In argumentative communication, an issue is any question or disputed item upon which the final product or conclusion of the argumentative encounter is dependent. The goal of the critical thinker is to discover the appropriate issues inherent in the claim. Critical thinkers must know what the important issues are that must be both asked and answered so that they can take and argue a specific position on a claim.
Consider the example that opened this chapter. Before I can say yes or no to purchasing a new car, I need to ask the questions appropriate to making up my mind. These questions are the issues that I have determined need to be both asked and answered in order for me to make my decision.
General Characteristics of Issues
Issues are phrased as questions. A statement, or a phrase is not an issue. If we are arguing, “Air pollution in Los Angeles needs to be reduced by 10% over the next 5 years,” an issue would not be the word, “Traffic.” Instead we need to ask a full sentence question such as, “Would a 5% reduction in traffic lead to a 10% reduction of air pollution?”
Issues need to be relevant to the claim. In order for a question to be considered an issue for the claim, it must be related to the claim under discussion in an important manner. If I am arguing the claim that “Apple Stock will rise another $100 in value over the next 12 months,” the issue of, what color is the company logo does not seem very relevant. Not all questions are issues. Issues need to be relevant.
Issues can be introduced by either the pro-side or con-side. Both sides have the right to question the claim, and thus both have the right to ask appropriate questions regarding the claim. If you are not sure which side you are on, answers to issues will help determine if you are for or against the claim.
There is no set number of issues a person can discover. The number of issues will vary from claim to claim. Time for discussion or debate and research capabilities will limit the number of issues.
Issues bring organization to the argumentative environment. This is especially the case when the questions are prioritized, so that the answer to a question is dependent on the answer to the question preceding it. During a job interview, the claim is advanced that “Fernando Diaz should be hired.” The questions asked represent the important issues that must be answered by the candidate, so that those in charge of hiring can make a decision on that claim.
Issues should be as specific as one can make them. Vague questions lead to vague answers and are therefore useless. Specific questions lead to specific answers and are much more useful. If you are deciding to purchase a used car, you might ask the question, "Is the car in good condition?" This is a vague question. What does good condition mean? Better questions might focus on the overall mileage of the car, the condition of the interior and exterior, or the car's gas mileage. The answers will provide you with specific bits of information that will allow you to develop criteria for what a "good condition" used car is, and will be helpful in your overall decision-making process.
Types of Issues
Once the issues have been discovered, they can be classified. Not all issues are equally important. Some issues are more important to the final disposition of the claim under debate. In order to find those issues of ultimate importance, we can classify them into the following four types:
Potential Issues These are all of the possible questions that can be asked of the claim. In theory, the number of potential issues is unlimited. In practice, the number of potential questions that can be discovered is limited by the amount of research and time one has to spend on the claim being argued. If you have the claim, “Abortion should be banned,” and you limit your reading to only the newsletter put out by “The Right to Life Society,” the number of potential issues will be limited to the material contained in that one document. The greater the number of potential issues discovered, the greater the chance of discovering the right questions in order to make the best quality decision on the claim under debate.
Admitted Issues These are questions raised by one side and agreed to by the other side. The purpose of an admitted issue is to make that issue non-controversial or "moot." In this way both sides hope these issues will turn out to have little or no bearing on the final outcome in terms of claim adherence. Finding the admitted issues is a way of narrowing the list of potential issues.
Real Issues These are the important questions that remain after narrowing the potential issues down. The real issues can have an impact on the outcome of the claim and merit consideration for discussion. Depending on the amount of research done and the number of potential issues, there may be an excessive number of real issues to discuss in a limited period of time. Real issues need to be prioritized in some descending order of importance.
Ultimate Issues These are the key questions that, in and of themselves, are sufficient for the disposition of the claim. These are issues that determine whether you are for or against the claim. When arguing in front of an audience, you must answer the ultimate issue(s) consistent with the beliefs of the audience or they will deny adherence, no matter how many other real issues the side wins. Usually, the ultimate issue comes from one of the real issues. One may discover the ultimate issue early in the discovery process, or it may not be found until very late in the process. To some extent, ultimate issues are audience controlled; that is, what one audience considers the ultimate issue, another audience may consider just a potential, admitted or real issue. However, in any argument, discovering the ultimate issues is the key to making a quality decision.
In a debate on the claim, "The Federal Government should ban abortions" the ultimate issue of the pro-side advocating the claim might be, "Does the fetus have the right to life?” The con-side, advocating the status quo and arguing against the claim, might have as their ultimate issue, "Does a woman have a right to her privacy?” Since neither side can agree on one ultimate issue this debate continues.
