The problem of professionalism arguments of the Unified State Examination. Arguments in an essay-reasoning. "Dubrovsky", A. Pushkin

Argumentation of your own opinion on the problem.

What is an argument?

In the essay, you must express your opinion on the formulated problem, agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author, as written in the assignment of part C. In your answer, you must give two arguments, based on knowledge, life or reading experience.

note

It is not enough to just formally state your opinion: I agree (disagree) with the author. Your position, even if it coincides with the author’s, must be formulated in a separate sentence.

For example: Thus, the author seeks to convey to the reader the idea that nature has long been in need of the help of each of us. I completely agree with the author and also believe that humanity should reconsider its consumer attitude towards nature.

Your position must then be supported by two arguments. In this part of the work, you must strictly follow the rules for constructing a reasoning text. Argumentation is the presentation of evidence, explanations, examples to substantiate any idea in front of listeners (readers) or an interlocutor.

Arguments are evidence given in support of a thesis: facts, examples, statements, explanations - in a word, everything that can confirm the thesis.

Illustrating the argument

An important element of argumentation is illustrations, i.e. examples that support the argument.

Argument collection:

Arguments worth two points

Types of arguments

There are different classifications of arguments. For example, there are logical arguments - these are arguments that appeal to human reason, to reason (scientific axioms, laws of nature, statistical data, examples from life and literature), and psychological arguments - arguments that evoke certain feelings, emotions in the addressee and form a certain attitude to the person, object, phenomenon being described (the emotional conviction of the writer, an appeal to universal human values, etc.).

The main thing you should know essay writer: the arguments you use "have different weight”, that is, they are assessed with different points.

Some arguments are worth one point, while others are worth two.

Please note that arguments worth two points always include a reference to the author and title of the work. In addition, when talking about a literary text, it is not enough to simply mention the author and the title of the work ( L.N. Tolstoy reflects on the problem of patriotism in the novel “War and Peace”), you must also indicate specific characters, their actions, words, thoughts that demonstrate the connection of what you are mentioning work of art with the problem considered in the source text.

For example: M. Gorky wrote very emotionally and expressively about the problem of humanism in his story “The Old Woman Izergil.” Danko, the hero of one of the legends, sacrificed his life to save his people. He appeared just when people needed help, and led them, desperate and embittered, through the forest to freedom. The feat of Danko, who tore his heart out of his chest to illuminate the path to freedom, is a stunning example of true humanism and boundless love for people.

Proverbs, sayings, and aphorisms can be considered as an argument, worth 2 points, but only if they are accompanied by explanations and your reflections on their content. For example: Not by chance folk wisdom affirms the unconditional value of friendship: “Don’t have a hundred rubles, but have a hundred friends”; " old friend better than two new ones”, “Look for a friend, and if you find one, take care”... Indeed, true friends are ready to share grief and joy with you, to come to the rescue in Hard time. It is friends who make us understand that we are not alone in this world.

It must be said that any example from fiction, scientific or journalistic literature should be “framed” by your reasoning, emphasizing the connection of the given example with the problem you are considering.

When giving an example from journalistic literature, also do not forget, in addition to the author’s surname, to indicate the title of the note, article, essay and, if possible, the name of the publication in which this material was published.

On the problem of the influence of television on modern Russian society TV journalist Oleg Ptashkin reflects in an article “Trash-TV” published on the website www.gazeta.ru. According to the author, modern television in Russia is experiencing an acute crisis - a crisis of ideas and meaning. Those who create television programs do not think at all about the public benefit. The journalist is concerned that modern media propagate lack of spirituality and immorality, teaching people the idea that normal life for the sake of family, children, success in work - the lot of losers. The author is convinced that the main task modern television is education: it should teach to honor family, parents, and cultural traditions. Only then will television contribute to the revival of spirituality.

Everything that was said earlier also applies to examples from the scientific literature.

People who do not give in to life's difficulties, who boldly face the truth, are the masters of their destiny. Historian Lev Gumilyov in his work “Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth” called such people passionaries. Among them are many great historical figures, famous military leaders, fighters for freedom and human rights, and each of them contributed to the development of society.

In search of compelling arguments, some students boldly come up with the names of “famous publicists” or the titles of non-existent works, sometimes attributing them to famous writers. For example: In one of his works, “Nature,” the Russian writer I. S. Turgenev reflects on the relationship between nature and man.

The critic Belinsky in his article “On Humanity” wrote that people should help each other.

