Unit 7 Evaluating Arguments: How to Judge Claims, Logic, and Persuasion

Evidence

Information a writer uses to support a point (e.g., facts, examples, statistics, expert testimony, anecdotes, observations).

Reasoning

The logic that explains why the evidence proves the claim; the connection between support and conclusion.

Claim

The main assertion the writer wants the audience to accept.

Reasons

The main supporting ideas for a claim (the writer’s “because” statements).

Line of reasoning

The overall chain of logic that links reasons and evidence to the writer’s conclusion across an argument.

Relevance (RCC test)

Whether the evidence actually relates to and helps prove the specific claim/reason it is meant to support.

Credibility (RCC test)

Whether evidence is trustworthy based on source quality, expertise, fairness, accuracy, and transparent context/methods.

Sufficiency (RCC test)

Whether there is enough evidence—enough quantity and the right type—to justify the conclusion given the claim’s scope.

Warrant

An often unstated assumption explaining why the evidence supports the claim (the “bridge” between evidence and conclusion).

Correlation vs. causation

Correlation shows two things move together; causation shows one thing produces the other—arguments often fail when they treat correlation as proof of cause.

Cause-and-effect reasoning

A reasoning pattern claiming one event/condition leads to another; must address causation, alternative causes, and plausible timeline.

Analogy

Reasoning that argues because two things are similar in some ways, they are similar in another relevant way; can fail if similarities are superficial or differences matter.

Inductive reasoning (generalization)

Reasoning that draws a broader conclusion from specific cases; depends on representative, sufficient samples and appropriate qualification.

Deductive reasoning (principle)

Reasoning that applies a general principle to a specific case; requires a clear, acceptable principle and a case that truly fits it.

Qualifier

Language that calibrates certainty to evidence (e.g., often, likely, in many cases); strengthens arguments by avoiding overclaiming.

Commentary (evidence explanation)

The writer’s interpretation that explains “so what?” and “how does this prove it?”—connecting evidence to the claim rather than dropping it in.

Counterargument

An opposing or alternative position the writer addresses to show awareness of other viewpoints.

Concession

Acknowledging a valid point from the opposing side to build fairness/ethos and show complexity.

Rebuttal

Explaining why the writer’s claim still stands despite the opposing point (e.g., it’s limited, less important, or solvable).

Ad hominem

A fallacy that attacks the person (character, motives, identity) instead of addressing the argument’s merits.

Straw man

A fallacy that misrepresents an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute.

Red herring

A fallacy that distracts from the main issue by introducing an unrelated topic.

Appeal to emotion (as a substitute for proof)

A fallacy where guilt, fear, or other emotions replace evidence and reasoning rather than supporting them.

Hasty generalization

A fallacy that draws a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative examples.

False dilemma (either/or)

A fallacy presenting only two options when more possibilities or middle-ground solutions exist.