Product Description

A Rulebook for Arguments is a succinct introduction to the art of writing and assessing arguments, organized around specific rules, each illustrated and explained soundly but briefly. This widely popular primer - translated into eight languages - remains the first choice in all disciplines for writers who seek straightforward guidance about how to assess arguments and how to cogently construct them.

The fourth edition offers a revamped and more tightly focused approach to extended arguments, a new chapter on oral arguments, and updated examples and topics throughout.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #717 in Books
• Published on: 2008-11-14
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 104 pages

Review
This is the ultimate 'how-to' book for anyone who wants to use reasons and evidence in support of conclusions, to be clear instead of confusing, persuasive instead of dogmatic, and better at evaluating the arguments of others. No one outgrows its forty-five timeless rules, all explained and illustrated with vivid examples. The fourth edition, even more elegantly organized and concise than before, adds new material on oral presentations and Web sources that everyone needs. --(Debra Nails, Michigan State University)

About the Author
Anthony Weston

Customer Reviews

Don't argue, just buy it. Then you can argue.
A college applicant allegedly wrote the following one-word essay to describe himself: "Concise." While I was tempted to coopt that entire essay as a review for this book, ultimately I decided to be more verbose: first, some general remarks about the relevance of this book, then a summary of its content.

I often lament that the mythical "average person" does not appreciate what counts as evidence, nor distinguish between prejudice and rational conclusion. This is particularly evident in the realm of politics, where inflammatory rhetoric is the rule and rational argument the exception. If this tiny book (or its equivalent) were required reading for every high school senior, or college freshman, I wager there would be a wholesale shift in the texture and value of day-to-day discourse. No longer would we hear "Don't vote for that crook!", but the more sober, albeit prolix, application of modus tollens, "Public office requires honesty. Jones is dishonest. Therefore, Jones should not be elected to public office."

Of course, "Don't vote for that crook!" will never be abandoned for the simple reason that it is good tight prose. Yet, wouldn't it be grand if it were crystal clear to everyone that it is simply shorthand for the more prolix version? I claim that it would, for then we would be apt to challenge such a remark with "What evidence do you have that Jones is dishonest?", rather than "Would you rather I vote for that child molester, Smith?" The latter invites further character assassination of Jones, if not impeachment of his entire lineage. Perhaps I'm just a stuffy academic, but I can't help thinking that the introduction of a bit of cool logic into every-day discourse would lower our collective blood pressure and maybe, just maybe, allow us to occasionally see beyond our prejudices.

This wonderful little book lists 44 specific suggestions, or "rules", for injecting much-needed logic into argumentative discourse. In the author's words, each rule is "illustrated and explained soundly but above all briefly"; Hence, to Weston the book is a "rulebook" not a textbook. Weston continues "In this book, 'to give an argument' means to offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion." This is in contrast to the variety accompanied by loud invective and broken china.

Throughout the book, Weston offers advice that we would all do well to remember. For example, he reminds us that one can neither craft nor analyze an argument by merely consulting our prejudices, and that "it is your reasons, not your language, that must persuade." With regard to language, Weston asserts that prejudicial or loaded language "preaches only to the converted, but careful presentation of the facts can itself convert." Moreover, "It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." Well put.

Weston also injects some broadly applicable principles of critical thinking (although he does not label them as such). For instance, in contemplating possible solutions, explanations, or causes, he urges us to continually look for more options, rather than immediately narrowing them. In so doing, we can state our case more fairly, and possibly head off objections more effectively. But perhaps the most important admonition is this: "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." Imagine a world in which all disputants took this to heart!

Beginning with short arguments consisting of a sentence or two, Weston builds to a chapter on crafting effective long arguments. As usual, Weston anticipates common blunders and warns us, for example, to first "find out what each side considers the strongest arguments for its position." He then prepares us for the inevitable process of rewriting and reorganizing our arguments as we accumulate evidence and analyze positions on all sides. He coolly advises us to adopt a different strategy, or even a different conclusion, should we discover that our initial inclinations are not adequately supported by the available evidence. While this may seem obvious, it would be wonderful if everyone actually did this.

Weston provides some concrete advice on writing, such as developing one idea per paragraph, getting to the point quickly, and stating the conclusion clearly and directly. According to Weston, you ought not "fence more land than you can plow. One argument well-developed is better than three only sketched." To do otherwise would be like "preferring ten very leaky buckets to one well-sealed one." Finally, Weston urges us to preemptively raise possible counter-arguments and to develop them in sufficient detail that our readers will fully appreciate the position we are disarming.

