An organized series of contentions is called a Case. Now that you have your contentions that you derived from your issues, you need to decide how to order them in your argument. The Case is what you present to support your position on the claim. Bob is on trial for murder. You have answered the issues, “Did he have opportunity?” “Did he have motive”, and “Did he have access to the murder weapon?” You find the answers are yes to all three. Therefore, you argue that Bob is guilty of murder for the following three reasons; He had opportunity, he had motive and he had access to the murder weapon. This collection of Contentions is your case.
A Case is a way to structure your argument. A case is necessary any time an advocate has more than one reason to present for his or her position. As the persuasive appeal becomes more and more complex a well thought out case is crucial.
Organizing the Contentions of Your Argument
The way you order your contentions greatly depends on your audience. You are organizing your case not for what is important to you, but what is important to your audience.
Once you have an idea of who your audience is you can more easily imagine what their needs are and how your argument might meet these needs. You have selected issues that relate to them and created contentions out of the most important ones. Now it is time to organize your case. You should try to think about your persuasive argument from the perspective of your audience. Thinking about your audience before you put together your presentation can help you to determine the level of detail you need to include and how to organize information.
In other chapters, we examine effective use of evidence and the skill of reasoning or logic. It is evidence that improves your contentions from assertions to actual arguments and reasoning that links evidence with the contentions that support your position on a claim. For now, we will look at the overall structure of your argument. The following diagram of the building puts together the key parts of an argument.
5.8.1: "Argument Structure Diagram" (CC BY 4.0; J. Marteney)
Roof = Claim
Beams = Contentions
Pillars = Reasoning
Foundation = Evidence
As the diagram indicates, the roof of the building is the Claim that is being argued. The beams that support the roof are the Contentions. The foundation of the building is Evidence. Evidence supports the entire argument. Evidence is connected to the Contention beams through the use of Reasoning. Hopefully, you see in the building diagram, the Claim is not proven directly, but instead is proven through Contentions which are established through Proof, Evidence and Reasoning.
Pro-Side Strategies for Case Construction
You are on the pro-side of an argument if you are advocating the acceptance of the claim. Traditionally there are three Case approaches you can use.
Problem/solution is the first approach and probably the most used strategy in persuasive argumentation. For the pro-side, this approach suggests that a problem(s) exists in the status quo, and you have the one solution that will solve it. Problem/solution is the most traditional case approach used by the pro-side in argumentation, because it is a very clear, well defined, and understandable pattern. If the claim proposed is: Automatic weapons should be banned, the pro side would have to demonstrate harm in the status quo policy of legalized automatic weapons, and then would have to present a workable proposal that would eliminate that harm.
A type of problem/solution case approach is called systems analysis. This approach says that some program model is being used to run an interconnected system, and that the system is not functioning as it should. A proposal would then be designed to correct any flaw(s) in the system, in order to make it operational, and make the overall program function effectively. You would advocate that only by accepting your claim could the program be made effective. Without the change, the system will become dysfunctional.
If the claim being advanced is Parents need to adopt Tough Love discipline rules in their homes, the pro-side would try to prove that the family is a system that functions effectively, when all members are working toward a common goal, and that a breakdown in discipline is responsible for the family unit falling apart. The pro-side must then demonstrate that in adopting the Tough Love program, rules of child behavior will be clearly defined and the family unit will function effectively.
A second type of problem/solution case is called goals/criteria. This approach suggests that the currently defined goal of the target audience is not being met, and cannot be met, using current criteria (policies, beliefs, values, or institutions).
The pro-side proposes new criteria (policies, beliefs, values, or institutions) that will allow the target audience to move towards meeting its goal. If we had the claim The death penalty is a justifiable method of criminal punishment, we could use this approach. The pro-side would have to demonstrate that the goal of the present system is fair and equitable punishment for people convicted of capital crimes. The pro-side would then try to prove that the current punishment laws fall short of meeting this goal, and therefore a new set of laws is necessary to meet the goal.
The advantages case approach is the second case type. This choice suggests that while there may be nothing significantly wrong with the status quo, something exists that will be better than that which already exists. This approach works best when the pro- side cannot really find fault with the policies, beliefs, or institutions in the present system, but feels that their claim is better than what currently exists. The pro-side will try to persuade the audience that the advantages of the claim are significant enough to warrant adherence to the claim and move away from the “status quo.”
Advertisers use this approach frequently to market “new and improved” versions of a company’s product. The advertisements tell us that there is nothing wrong with the old version of the product, but this “new and improved” version contains features that make it better, and thus more advantageous to buy.
One way of trying to determine an appropriate advantages case is to examine the priorities of the target audience. The pro-side would need to prove that the claim it is advancing deserves higher priority status than any other competing claim. The pro-side must convince the target audience that only by granting adherence to the claim can it get its priorities in order.
Assume that one of the priorities of the audience is economic independence. If the claim being advanced is Adults should increase the amount of money they put in their IRS, the pro-side would want to demonstrate that even though their current contributions are a good start, additional contributions will make their economic future much better and thus be an improvement in their current investment strategy.
Residues is the third case approach. This approach says that a certain number of alternatives exist to deal with any problem, meet any goal, or make any problem work. Of these alternatives, all are unacceptable but one. Since this one is the only one left, it should be accepted.
Assume we are arguing the claim, People should use Uber. The pro-side would try to prove that three, and only three, alternatives are available and two are unacceptable. “You can either use Uber, use a taxi, or walk. Since walking takes too long and taxis are too expensive, the only alternative left is to use Uber.”
The residues approach is commonly used by people trying to sell you some sort of program; diet program, insurance program, cell phone program etc. A diet program salesperson may offer you only three choices: starve yourself to lose those unwanted pounds, try an unhealthy liquid diet program, or join our medically safe, delicious diet meals program. The salesperson never proves that the last choice is best; he/she just argues that the other options are undesirable. When faced with this type of argument, check to see if there are additional alternatives that the advocate is leaving out.
Organizing your case is not just for the pro-side. The side disagreeing with the claim also organizes their argument using the contentions they have discovered through research and analysis. Both sides follow the same process when developing an argumentative strategy.
“Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” 1— Christopher Hitchens
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, or what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. —Christopher Hitchens