You can also cite as an example the story of A. Pristavkin “The War of Russians and Chechens.”

Rest assured: all such “opuses” will be classified as factual errors, which means that you will not only not earn points for argumentation, but will also lose 1 point for violating factual accuracy.

Arguments worth one point

Arguments rated 1 point are, as a rule, easier to select, and therefore their “specific weight” is lower. Most of them in one way or another rely on our life experience, our observations of our lives, the lives of other people or society as a whole.

Examples from life. Despite the fact that the graduate’s life experience is not yet very great, in his life or the lives of others you can find examples of good or bad deeds, manifestations of friendly feelings, honesty, kindness or callousness, selfishness.

Be careful with this type of argument because, in our experience of checking essays, most of them are simply made up by students and the persuasiveness of such arguments is highly questionable. For example:

I have seen from my own experience the dangers of cheap literature. After one of these books, I got a severe headache. This a book about a failed thief. Terrible nonsense! Indeed, I was afraid that I would get brain cancer after reading this book. Terrible feeling!

Let me give you an example from my personal life: people are sitting on the street without shelter, without food, absolutely without anything. They sit and ask for money for some food.

Unfortunately, my limited life experience does not allow me to express my broad opinion on this issue.

Especially often in such grief-arguments, various relatives, friends and acquaintances appear, with whom extremely instructive stories happen. For example:

I know one person who ignored (?!) the illness and death of his father. Now his children are not helping him.

My grandfather told me that his dad was in the detachment in 1812 (?!) when troops under the command of Napoleon began to attack Moscow.

A good example of the problem with this text are some of my classmates. Obviously, they were raised too little, and they were not accustomed to work from childhood, so they do nothing.

Much less common are examples from life that can be considered suitable arguments:

I became convinced that there are not only indifferent people. Two years ago, trouble came to our family - there was a fire. Relatives, neighbors, acquaintances and even just people who knew about our misfortune helped us as best they could. I am very grateful to everyone who did not remain indifferent and helped me and my family in difficult times.

Observations of the lives of people and society as a whole look more convincing, since individual facts in such examples are generalized and drawn up in the form of certain conclusions:

I believe that empathy and compassion are instilled in people from childhood. If a child was surrounded by care and affection, then, as he grows up, he will give this goodness to others.

However, arguments of this type may look curious and not the most convincing:

Probably all mothers and grandmothers are fond of women's novels. Women read all sorts of books, and then suffer from why theirs is not the same as in the book.

Speculative examples are thoughts about what might happen under certain conditions:

I cannot imagine my life without books: without textbooks that help us understand the world, without fiction, revealing the secrets of human relationships and forming moral values. Such a life would be incredibly poor and boring.

“Blind faith has evil eyes,” the Polish writer Stanislaw Jerzy Lec once accurately remarked.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky reflected on the essence of literary talent: “Talent is the ability to say or express well where mediocrity will say and express poorly.” “For others, nature is firewood, coal, ore, or a dacha, or just a landscape. For me, nature is the environment from which, like flowers, all our human talents grew,” wrote Mikhail Prishvin.

Remember that the persons whose statements you refer to must actually be authorities in a particular field. For example, the Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza generally doubted the significance of such arguments and believed that “a reference to authority is not an argument.”

At their core, proverbs and sayings are a type of reference to authority. The strength of these arguments lies in the fact that we appeal to the authority of folk wisdom. Remember that a simple mention of proverbs, sayings, and catchwords, not accompanied by your reflections on their content, is scored 1 point.

It is no coincidence that Russian proverbs affirm the value of the experience of older generations: “A parent’s word is not spoken to the wind; He who honors his parents will never perish.”

Links to movies, in Lately often found in essays, most often indicate a narrow outlook and little reading experience. We are convinced that examples of friendship, humane treatment of people or heroic deeds can always be found not only in the films “Avatar” or “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” but also on the pages of works of fiction.

It seems to me that the fate of the heroine of V. Menshov’s film “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears” can serve as an excellent confirmation of the author’s idea that a person should strive to realize his dreams. Katerina worked in a factory, raised a child herself, graduated from college in absentia and, as a result, achieved success - she became director of the plant. Thus, each of us has the power to achieve our dreams. It is only necessary to bring its implementation closer with every step, with every action.