Overall, issues are the questions inherent in the claim that are discovered through research, brainstorming, and analysis. These discovered questions must be answered so that a stand on the claim can be taken, and so that the arguer knows what "arguments" to present in defense of that stand. Answered issues become the basis for your contentions, which lead to the reasons why you are for or against the claim.
5.4.1: "Narrowing of Issues" (CC BY 4.0; J. Marteney)
Brandon Stanton is a photographer and author of Humans of New York where he tells the stories of individuals he meets. This story tells of a boy planning to marry his girlfriend. His ultimate issue was, “Is she Catholic?”
“I broke up with my girlfriend this morning. We’d been together for three years. But I’m Catholic, and she doesn’t know if she believes in God or not. I wanted to propose to her one day. I think she’d be a great mom and a great wife. But I feel like this might be something we can’t overcome. I want to get married in a Catholic church. I want to raise my children to be Catholic. It’s important to me and it's something that we’d have to deal with eventually. So, I didn’t think it would be a good idea to keep putting it off. But it really hurts to lose her. Both of us were bawling our eyes out. She was such a big part of my life. Every time something good happens, she is the first person I want to tell. And I do respect that she refuses to believe in something just because I do. But I don’t know what to do. I’m hoping God will give me an answer.” 1
Effective Issues
As you can probably imagine, some issues are better or more effective than others. Previously we have seen a basic list of the basic characteristics of an issue. Below is a list of more specific requirements for an issue to be effective in judging an argument and making a decision.
Consider the Claim, The United States should increase the use of renewable energy.
Issues need to be questions. This is the definition of issues, but I wanted to remind you here, because we often are tempted to make statements instead of ask questions. Instead of stating, “Global warming is caused by man’s use of fossil fuels.” Ask, “Is global warming caused by man’s use of fossil fuels?”
You may be used to hearing the word "Issues" to refer to problems. For example, "They seem to be having issues in their marriage." or "What are the issues with drug abuse?" In the world of argumentation, however, Issues refer to questions.
Avoid “Should” questions. Should is a word we reserve for claims of policy which are more wide-open (broad). Issues need to be more narrowly focused. “Should we reduce carbon emissions?” is actually the claim, the entire focus of the argument. An issue should look at a part of this claim. What questions need to be asked so that a decision on the claim can be made? One issue might be “Are carbon emissions a significant influence on global warming?” The more narrowly focused the issue, the more useful.
Ask only one question per issue. A mistake often made when asking issues is the frequent tendency to make them a two-part question. The answer is then confusing when trying to answer both questions in the same issue. “Is global warming increasing and is China the biggest contributor?” Instead ask two separate issues, “Is global warming increasing?” and “Is China the biggest contributor to global warming?”
Keep issues neutral. Don’t use biased statements or words to give your issues a slant for or against the claim. Instead of asking, “Is the idiotic idea of left wing liberal scientists that argue we are experiencing global warming inaccurate?” Instead, “Is the theory of scientists that we are experiencing global warming inaccurate?” We want to use Issues to help us make a decision, not support a bias we already hold.
Avoid starting an issue with “Because.” When you introduce a question with background information you create a leading question guiding towards a specific answer. “Because scientists make mistakes, can we trust the conclusions of the scientists?” You want to eliminate as much bias as you can. And you don’t want the argument to focus on the question, “Do scientists make mistakes?” Instead, just ask the question, “Can the conclusions of scientists be validated?”
Avoid “How” and “Why” questions. These are useful for background information, but may not always be that useful for the final decisions. "Why does carbon emissions lead to global warming?" is a good background question, but not a useful issue. A more useful issue would be, "Is it possible to reduce carbon emissions by 10% over the next 10 years?”
Use issues with “Yes” and “No” answers. Questions that ask for opinions or explanations can offer information that can be useful, but these answers are probably more useful as background information and not actual decision-making questions. It is more effective to get yes and no answers. Instead of asking, “What do you think will be the future of global warming?” This question is good for overall information, but a specific issue for the claim would be, “Do we now have renewable energy sources that can replace current fossil fuel production?”
Keep issues relevant to the claim. There are times when issues that are chosen won’t help you make a decision on the claim. They may be interesting questions, but their answer does not help you make a decision on the claim being argued. “Will home solar panels become more attractive?” This is an interesting question, but the answer may not really help you make a position on the claim, We should purchase solar panels.
Keep issues specific. This has been mentioned before, but it is so important I wanted to repeat it. Issues should be as specific as one can make them. Vague questions lead to vague answers and are useless. Specific questions lead to specific answers and are therefore useful. Avoid questions such as, “Is it a good idea to reduce fossil fuel emissions?” What do you mean by a “good idea?” Or “Will ocean temperatures increase in the future?” “Increase” by how much? Both of these are vague issues and virtually worthless when deciding on a claim.
