Argument Architecture
An argument is not an opinion and it is not a list of facts. It is a claim that someone could reasonably dispute, supported by reasons that are supported by evidence. The structure should be visible to the audience, even when it is expressed in a slogan or a speech.
The parts of an argument
| Part | What it does | Weak version | Stronger version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | States what should be accepted or done. | "Food waste is bad." | "The canteen should offer smaller default portions so less edible food is thrown away." |
| Reason | Explains why the claim is worth accepting. | "Because it is wasteful." | "Because a week-long audit found that most waste came from portions students could not finish." |
| Evidence | Supplies the specific support. | "Lots of food is wasted." | The audit figures, the method and the dates. |
| Warrant | Makes the link between evidence and claim explicit. | Assumes the audience will infer the link. | "If portions match appetite, less food will be thrown away without reducing what students eat." |
| Counterargument | Names the strongest reasonable objection. | "Some people disagree." | "Smaller portions could leave students hungry or cost the canteen more in second servings." |
| Rebuttal | Answers the objection with evidence or a design change. | "They are wrong." | "Offer a free second serving of the same item, and trial the change for two weeks before deciding." |
| Qualifier | States the limits of the claim. | Overclaims certainty. | "This change is likely to reduce waste in the canteen, though it will not address waste from packed lunches." |
The because test
Write your claim, then add "because" twice. If the reasons repeat each other or simply restate the claim, the argument is not yet built.
| Claim | Because... | Because... |
|---|---|---|
| The school should install water refill stations in every building. | Students currently buy bottled water when their bottles run out. | Refill stations make the healthy choice easier without shaming anyone. |
| The local council should add a shaded seating area at the park. | Older residents and young children avoid the park at midday in summer. | Shade increases the hours when the park can be used safely. |
Strong and weak claims
| Weak claim | Problem | Stronger claim |
|---|---|---|
| "We should protect the environment." | No one reasonable disagrees; it is a value, not a claim. | "The school should replace single-use plastics in the canteen with a returnable container system by next term." |
| "Social media is bad for teenagers." | Too broad to prove and ignores differences in use. | "A fortnightly screen-time review in mentor groups would help students notice compulsive use without banning phones." |
| "Our campaign will change everything." | Overclaims and invites disbelief. | "Our campaign aims to increase the number of students who walk to school on Fridays by making the route safer and more social." |
Model argument
Claim. The school should plant shade trees along the eastern walkway.
Reason one. The walkway is unusably hot in summer, so students crowd through the narrow shaded corridor instead. A temperature survey taken at lunchtime over five days would show the difference between the exposed and shaded sections. The warrant is that a cooler route will be used more evenly and will reduce heat stress.
Reason two. Trees also improve the quality of the space. Students are more likely to linger and talk in a comfortable area, which supports the school's goal of a stronger outdoor culture. This is a benefit beyond temperature, but it should not be presented as the only reason.
Counterargument. Trees require maintenance, can drop branches and take years to establish. The campaign should therefore propose a phased plan with the grounds staff, not promise an instant canopy. A realistic qualifier is: "Shade trees will not solve every heat problem, but they are a durable improvement to the route students use every day."
Argument map
| Question | Your notes |
|---|---|
| What is the claim, in one sentence? | |
| What are the two strongest reasons? | |
| What evidence supports each reason? | |
| What is the warrant that connects evidence to claim? | |
| What is the strongest counterargument? | |
| How will the campaign answer it? | |
| What qualifier or limit should be stated? |
Common errors
- Topic, not claim. "Plastic waste" is a topic; "the canteen should..." is a claim.
- Circular reasoning. The reason simply repeats the claim in different words.
- Evidence without a warrant. The audience cannot see why the fact supports the conclusion.
- Straw counterargument. Refuting an objection no reasonable person would make.
- No qualifier. Pretending the campaign will solve more than it can.
Next, test the evidence with the evidence and reasoning page.