(It may be noted that confirmation of the author’s thoughts could be found in the fate of Alexander Grigoriev, the hero of V. Kaverin’s novel “Two Captains”, or cite the example of Alexei Meresyev from the work of B. Polevoy “The Tale of a Real Man”, or recall Assol from story of the same name by A. Green.)

Argument structure

When writing an essay, you should remember that between the thesis and two arguments confirming your position, there should be a clear connection, which is usually expressed by so-called “logical transitions” - statements connecting known information in the text with new information. In addition, each argument is accompanied by a “micro-conclusion” - a statement that sums up some thoughts.

Failure to comply with this structure (in essence, any paragraph of coherent text is built according to this scheme) often leads to logical errors.

Typical Argumentation Errors

What does the expert check?

The expert highlights that part of the essay text that performs the function of argumentation. Then he establishes the correspondence of the argument to the asserted (the argument must prove exactly what is asserted), assesses the degree of persuasiveness, which can manifest itself both in strict logic and in emotional evaluation and figurative expression.

The expert determines the number of arguments, as well as the correspondence of the argument to the semantic function: the given example should not just act as a vivid narrative or descriptive microtext, but prove or disprove this or that statement.

The maximum score (3) for criterion K4 is given for work in which the examinee expressed his opinion on the problem he formulated (agreeing or disagreeing with the position of the author), gave reasons for it (gave at least 2 arguments, one of which is taken from fiction, journalistic or scientific literature).

We have collected for you the best literary arguments from many sources in one place. All arguments are divided by topic, which allows you to quickly select the ones you need for your essay. Most of the arguments are written specifically for the site, so you can be sure that you will write a unique essay.

You can read how to write an essay using arguments from our database in our article

Select a topic to get ready-made arguments for your essay:

What are arguments for?

In the third part of the Unified State Exam you need to write a short essay based on the proposed text. For a correctly completed task you receive 23 points, which is a significant part of total number points. These points may not be enough for you to enter your desired university. For the task of part “C”, in contrast to the tasks of block “A” and “B”, you can prepare in advance, armed with everything necessary to write an essay on the topic given to you. Previous experience of performing the Unified State Exam shows that the greatest difficulty for schoolchildren when completing the task of part “C” is to argue their position on a given problem. Your success in writing an essay depends on what arguments you choose. Maximum amount points are awarded for reader arguments, i.e. taken from fiction. As a rule, the texts presented in the tasks of part “C” contain problems of a moral and ethical nature. Knowing all this, we can arm ourselves with ready-made literary arguments, making the process of writing an essay as easy as possible. Having the arguments we have proposed in your arsenal, you will not have to frantically retrieve from your memory all the works you have read during the exam, looking for something suitable on the topic and issue. Please note that, as a rule, the allotted time for schoolchildren to complete all the work is not enough. Thus, we will make every effort to get 23 points for the essay in the exam.

Structure of the proof. Thesis and basic requirements for the thesis. Mistakes when putting forward a thesis.

Arguments. Types of arguments. Rules of argumentation.

Demonstration as a way of connecting thesis and arguments. Errors in demo.

Rules for effective argumentation.

1. The proof is threefold: it consists of thesis(positions whose truth is proven), arguments And demonstrations(logical connection between them). Arguments (arguments, evidence) - provisions that are given in support of the thesis and have evidential power for those to whom the argument is addressed.

Thesis is a position that requires evidence. The thesis requirements are as follows: accuracy, clarity, certainty thesis and its logical consistency.

First of all, the thesis must be specific. Seneca said: “When a man does not know to which pier he is heading, no wind will be favorable for him.” Before putting forward a thesis, you need to think about what you want to prove and formulate it clearly and definitely. Yes, thesis Taxes should be reduced raises a number of questions: what does it mean to reduce? Should all taxes be reduced?

For example, it is argued that spouses should wisely divide household responsibilities, to which they object: “No. Feminism will not work here. This is not some kind of America!” There is a substitution of the thesis (its expansion), because the thesis does not talk about feminism at all, but puts forward a more specific demand: a reasonable division of household responsibilities.

Another way to refute the same thesis: “ Why should I wash dishes and peel potatoes? These are women's responsibilities." There is a narrowing of the thesis here. Nobody talked about potatoes and dishes.

These mistakes are possible because the thesis itself is poorly formulated: ambiguous and too general. What does reasonable mean? What responsibilities are proposed to be shared? All this had to be thought through and the thesis put into concrete form.

