Analysing an Argument: Purpose, Content, Language and Form

Three questions do most of the work here. What is asserted as fact? What is asserted as law or as general rule? What is assumed and never asserted at all? The third is the enthymeme of the last chapter, and it belongs to content analysis because a suppressed premise is a suppressed assertion.

In a legal argument the content divides cleanly into the two kinds. Facts are established by evidence and can be disputed by evidence. Rules are established out of statutes and cases and can be disputed by argument about statutes and cases. Confusing the two is the commonest failure in first-year answers: a student who tries to prove a rule by producing more facts, or to prove a fact by citing a case, has not analysed the content.

Language

Ask how the words are being used, and whether they are doing more than stating.

Four things are looked for here, and each of them will be met again as a fallacy or as a defect of definition later in this book.

Ambiguity. A word with two settled meanings, used so that the argument slides from one to the other. "Sanction" means both a penalty and an approval. An argument that uses it in one sense in the premise and the other in the conclusion proves nothing at all.

Vagueness. A word with one meaning but no clear boundary. "Reasonable", "prompt", "material" are vague, and vagueness is not always a fault: statutes use vague words deliberately when the range of future cases cannot be foreseen. It becomes a fault when the argument treats the vague word as though it were precise.

Emotive language. Words chosen for the attitude they carry rather than for what they describe. "The defendant admitted" and "the defendant confessed" report the same event and invite different verdicts. Emotive language is not automatically illegitimate, but an argument that does its work by it has not done its work.

Rhetorical form. Questions asked to make an assertion, repetition, and the studied understatement that legal writing is fond of. These affect how the argument lands and change nothing about whether it is sound.

Structure or form

Ask how the statements are connected: which are premises, which is the conclusion, and what depends on what.

This is the work of the previous two chapters, applied. Set the argument in standard form. Identify sub-conclusions. Decide whether the premises are linked or convergent. Note whether the argument claims to be deductive, in which case the conclusion is said to follow necessarily, or inductive, in which case it is said to follow with some degree of probability.

Structure is the dimension on which logic proper has most to say, and it is the only one of the four that can be assessed without knowing anything about the subject matter. That is why it is the dimension the rest of this syllabus is about.

Form and content, taken as a pair

Added after the past-paper check, because MU sets "form and content" as a short note in its own right, and the two are worth putting side by side rather than leaving at opposite ends of the list.

The content of an argument is what it is about: the propositions themselves, the facts alleged, the rules relied on. It is also called the matter of the argument.

The form of an argument is how those propositions are arranged: which is premise, which is conclusion, how they connect.

The whole of logic is on the form side. This is the point sequence 20 made about modern logic and it is worth stating plainly here: two arguments about entirely different subjects have the same form if they have the same arrangement, and every argument of a valid form is valid. "All contracts are agreements; this is a contract; therefore this is an agreement" and "All whales are mammals; this is a whale; therefore this is a mammal" differ completely in content and not at all in form.

Which is why the two are assessed by different people. The form is assessed by logic and needs no knowledge of the subject at all. The content is assessed by evidence, by science or by the law of the land, and logic has nothing to contribute to it.

Formal truth and material truth. The pair has a second use, applied to a whole argument rather than to a proposition. An argument has formal truth when its conclusion follows from its premises, whatever they are; it has material truth when its premises are in fact true. An argument may have either without the other, which is the four-line table at sequence 110 in different words.

The trap. An argument can be formally impeccable and materially worthless, and a beginner impressed by the neatness of a structure has been persuaded by form alone. The remedy is the two-question discipline of sequence 60, kept in that order.

A worked example: all four dimensions on one passage

"No responsible court could take a different view. The appellant, a man of means who had every opportunity to pay, kept the workman waiting for his wages for four years. The Act was passed precisely to prevent such delay. It follows that the appellant must pay compensation in addition to the arrears."

Purpose. Persuasive and justificatory together. The opening sentence is addressed to an audience and asks it to feel that only one view is open; the rest supports an order. It is not primarily probative.

Content. Assertions of fact: that the appellant is a man of means, that he had every opportunity to pay, that the delay was four years. Assertion about law: that the Act was passed to prevent such delay. Assumed and never asserted: that a purpose of the Act by itself authorises the award of compensation. That is the enthymeme, and it is the whole case.

Language. "No responsible court" is emotive, and it works by making disagreement a criticism of the reader. "A man of means" is emotive and also vague. "Precisely" adds nothing but confidence. Strip all four and the passage is materially shorter.