Remember, if you are determining your position on a claim you first ask questions, and then decide. Try not to lean one way or the other on the claim. You are using issues to learn information that will help you make a decision on a claim. Challenge your assumptions.
If you already have a position on the claim or have been assigned a side that you will be arguing, you look for issues whose answers can support that position.
Why Don’t We Ask Questions? Paul Sloane, Lateral Thinking Expert
If it is obvious that asking questions is such a powerful way of learning why do we stop asking questions? For some people the reason is that they are lazy. They assume they know all the main things they need to know and they do not bother to ask more. They cling to their beliefs and remain certain in their assumptions – yet they often end up looking foolish.
Other people are afraid that by asking questions they will look weak, ignorant or unsure. They like to give the impression that they are decisive and in command of the relevant issues. They fear that asking questions might introduce uncertainty or show them in a poor light. In fact, asking questions is a sign of strength and intelligence – not a sign of weakness or uncertainty. Great leaders constantly ask questions and are well aware that they do not have all the answers.2
Discovering Issues
Issue discovery is the process of finding questions and answers in preparation for decision-making or advocacy. Issue discovery concentrates on the identification and examination of questions, whose answers will lead to a resolution to the argument. Issues are vital to the critical thinking process. An issue is something central to the outcome of the argumentative encounter, and issues serve as the foundation of particular arguments. The purpose of issue discovery is to find the "best" questions available in resolving the claim.
Probably the most common method of discovering issues is Brainstorming. Brainstorming is a research strategy that stimulates thought by thinking of all the possible questions that come to mind. Here you don’t spend time judging the quality of the issues, you just think of as many issues as you can. Whatever “pops” into your head. The primary purpose of brainstorming is to generate as extensive a list as possible of questions, ideas, thoughts or alternative solutions, which focus on a specific topic or problem. Analysis and commentary on ideas is held off until after the brainstorming session has concluded. In order to be effective, it is useful to have some background related to the topic under discussion. This method can be enhanced when done in a group and you can use each other’s ideas to stimulate ideas of your own.
Beyond the randomness of brainstorming, there are specific strategies that can help you discover useful issues. Issues can be discovered through Research. One way research can be done in argumentation is by using a specific pattern of analysis that is applied to the argumentative claim. Analysis is a systematic approach to problem solving and decision-making. Using different methods of analysis triggers potential issues.
Four Patterns of Analysis
There are four patterns of analysis that a critical thinker can use to help him or her discover the key arguments that he or she can use to try and convince a target audience to accept their stand on a claim or help arrive at a decision.
Cost/Benefit Analysis. The term cost benefit analysis is used frequently in planning and decision-making. Using this method, you evaluate the pros and cons before taking a course of action. You will ask questions as to the positive aspects of accepting the claim and issues that would refer to negative outcomes of accepting the claim. What could be the benefits if we adopt the claim? What could be the costs of accepting the claim? If the answers to these questions suggest that the costs outweigh the benefits you would reject the claim. And if the answers suggest the benefits outweigh the costs, you would accept the claim.
For example, on the claim, Suzy needs a new car, using cost analysis, Suzy would ask questions like:
“Will the insurance for the new car be more than $500 per year more than I am paying now?”
“Will the new car have improved gas mileage that will save me at least $50 per month on gasoline costs?”
“Will the cost of keeping the old car be more than the cost of purchasing a new car?”
After answering these questions the cost/benefit relationship can be determined. If Jim and his wife Suzy determine that the costs outweigh the benefits, the will reject the claim. If Jim and Suzy determine the benefits justify the costs, they will accept the claim and purchase a new car.
As a side note it should be remembered that every benefit has a cost. The cost could be a specific cost. If you go to a movie, you pay for a ticket. That is a specific cost. Since you cannot do two things at once, if you go to a movie, you gave up going to a party that was going on at the same time. The cost of going to the movie was not only the price of the ticket, but also not going to the party. Economists refer to this as, “Opportunity Costs.” An opportunity cost refers to what you gave up or what you could have done, by doing a particular action. By reading this chapter right now, you are giving up doing other things, like watching television or being with friends. Reading this chapter cost you those activities.
But isn’t it worth it?
Priorities Analysis. This pattern of analysis says we live in a world of scarce resources. Neither individuals nor societies can have everything they want; pursuing one objective invariably involves trade-offs or sacrifices of other objectives. This pattern of analysis discovers issues by asking the following questions:
What are the claim’s objectives?