The speeches of many Russian lawyers, for example V.D., were distinguished by the clarity of the thesis formulation. Spasovich in his speech on the Andreevskaya case: “I pose as a thesis that I must prove and which I hope to prove, a thesis in the complete truth of which I am deeply convinced and which is clearer than daylight to me, namely: that N. Andreevskaya, while swimming, drowned and that, therefore, in death no one is to blame.” IN AND. Tsarev formulated the main thesis of the indictment in the case of the Kondrakov brothers as follows: “...I declare that the objective truth in the case we are examining has been established specifically and accurately: a robbery against A.S. Krivosheeva. and A.R. Krivosheev, their rape and murder were committed by the Kondrakov brothers.”

Throughout the discussion, the thesis should remain unchanged. If this requirement is violated, errors occur "substitution of thesis" when instead of the original thesis some other one is considered or "loss of thesis"(the original thesis has been completely forgotten).

2. In rhetoric, the following types of arguments are distinguished.

Rational arguments, or, as the ancients said, “arguments to the point” (argumentaadrem) and irrational(psychological, emotional) - “arguments to a person” (argumentaadhominem), as well as “arguments to the public.” Rational arguments include facts, experimental data, testimony, axioms (traditionally accepted judgments in society), and references to authorities.

Fact- an actual event, something that actually happened. This best view arguments. In addition to facts, statistical data and the results of sociological surveys can be used as arguments, but these are not indisputable facts, because they can significantly distort reality due to the error of the method and the very procedure for obtaining and processing information. Arguments that are based on sampling from a multitude are not always reliable. Therefore, when making a generalization based on any facts, you need to remember the following:

if you have all the facts that exhaust the phenomenon you are interested in (for example, you have established that all voters in your precinct do not want to go to the polls), and use this factual information for further conclusions, then you act using the so-called "full" induction, which happens very rarely;

basically, only typical and special cases (facts, examples) are at the disposal of the disputant, which are generalized by a conclusion about the entire set of such cases (“incomplete induction”). Facts (examples) can also be negative (exceptions), which can confirm the general conclusion. When proving, you need to analyze all available facts, taking into account negative examples in order to evaluate the conclusion. For example, students A, B and C are not ready for class. On this basis, one cannot conclude that the entire group is not ready for the lesson.

Authorities. Appeal to authorities is one of the most common types of arguments. If you use an appeal to authorities, then you need to remember that the authorities must be acceptable in the given audience, i.e. enjoy her respect and have high status. The authority of famous scientists, political and public figures, writers, authority of law. In religious speeches, the authority of the texts of the Holy Scriptures and the Bible is considered unshakable.

“Knowingly true propositions” (axioms). These are laws, theories, axioms that are traditionally accepted in a given society as unconditionally true; they cannot be challenged. Thus, the devil in a dispute with Ivan Karamazov says: “It is usually accepted in society as an axiom that I am a fallen angel”; and immediately refutes this generally accepted opinion.

In addition, the following types of arguments are distinguished:

1) comprehensive– arguments that fully prove the correctness of the opinion; in practice they are rare;

2) main: directly related to the thesis, directly confirm it, presented constantly;

3) auxiliary– are used to strengthen and confirm the main arguments, and not the thesis itself;

4) controversial: those that can be used both “for” and “against” the position being proven; they must be handled with care;

5) strong– those against which it is difficult to find an objection;

6) weak– those against which it is easy to find an objection;

7) arbitrary– those that themselves need proof: You should chew gum (thesis) because it is good for the health of your gums and teeth(arbitrary argument);

8) spare.

In the speech of S.A. Andreevsky in the Mironovich case, the lawyer proves Mironovich’s innocence, analyzes in detail: 1) the examination data; 2) randomness of Sarah Becker's pose: “The main idea that the whole drama of the murder took place on the chair has collapsed. It turned out that Sarah was brought to the chair from another place, laid on it almost dead; there was no struggle here, because the cover remained motionless and blood stains calmly leaked from the cover onto the fabric of the chair”; 2) the calm, natural position of Mironovich, who left in the morning after the murder to collect money from debtors: “After all, if he had killed, he would have known that the cash register had been unlocked all night, that it was still open, that, perhaps, everything was already out of it it was taken away and he is now a beggar, that there are traces of his terrible deed... Where is it before Porkhovnikov? Where would the old energy to pursue debtors come from?

