Construct Reasoning: Building Your Persuasive Case (9694 Critical Thinking)
Welcome to the final, and arguably most exciting, part of Critical Thinking:
Construct Reasoning!
So far, we have focused on taking arguments apart (Analysis) and finding their weak spots (Evaluation). Now, we flip the script. This chapter teaches you how to be the architect—how to build your own strong, persuasive argument from the ground up, using all the skills you've learned about evidence and logic.
Why is this important? Constructing a persuasive argument is usually the final question in Papers 2 and 4. It requires you to synthesize evidence, structure logical steps, and respond effectively to opposing views. Mastering this skill demonstrates true mastery of Critical Thinking!
1. The Foundations: Conclusion and Reasons
Every well-constructed argument starts with a clear goal (the Conclusion) and solid supports (the Reasons).
Articulate a Conclusion (MC)
The Main Conclusion (MC) is the final stance or ultimate point you are trying to prove. When constructing your argument, state this clearly and unambiguously, usually early in your response.
- Tip: Think of the MC as the answer to the central question posed by the prompt.
- Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't let your conclusion simply be a repetition of the prompt; it must be a specific position taken on the issue.
Provide Reasons in Support of a Conclusion
Reasons are the statements of fact, belief, or information that directly support the Main Conclusion. These are the "why" behind your "what."
When you provide a reason, always ensure it is relevant and directly supports the conclusion. If you are basing your argument on provided source material (as you often are in Paper 4), these reasons should be backed by the evidence in the documents.
Example:
MC: The city should invest in new public transportation immediately.
Reason 1: Current traffic congestion is already severely impacting local business productivity.
Reason 2: Existing bus routes are unreliable and frequently break down.
Key Takeaway: Start with a crystal-clear Conclusion and immediately follow it up with your primary, relevant Reasons.
2. Building Complexity: Strands and Intermediate Conclusions
A strong argument isn't just a list of unconnected reasons. It needs logical structure, often achieved through strands of reasoning and intermediate conclusions.
Develop Strands of Reasoning
A strand of reasoning is a cohesive, extended line of thought focused on one aspect of the issue. Instead of jumping randomly, group your reasons logically.
- Analogy: If your argument is a rope, each strand is a separate fibre twisted together to make the whole rope strong. One strand might focus on economics, another on social impact, and a third on environmental effects.
Structure Reasoning by the Use of Intermediate Conclusions (ICs)
An Intermediate Conclusion (IC) is a conclusion drawn from one set of reasons (R) that then acts as a reason (R) for the Main Conclusion (MC). This creates depth and logical flow.
The Chain of Logic:
\(R_1 + R_2 \Rightarrow IC_1\)
\(IC_1 + R_3 \Rightarrow MC\)
Example of an IC:
R1: Studies show that bike lanes reduce carbon emissions by 15%.
R2: New bike infrastructure costs only 1/10th the price of new road building.
IC1: Therefore, investing in cycling infrastructure is demonstrably cost-effective and environmentally superior to building new roads. (This IC is now a powerful reason for the MC.)
MC: The city must reallocate the road construction budget to cycling projects.
Tip for struggling students: If you find yourself saying "This means that..." in the middle of your paragraph, you are probably forming an IC. Explicitly state this IC before moving on to the next point.
Key Takeaway: Use ICs to link your primary points together, showing the examiner that your reasoning is complex and structured, not just scattered.
3. Strengthening Reasoning: The Persuasive Elements
Simply having a structure isn't enough; the argument must be persuasive. The syllabus requires you to use specific elements to maximize impact.
A. Counter-assertion/Counter-argument with Response
A crucial sign of sophisticated thinking is anticipating opposition. This involves two steps:
- Counter-assertion/Counter-argument: Acknowledge a plausible opposing view or claim. (E.g., "Opponents might argue that the costs are too high.")
- Response: Immediately refute, weaken, or show why that opposing view does not undermine your Main Conclusion. (E.g., "...however, the long-term savings in healthcare costs far outweigh the initial investment.")
Did You Know? This technique is known as prolepsis in rhetoric—addressing an opponent's possible arguments before they are even made. It makes your argument appear thorough and well-considered.
B. Example
An Example is a specific, illustrative case that helps make an abstract point tangible.
- When using an example, ensure it is relevant and clearly linked to the reason it supports.
- Example: If arguing that small businesses thrive in pedestrianized zones, you might cite "The pedestrian zone implemented in Manchester in 2018, which saw a 20% increase in retail revenue, provides strong support for this claim."
C. Evidence
Evidence refers to objective information, facts, data, statistics, or expert testimony. In Paper 4, this often means quoting or paraphrasing material from the stimulus documents.
- Rule: Always introduce evidence and then explain its significance. Don't just drop a statistic and move on.
- Weak Use: "25% of students failed."
- Strong Use: "The finding that 25% of students failed the pilot scheme (Source D) serves as strong evidence that the program is fundamentally flawed, justifying our call for immediate review."
D. Analogy
An Analogy is a comparison between two different things to highlight a point of similarity in structure or function.
- Analogies are great for explaining complex or abstract ideas simply.
- Example: Arguing against unregulated internet content: "Allowing companies to publish unverified health claims online is like allowing anyone to operate on a patient without a license; the potential harm is too great to ignore."
- Caution: Ensure your analogy is not a "wild analogy" (Chapter 7), meaning the points of similarity must be significant and relevant to the argument being made.
E. Hypothetical Reasoning
Hypothetical Reasoning explores "what if" scenarios to demonstrate the consequences (positive or negative) of taking a particular action or the consequences of not taking an action.
- This is excellent for arguing for future policy or action.
- Example: Supporting investment in renewable energy: "If we fail to transition away from fossil fuels (the hypothesis), the resulting rise in sea levels will lead to mass population displacement and global food shortages within two decades (the consequence)."
Quick Review Box: The Five Strengthening Elements
The best persuasive arguments use all five elements to build depth and preemptively address criticism.
- Counter-argument (Acknowledging and defeating the opposition)
- Example (Specific, relatable illustration)
- Evidence (Factual data, statistics)
- Analogy (Powerful comparison)
- Hypothetical Reasoning (Exploring future consequences)
4. Step-by-Step: Constructing Your Final Argument
Use this structure as a template, especially for the longer argument tasks in Papers 2 and 4 (like Question 5 in Paper 2 or Question 4 in Paper 4).
Step 1: Define Your Position (Introduction)
State your clear Main Conclusion (MC) immediately. (What side are you on?)
Step 2: Build the Primary Strand (The Economic Case, for instance)
- Introduce Reason 1 (R1).
- Support R1 with Evidence from the sources or a strong Example.
- Draw an Intermediate Conclusion (IC1) from these points.
Step 3: Develop the Secondary Strand (The Ethical Case)
- Introduce Reason 2 (R2), linked to IC1 if possible.
- Strengthen R2 using an effective Analogy or Hypothetical Reasoning.
Step 4: Address the Opposition (Show Sophistication)
- Introduce the strongest Counter-argument against your overall MC.
- Provide a clear Response that weakens or dismisses the Counter-argument.
Step 5: Articulate the Final Summary (Conclusion)
Reiterate your Main Conclusion using different phrasing, emphasizing the strength of your combined strands of reasoning and the failure of the opposing view.
Don't worry if this seems tricky at first! Constructing reasoning is a practical skill. The more you practice structuring your points using ICs and deliberately inserting the five strengthening elements, the more natural and persuasive your arguments will become.
Key Takeaway: Construction is structural (ICs) and tactical (using the five strengthening elements) – plan your argument before you write it!