How are they prioritized?
What are the trade-offs if we assume adoption of the claim?
Using the same example as in cost analysis, Suzy needs to ask questions about the financial objectives for her life and proceed to prioritize them.
Does Suzy want increased financial independence?
Does the house need decorating?
Does Suzy want to travel?
Does Suzy need reliable transportation?
As much as she would like, Suzy can’t have them all, so she must prioritize. At most, she can only have the first 2 or 3 of her priorities. If the answers to the issues on financial independence, decorating her house and travel, are placed in the 1-3 spots, then Suzy would have to reject the claim. If reliable transportation were ranked 1 or 2, Suzy would accept the claim.
Programs Analysis. According to this pattern, policies are adopted to achieve certain goals; they are continued or abandoned depending on their effectiveness in meeting these goals. These goals may be personal goals you have like going to college or goals of an organization of which you are a member. The claim that is being argued is evaluated against the goals that have or have not been reached. Using this pattern, issues are discovered by asking the following questions:
What are the specific goals of myself or my organization?
What are the specific goals of the claim?
Assuming adoption of the claim, can the goals be met?
What will the impact of claim adoption be?
Are there any reasonable alternatives?
Using this pattern of analysis, Suzy would determine what her goals are and examine if the proposed program could meet the goals. Suzy has the following objectives: Financial independence, home improvement, reliable transportation, quality gas mileage, and self-satisfaction of driving a car of which she is proud. Suzy must now determine if the proposed program of purchasing a new car can meet these goals. If she determines the program can, she will accept the claim. If she determines the program can’t, she will reject the claim.
I have had many students faced with the claim, I should work full time. Their goal is to complete a college education. Asking and answering questions about this claim can help determine if adopting the claim helps or interferes with their college goals.
Continuities Analysis. Seldom do our choices make sharp, overt breaks from the past. Instead we usually try to make our decisions consistent with tradition. In light of this traditionalist orientation, issues are discovered by asking the following questions:
Has this claim been debated before?
Has a claim similar to this ever been adopted?
When was a similar claim adopted?
What were the results of adopting the similar claim?
Is adopting this claim consistent with other facts, meanings, values, or actions that we regard as justified or appropriate?
Has the situation changed to warrant a change in tradition?
If adopting this claim is not, is a break from tradition warranted?
Why would a break from this tradition be warranted?
Using this analysis pattern, Suzy can analyze the claim, Suzy should lease her new car. In the past, she has always purchased new cars and never leased one. Using this analysis strategy, Suzy can take a look at what she has done in the past and whether it has been successful.
If Suzy has purchased new cars before, how did that turn out?
Is the proposed action consistent with Suzy’s needs, wants, and desires?
Has the situation changed to make leasing look more desirable?
Once these questions are answered, Suzy can choose to accept or reject the claim.
These four different patterns of analysis provide a framework for discovering issues. Take the claim you are attempting to advocate or the claim you still need to decide. Apply these methods of analysis to that claim and you should begin to create a useful list of potential issues.
In addition to these approaches to research there is one more addition method for discovering Issues. Each type of claim has its own "Stock Issues."
Stock Issues
Stock issues refer to specific formulated questions you can ask of any of a particular type of claim. There are stock issues of fact, stock issues of value, and stock issues of policy. This is a reason why it is important to know what type of claim you are arguing, as it leads you to ask some initial issues.
The Two Stock Issues of a Claim of Fact
A claim of fact has two groups of questions:
What questions need to be asked to determine if the fact does indeed exist?
How do the determining questions apply to this particular situation?
For example: in a murder investigation, law enforcement officials ask questions like:
What was the motive?
When did the crime take place?
How was the crime committed?
The second series of questions focus on an individual:
Did that person under suspicion have a motive to commit the crime?
Did the person under suspicion have the opportunity to commit the crime?
Did the person under suspicion have the ability or means to commit the crime?
The Two Stock Issues of a Claim of Value
A claim of value has two groups of questions:
What questions need to be asked to determine if the subject of the claim can be evaluated as good, bad, just, unjust, etc. These questions establish the criteria to be used to evaluate the subject of the claim.
How does the criteria that has been established apply to this particular situation?
For example: If you are deciding if a movie you just watched was a great movie, you would initially ask the question:
What makes any movie Great? By answering this question, you establish a criterion for what makes any movie great.
The second series of questions focus on applying the criteria to a specific movie.
Did the movie you just watched fulfill the criteria established by the earlier issues?
Discovering these issues will help us not be confused by arguing a “Claim of Value” as if it was a “Claim of Fact.”