Irrational arguments most often affect the following interests:

self-esteem of the addressee (audience). The speaker shows that he considers the listeners smart, sensible, insightful, honest, i.e. creates a “positive” mood in the audience about themselves. You are practical, sensible people, and therefore, of course, you will agree that...(the thesis follows);

material, economic, social interests audience. Every girl will find a groom in the Third Reich,- Hitler promised, addressing the crowd, and found their warm approval;

physical well-being, freedom, convenience, habits of the public. If you agree with my opponent’s position, you will lose your freedom, or even your life. is one of the most common models of argumentation of this kind.

These arguments are addressed primarily to feelings, to the individual or the public, and not to the essence of the issue; they are used instead of an objective assessment of the crime. In such cases, the eloquence of the speaker, his confident tone, and the pathos of his speech are of great importance. Such arguments were often used by the famous Russian lawyer F.N. Gobber: “Plevako... remembering the words of the accuser, he said in a voice that went from soul to soul: “They tell you that he stood high and fell low, and in the name of this they demand strict punishment, because he must be asked.” But, gentlemen, here he is in front of you, standing so high! Look at him, think about his shattered life - hasn't he already been asked enough? Remember what he had to suffer in the inevitable anticipation of this bench and during his stay on it. He stood high... he fell low... after all, this is only the beginning and the end, and what was experienced between them! Gentlemen, be merciful and fair..." So Plevako defended both the priest and the old woman who stole a teapot for 50 kopecks.

Requirements for arguments: arguments must be true, their truth verified in practice, sufficient to prove a given thesis and consistent.

3. Demonstration as a way of logical connection between thesis and arguments.

Demonstration is a method of logical connection between the thesis and arguments, a chain of conclusions on a given topic, presented in a logically consistent form.

Distinguish direct And indirect proof.

In direct proof, the thesis is directly deduced from the arguments, without the help of any additional constructions, without involving any assumptions that contradict the thesis, a direct reference is given to the arguments and facts, for example, when proving the thesis: cats were domesticated later than dogs. Arguments: a) excavations of cultural layers showed that the remains of the skeleton of dogs are found in the settlements of human hunters; the remains of cats appear when people began to engage in agriculture (cats were used to fight rodents); b) hunting as a human occupation is much older than agriculture.

Indirect proof, or proof by contradiction: an antithesis is put forward - a position that contradicts the thesis, then this antithesis is refuted, and on the basis of the law of excluded middle a conclusion is made about the truth of the thesis. This can be done in two ways:

A) the opposite method(remember the proof in geometry). For example, you need to prove that cats were domesticated later than dogs. Let's assume that this judgment is false and that it is true that cats were domesticated before dogs. It follows that the skeletal remains of cats should be found in earlier cultural layers than the remains of dogs; in addition, cats had to roam with hunters. Both of these are not true. The first remains of domestic animals found were the remains of dog skeletons; cats are not prone to a nomadic lifestyle; they never took part in hunting with humans, but only alone. This means that the antithesis is incorrect, but the thesis is correct: cats were domesticated later than dogs. A variation of this method is the technique "reducing to absurdity", or " reduction to absurdity" which was skillfully used by the famous lawyer F.N. Gobber;

b) "method of elimination" or "method of alibi". In this case, the truth of the thesis is proven by identifying the falsity of all possible alternatives except one (the thesis). This method is called the “alibi method” because it is often used in judicial practice. For example, a crime was committed by either A, B, or C, but it is proven that neither A nor B committed it (they had no alibi), which means that C committed the crime (he had no alibi).

But often there are errors when using arguments:

The truth of the thesis is proven by arguments, and the truth of the arguments is proven by the thesis, it turns out « vicious circle proof":This cannot be, because it can never be; sleeping pills put you to sleep because they have a hypnotic effect.

"Anticipation of the conclusion." This is an accidental or intentional “anticipation of events” - unproven arguments are presented as strong, weighty, proven reasons for the thesis (conclusion): Should we continue the destructive course of reforms or is it better to return to proven, stable state regulation of the economy? The fact that the course is destructive, and state regulation in the current situation is a stable rate is an arbitrary argument (they still need to be proven). And the listener, by the very form of the rhetorical question, is “pushed” by the speaker to a conclusion that is ahead of this evidence - it follows!

"Falsehood of Reasons"- error in arguments - incorrect facts, unreliable and erroneous data, any false information that is used as arguments.

When putting forward arguments, you should adhere to a number of rules:

Systematicity– arguments need to be submitted in the system, think about where to start.