The book includes a short but helpful chapter on fallacies, focusing primarily on the two "great fallacies" of generalizing from incomplete information and overlooking alternative explanations. One angle that I found illuminating is that several classic fallacies are in fact species of "overlooking alternatives", such as "affirming the consequent", "denying the antecedent", and "false dilemma". Several fallacies were discussed in this chapter that I have not encountered elsewhere, at least not by these names: specifically, the fallacies of "persuasive definition", "poisoning the well", "provincialism", and "weasel words". All are tersely but amply illustrated. Weston concludes with a brief chapter on definitions, of which there are several varieties: stipulative, operational, essential, and genus-and-differentia. I found these distinctions to be equally illuminating. As Richard Feynman said, "To name a thing is not the same as to know a thing", yet it is often a step in the right direction.

In summary, I found this book to be an excellent guide to crafting effective arguments. Although I have studied formal logic fairly extensively, and even informal logic to a lesser degree, this book left me with many new ideas, and made familiar old ideas suddenly more cogent and relevant. And, it's concise.

Playing by the rules...
When I was studying as an undergraduate, I toyed with the idea of becoming a philosophy major. I ultimately did not pursue that particular field (opting for the areas of politics and religious studies, then venturing on to history, mathematics, astronomy, and ultimately theology) but I did take among my earliest courses a sequence of lectures in logic, including symbolic logic. I cannot express the value of this training adequately for all of my subsequent courses of study, but I also find it difficult to recommend the 700-page textbook to my students today who have problems crafting arguments and seeing the problems inherent in certain types of argumentation when they have little grounding and even less time for formal logic.

This is where this book by Weston comes in most handy. Weston's 'A Rulebook for Arguments' is a concise, accessible and very practical book for anyone looking to write or craft persuasive, coherent and consistent lines of reasoning. The first chapter gives seven basic principles that anyone who wishes to convince or persuade should know, whether they be arguing before a judge, a debating panel, a teacher, or even in a friendly pub conversation -- principles such as using natural order of argumentation, avoiding loaded language, being consistent in terminology, and starting from realistic and reliable premises.

From these basic and reasonable pieces, Weston develops more formal systems for argumentation -- Arguments by Example, by Analogy, from Authority, about Causes, and Deductive Arguments. Each of these systems are useful in and of themselves, as well as in relation to each other, but all have specific rules for application. What constitutes an Argument from Authority, for example? Who or what is authoritative? What are the limitations on this type of argument? One thinks immediately of the family-based Argument from Authority, 'because I'm the mommy, that's why.' Perhaps it is just as well the average grade schooler won't be purchasing this book!

In all, there are 30 primary rules for argumentation. These are adapted into 14 primary steps for developing an argument in writing.

There are three chapters specifically devoted to composing an argumentative essay, focusing upon research into the issues being argued, developing the key points of the argument, and finally writing the narrative of the text of the argument. These are basic steps to be followed whether one is putting together a two-page persuasive essay for an introductory politics class or a 200-page dissertation for a doctorate in philosophy. Key points such as definition, outlines according to natural flow, and consistency reflect the seven principles from the simplest arguments shown above.

the final chapter looks at fallacies -- how do we know if an argument fails itself? The two most common fallacies -- generalising from incomplete information and overlooking alternatives are the most important problems with argumentation. The argument 'the streets are wet, so it must be raining,' fails because of both fallacies; the streets could be wet because of water pipes having burst, or because people are washing their cars and there is run-off -- the information is incomplete, and the alternatives are not explored. There are twenty-two fallacies named in all, lots of ways for arguments to go astray.

There are longer books on critical thinking; there are other texts on rhetoric and writing. Many of these are useful and worthwhile, however, for clarity and concise information, Weston's book is superb and a very present help for those in a time-crunch.

Keeps you on focus in writing
> Following this book allows you to keep your head on straight as you avoid the various problems that a philosophy paper or argumentation essay might instantiate. The book is short, and allows one to look up relevant sections on commonly occuring issues. Some basic fallacies are discussed, and suggestions are given on what is the best form for an critical essay. It advertises itself not as a textbook, but as a "rulebook". An excellent resource to recommend to students, and saves instructors the time of describing common errors. Simply refer to the page numbers in the book.

> APA Newsletter on the Teaching of Philosophy gives it high marks, calling Weston's examples "brilliant," claiming that the book is "simply too good for philosophers to keep for themselves."

Contents:

1. composing a short argument: some general rules

2. arguments by example

3. arguments by analogy

4. arguments from authority

5. arguments about causes

6. deductive arguments

7. composing an argumentative essay: exploring the issue

8. composing an argumentative essay: main points of essay

9. composing an argumentative essay: writing

10. fallacies

xx. appendix: definition.