Maslow, said, people respond best when we appeal to their emotions, i.e. we touch on such things as family, love, patriotism, peace, etc. If you want to sound more convincing, express yourself in such a way as to touch a person’s nerve (naturally, within reason and preferably in a positive way).
Personal experience. Stories from your own life and information verified through personal experience are wonderful tools for influencing the listener. Actually, you can see this for yourself: listen to a person who tells you something “from the textbook”, and then listen to someone who has experienced or done what he is talking about. Who do you trust more?
Direct appeal. Of all the existing words, you can choose the one that people will never get tired of hearing - this is the word “You”. Everyone asks themselves the question: “What is the benefit of this for me?” Hence one more thing: when trying to convince someone of something, always put yourself in his place, and when you understand his way of thinking, address him using “You” and explain what you need in “his” language.

Surprisingly, these four simple techniques are not used in life and work by a huge number of people, in particular those who, for some reason, belittle the virtues of personalization, appealing to emotions and direct communication with people. But this is a grave mistake, and if you want to become convincing in your words, you should under no circumstances make it. Combine everything presented in this lesson into a single whole - and you will be amazed at how easily and quickly you can learn to be persuasive in any life situation.

Developing critical thinking and reasoning skills will provide you with many benefits in your family, daily, and professional life. But again: there are things that can get in your way. What are these obstacles? We will answer this question in the next lesson, where we will list most of the potential interference and give many interesting examples.

Want to test your knowledge?

If you want to test your theoretical knowledge on the topic of the course and understand how suitable it is for you, you can take our test. For each question, only 1 option can be correct. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question.