The principle of quantity and quality. Arguments should not be multiplied so much as weighed. He who proves a lot proves nothing. One should strive not for the quantity of arguments, but for their quality. The optimal number of arguments when proving a certain position is the number 3.

The principle of specificity. Arguments must be addressed to a specific audience, taking into account its characteristics.

The principle of ascending argumentation is from weak arguments to stronger ones.

Universal techniques for effective argumentation.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of your speech, you need to use effective argumentation techniques, which are as follows:

Be emotional.

Address facts that are vital to your listeners.

Try to show real benefits for listeners of your proposals and ideas.

Personalize your ideas (name the people who support your point of view).

Be concise. Short speeches are better appreciated by the audience.

Use numbers. But when using numbers, a number of recommendations should be followed: a) there should not be many numbers; b) let us compare and contrast statistical data. P. Soper cites the following words as a serious mistake by the speaker: “In 1920, the purchasing power of the dollar relative to 1926, taken as a unit, was 0.648, and in 1940 - 1.272.” Should have said: “In 1940, a dollar could buy twice as much as in 1920.”; c) it is better to round the numbers; d) accurately indicate the source of statistical data; e) present numbers in a visual comparison, juxtaposition, for example the area is the same as Moscow, the population is 10 times larger than Bryansk; f) do not give long series of numbers.

Visibility. It is known that a person receives 80% of information through vision. D. Carnegie wrote that the optic nerves are 25 times thicker than the auditory nerves. Hence the enormous importance of visual elements in the perception of speech. About 20% of the information in a public speech is absorbed only through audiovisual techniques (tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, video materials).

Use humor. F. Snell offers rules for using humor:

Tell only what you know well

The joke must be understandable and appropriate

It should be related to the topic of the speech.

Must be short

Don't use old jokes

Avoid racy jokes, especially in large audiences

Don't take long pauses to laugh

There are also some special “technical” techniques that allow you to strengthen your argument:

Presenting the fact as new: Yesterday it became known...; Recently installed...; It just became known...;

Presentation of a fact as established as a result of experimental data: It has been experimentally established...; Experiments have shown...;

Presentation of the fact as established by psychologists;

“Technical” techniques for enhancing the persuasiveness of a speech depend largely on the nature of the audience. Thus, in Europe a reference to the Bible is effective, but in a Russian audience it is not.

Basic formal logical laws

In order to correctly construct a reasoning in order to come to a true conclusion from true premises, it is necessary to know the basic laws of thinking formulated by logic - the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the law of sufficient reason. Any act of thinking must comply with the laws of logic. These laws are formulated as follows.

Law of Identity: each thought in the process of a given reasoning must have the same definite, stable content.

Law of contradiction: two opposing thoughts about the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same relation, cannot be simultaneously true.

Law of the excluded middle: of two contradictory judgments, one must be true, the other false, and the third is not given.

Law of Sufficient Reason: every correct thought must be justified by other correct thoughts, the truth of which has been proven.

“Truth is born in dispute!” - We are all familiar with this statement. But in order for this truth to appear, it is necessary to use a sufficient number of arguments and facts. A fact is a unit of philosophy that does not require proof. And this meaning is familiar to many. What is an argument?

Philosophy

An argument represents the basis of evidence or that part of it on which reality is based or in which the main evidentiary power is contained.

Depending on the purpose pursued in proving, the argument can be of several types:

1. Argument ad hominem (calculated on prejudices). Here, the basis of evidence is personal premises and beliefs, as well as statements.

2. Argument ad veritatem (declaration of truth). Here the proof comes from a statement tested by science, society and objectivity.

3. Argument e consensus gentium. In this case, the proof is what has been believed from time immemorial.

4. Argument a tuto. The proof is decisive in case of insufficiency of other arguments; it is based on the judgment that if it does not help, it will not harm.

5. Argument a baculo (last argument). In this case, if all arguments have been exhausted, the last argument in the dispute is the use of physical force.

Logics

Let's look at what an argument is in logic. Here this concept is a set of judgments that can be used to substantiate the truth of a theory or other judgment. For example, there is a saying: “Iron can be melted.” To prove this, two arguments can be used: “All metals can be melted” and “Iron is a metal.” From these two judgments one can logically deduce the opinion being proved, thereby justifying its truth. Or, for example, the judgment “What is happiness?” The following arguments can be used: “Happiness is different for everyone”, “A person himself determines the criteria by which he classifies himself as a happy or unhappy person.”