Structure. One conclusion, "the appellant must pay compensation in addition to the arrears", marked by "it follows that". The premises are linked. There is a suppressed premise supplying the legal power to award compensation, and it is doing more work than any of the stated premises.

What the analysis produces. Not a verdict. It produces a list of exactly four things to check: whether the purpose licenses the omissions, whether the three facts are proved, whether the emotive words are covering a gap, and whether the missing legal premise exists. That list is what evaluation, in the next chapter, works through.

Distinctions that carry marks

What this does not mean

Analysis is not criticism. A perfectly good argument can be analysed at length, and the analysis will find nothing wrong. Students often assume that being asked to analyse is being invited to attack, and then manufacture objections.

Emotive language is not automatically a fallacy. It becomes one when it replaces a reason. A judgment that describes conduct as callous, having found facts that justify the word, is not reasoning badly.

Vagueness is not always a defect. A statute that said a notice must be served within 17 days rather than within a reasonable time would be precise and much worse. The fault lies in treating a vague standard as if it had a sharp edge.

Quick revision

Four dimensions: purpose, content, language, structure or form. MU prints them in that order and an answer should keep it.

Purpose: probative, persuasive, justificatory or explanatory. It settles what counts as success and what omissions are legitimate.

Content: what is asserted as fact, what as rule, and what is assumed and never asserted.

Language: ambiguity, vagueness, emotive loading, rhetorical form.

Structure: standard form, premises and conclusion, linked or convergent, deductive or inductive.

Form and content as a pair: content, also called matter, is what the argument is about; form is how its propositions are arranged. Logic is entirely on the form side. Formal truth is that the conclusion follows; material truth is that the premises are in fact true, and an argument may have either without the other.

Analysis precedes evaluation. Analysis describes; evaluation judges.

Test yourself

1. Name the four dimensions of the analysis of an argument and state the question each asks.

Purpose asks what the argument is for and whom it addresses. Content asks what it asserts as fact, what it asserts as rule, and what it assumes without asserting. Language asks how the words are being used, in particular whether they are ambiguous, vague or emotive. Structure or form asks how the statements are connected, which is the premise, which the conclusion, and whether the premises are linked or convergent.

2. Why does purpose have to be settled first?

Because it decides what counts as a defect. An argument in a pleading that omits the best point for the other side is doing what pleadings are for, while a textbook that did the same would be misleading its reader. The same feature is a fault in one setting and a virtue in another, and until the purpose is known there is no standard to measure the argument against.

3. Distinguish ambiguity from vagueness with one legal example of each.

Ambiguity is having more than one settled meaning: "sanction" means both a penalty and an approval, and an argument that shifts between them proves nothing. Vagueness is having one meaning with no clear boundary: "reasonable time" has a single sense but no sharp edge, so that some periods are clearly reasonable, some clearly not, and a range in between about which the word gives no answer.

4. What does analysing the content of an argument chiefly look for?

The assertions, separated into those of fact and those of law or general rule, and above all the assumptions that are never asserted. A suppressed premise is a suppressed assertion, and in legal argument it is usually the proposition of law being relied on, which means it is usually the thing actually in dispute.

5. Analyse the language of this sentence: "Even the most indulgent tribunal could hardly overlook so flagrant a breach."

"Even the most indulgent" is emotive and pre-empts disagreement by suggesting that anyone who disagrees is more indulgent than the most indulgent tribunal. "Hardly overlook" is a studied understatement of the kind legal writing favours, and it asserts a conclusion while appearing to concede. "Flagrant" is emotive and vague at once: it carries strong disapproval and states no test. Nothing in the sentence is a reason.

7. Write a short note on form and content.

The content, or matter, of an argument is what it is about: the propositions themselves, the facts alleged and the rules relied on. The form is how those propositions are arranged, which is premise and which conclusion and how they connect. Logic is entirely concerned with the form, so that two arguments about different subjects with the same arrangement stand or fall together and neither needs to be understood in order to be judged. Content is assessed by evidence, by science or by law. The pair extends to whole arguments as formal truth, meaning that the conclusion follows, and material truth, meaning that the premises are in fact true, and an argument may have either without the other.

6. Is analysis the same as evaluation?

No. Analysis takes an argument apart and describes what is there: its purpose, its assertions, its wording and its structure. Evaluation passes judgment on whether the premises are acceptable and whether the conclusion follows. Analysis comes first, and its product is not a verdict but a list of the things that have to be checked before a verdict is possible.