The Four Aims of Argument
Argument is not in itself an end or a purpose of communication. It is rather a means of discourse, a way of developing what we have to say. We can identify four primary aims or purposes that argument helps us accomplish as the following:
Arguing to Inquire: Forming our opinions or questioning those we already have.
The ancient Greeks used the word dialectic to identify an argument as inquiry; a more common term might be dialogue or conversation. Arguing to inquire helps us accomplish the following:
- to form opinions
- to question opinions
- to reason our way through conflicts or contradictions
It requires an attitude of patient questioning under non-threatening circumstances, usually done alone or among trusted friends and associates. The primary purpose is a search for the truth. The primary audience is often the writer and fellow inquirers concerned with the same issues.
Examples: Classroom discussions; journal writing; exploratory essays; letters; late-night bull sessions in a dorm; scholarly or scientific research articles.
Arguing to Convince: Gaining assent from others through case-making.
While some inquiry may be never-ending, the goal of most inquiry is to reach a conclusion, a conviction. We seek an earned opinion, achieved through careful thought, research, and discussion. And then we usually want others to share this conviction, to secure the assent of an audience by means of reason rather than by force of will, personality, or emotional inensity.
Arguing to inquire centers on asking questions: we want to expose and examine what we think. But arguing to convince requires us to make a case, to get others to agree with what we think. While inquiry is a cooperative use of argument, convincing is competitive. We put our case against the case of others in an effort to win the assent of readers.
Examples: a lawyer’s brief; newspaper editorials; judicial decisions; many forms of academic writing
Arguing to Persuade: Moving others to action through rational, emotional, personal, and stylistic appeals.
While arguing to convince seeks to earn the assent of readers or listeners, arguing to persuade attempts to influence their behavior, to move them to act upon the conviction. Persuasion aims to close the gap between assent and action. To convince focuses on the logic of an argument (logos); to persuade will often rely on the personal appeal of the writer (what Aristotle called ethos) and involve an appeal to an audience’s emotions (pathos). In addition to these personal and emotional appeals, persuasion exploits the resources of language more fully than convincing does.
In general, the more academic the audience or the more purely intellectual the issue, the more likely that the writing task involves an argument to convince rather than to persuade. In most academic assignments, such as in science, philosophy, history, or literature classes, for example, the writer would usually focus on conviction rather than persuasion, confining the argument primarily to thesis, reasons, and evidence. But when you are working with public issues, with matters of policy or questions of right and wrong, in situations where an audience may need to act upon their convictions, persuasion’s fuller range of appeal is usually appropriate.
Persuasion begins with difference and, when it works, ends with identity. We expect that before reading our argument, readers will differ from us in beliefs, attitudes, and/or desires. A successful persuasive argument brings readers and writer together, creating a sense of connection between parties, encouraging the readers to act in alliance with the writer and in favor of the writer’s view.
Examples: Political speeches; sermons; advertising (whether commercial, charitable, or in public service)
Arguing to Negotiate: Exploring differences of opinion in the hope of reaching agreement and/or cooperation.
If efforts to convince and/or persuade the audience have failed, or if two or more parties in opposition to each other need to be brought together on an issue, the participants must often turn to negotiation, resolving the conflict in order to maintain a satisfactory working relationship and accomplish common goals.
The aim of negotiation is to build consensus, usually by making and asking for concessions. In negotiation, each side must listen closely to understand the other side’s case and the emotional commitments and values that support that case, and thus negotiating may include arguing to persuade. But dialogue also plays a key role, bringing back to argument as inquiry. Meanwhile, in negotiation, participants will also attempt to lay out good reasons or justifications for coming to agreement or initiating a plan of action, thus returning us to arguing to convince.
Negotiation often depends on collaborative problem-solving. Opposing parties are unlikely to change deeply-held values and beliefs about an issue, and they don’t have to, so long as the parties can find common ground and work together toward a common solution to a problem.
Examples: Diplomatic negotiations, labor relations, documents in organizational decision-making; proposals to solve a problem; essays seeking resolution of conflict between competing parties; also frequent in private life when dealing with disagreements among friends and family members.