Rules

Arguments (A), which are used in the process of proving the truth of a judgment, must be subject to certain rules:

a) arguments must be true opinions and judgments;

b) they must be those judgments whose truth can be established in any case, regardless of opinion;

c) arguments must be the basis of a proven opinion.

If any of the rules are violated, it will lead to logical errors that will make the proof incorrect.

What is an argument in a dispute?

Arguments that are used in a dispute or discussion are divided into several types:

1. To the merits of the matter. In this case, the argument relates to the issue being discussed and aims to justify the truth of the evidence. Here the basic provisions of any theories, scientific concepts and judgments, previously established facts, proven provisions, etc. can be applied.

If these arguments satisfy all the rules, then the proof in which they are used will be logically correct. In this case, the so-called ironclad argument will be used.

2. To a person. Such arguments are used only when there is a need to win an argument or discussion. They are directed to the opponent’s personality and affect his beliefs.

From a logical point of view, such arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute where participants are trying to find the truth.

Types of arguments “to the person”

The most common types of arguments “to a person” are the following:

1. To authority. Here, in the discussion, the opinions and statements of writers, scientists, public figures, and so on are used as arguments. Such arguments may well exist, but they are incorrect. This is due to the fact that a person who has achieved success in a certain area cannot be an authority in other areas, so his opinion here may turn out to be erroneous.

An argument to authority can be applied using the authority of the audience, public opinion, the enemy and even your own. Sometimes a person can invent authority or attribute judgments to people who never expressed them.

2. To the public. Here the person refers to the mood and feelings of the listener. In a dispute, he addresses himself not to his opponent, but to the audience, random listeners, in order to attract them to his side, thus exerting psychological pressure on his opponent. The use of arguments to the public is especially effective when its material interests are affected. So, if one opponent proves that the opponent’s opinion affects those present, then he will win their sympathy.

3. Towards the individual. The arguments are based on personal characteristics opponent, on his shortcomings and advantages, tastes and appearance. If such an argument is used, then the subject of the dispute becomes the identity of the opponent in a negative light. There are also arguments that reveal the merits of the opponent. This technique is often used in courts when defending the accused.

4. To vanity. D This method is to say large quantity praise and compliments to the opponent in order to touch him so that he becomes more flexible and softer.

5. To strength. In this case, one of the opponents threatens to use force or coercion. This is especially true for a person endowed with power or who has a weapon.

6. To pity. What an argument for pity is is quite clear. This is evoking pity and empathy in the enemy. Such arguments are often used by many people who constantly complain about the severity of life and difficulties in the hope of awakening sympathy and a desire to help in their opponent.

7. To ignorance. In this case, one of the opponents uses facts that are unknown to the opponent. Often people are unable to admit that they don’t know something because they believe that doing so will make them lose their dignity. That is why, in a dispute with such people, the argument of ignorance works ironclad.

All of the above arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a dispute. But practice shows the opposite. Most people skillfully use them to achieve their goals. If a person is noticed using one of these arguments, he should point out that they are incorrect and the person is not confident in his position.

Algebra

Let's look at what an argument is in algebra. In mathematics, this concept refers to an independent variable. So, when talking about tables where the value of a function from an independent variable is located, they mean that they are located by a certain argument. For example, in a table of logarithms, where the value of the function log x is indicated, the number x is the argument of the table. Thus, answering the question of what a function argument is, we must say that this is the independent variable on which the value of the function depends.

Argument Increment

In mathematics, there is the concept of “increment of a function and argument.” We already know the concept of “function argument”; let’s look at what argument increment is. So, each argument has some meaning. The difference between its two values ​​(old and new) is the increment. In mathematics this is denoted as follows: Dx:Dx = x 1 -x 0.

Theology

In theology, the concept of “argument” has its own meaning. Here the true proof is the divinity of Christianity, which comes from the prophecies and parables of the wise men, as well as from the miracles performed by Christ. The inextricable connection between thinking and being, as well as the belief that God is the most perfect reality, existing not only in thoughts, but also in the real world, also serves as evidence in the dispute.

Astronomy

In astronomy, the concept of the pericent argument is used. Thus, it represents a certain quantity that determines the orientation of the orbit of a certain celestial body in relation to the equatorial plane of some other celestial body. The latitude argument, used in astronomy, is a certain value that determines the position of a certain celestial body in orbit.

As you can see, it is impossible to give a definite answer to the question of what an argument is, since this concept has several meanings that depend on the area in which it is used. this concept. Whatever argument a person uses to prove the truth in a discussion or dispute, it must have logical premises and be based on proven facts. Only in this case will the dispute be correct and true. In any other case, the dispute will be incorrect, and the opponent who uses such arguments will not be sure that he is right.

The complexity of the arguments that are used to prove the truth of beliefs, as well as the entire process of justification, is called argumentation, the main goal of which is to attract the opponent to one’s side in the discussion of a certain problem.

The main part of both informative and argumentative speech uses arguments (argument, evidence), so these two types of speeches are very close to each other.

The arguments are divided into two groups:

1) rational arguments, or “case arguments”;

2) irrational (psychological) arguments, or “arguments to a person”, “arguments to an audience”.

Rational arguments include:

a) Facts. Wed: Facts are a stubborn thing. However, it should be borne in mind that the speaker does not always have all the data. Most often, the speaker (or arguer) has only individual facts at his disposal; they can be both typical and particular, and against their background a general conclusion is drawn. Therefore, the argument - fact should be treated critically and analytically. This also applies to statistical data from the results of sociological surveys, since errors in the methodology for collecting this data can lead to a distortion of facts and reality.

b) Appeal to authorities is one of the most common types of arguments. At the same time, the speaker should know that in this audience the authorities mentioned are truly recognized and respected. Currently in general philosophical issues An authoritative source is, for example, the Bible, as well as folk wisdom, for example, proverbs and sayings. In scientific matters, the authorities are the founders of this branch of knowledge, major scientists.

c) Laws, theories, axioms traditionally accepted in a given society.

TO irrational Arguments include appealing to the feelings, desires, and interests of the addressee. These arguments most often affect feelings self-esteem those gathered (those present are assessed as reasonable, noble, sensible people, i.e. it is given positive characteristic audience), material, social interests of the public, well-being, freedom, habits of listeners.

It is thanks to this type of argument that discussions often move from the case “to the face,” when it is no longer the subject of the dispute that is assessed, but the opponent.

Both types of arguments in rhetoric differ in their strength and are distinguished comprehensive, main and controversial arguments.

Exhaustive arguments, most often one, are those arguments that completely prove the correctness of some opinion or position. Such arguments are rare.

The main arguments are various facts that convince of the reality of something. Theorists of judicial speech note that the strongest arguments should be given at the end of the judicial speech.

Controversial arguments can serve as “for” and “against” the position being proven.

When selecting arguments to prove the proposed position (thesis), the speaker must remember the requirements for arguments. Arguments must be true, consistent, proven regardless of the thesis, and sufficient.

If the arguments are not true, this is either a special technique of deceiving listeners (often a propaganda technique), or their use leads to logical error, which is called “false foundation”, or “false delusion”.

The insufficiency of the arguments leads to the fact that the position to be proven does not follow from the arguments given. The truth of the argument must be proven regardless of the thesis. Violation of this rule leads to the logical error “vicious circle”, when the thesis is proven through arguments, and the arguments are the thesis (The team was successful because it worked successfully).

It is also important for the speaker how definitely, clearly, accurately, and consistently the thesis he puts forward and defends is formulated.

If a thesis is not formulated entirely clearly, it can easily be replaced by another in a dispute, it can be interpreted ambiguously, as a result, “substitution of the thesis” is very often observed in discussions when they move on to discussing another problem. If there is a discussion going on, then you need to make sure not only of the accuracy and definiteness of your own thesis, but also of the thesis put forward by your opponent, to make sure that the opponent’s thesis is understood accurately.

Uncertainty and generality of the thesis formulation can also lead to the second mistake that inexperienced speakers often make - “loss of thesis,” when the speaker easily loses the main thread of reasoning and begins to speak “in general.” A variation of “substitution of the thesis” is the “figure of default”, i.e. hushing up unfavorable facts and events. This deliberate “mistake” is very often found in the interpretation of entire historical periods in the development of society.

So, any proof consists of three elements: thesis, arguments, logical connective (a form of logical connection) between the thesis and arguments. Arguments must not only be selected, but also correctly used to prove the proposed position (thesis).

Distinguish direct And indirect proof.

The direct proof is constructed as follows:

Arguments are given;

From them true judgments are derived;

A true judgment is proven by the thesis put forward by the speaker.

This kind of proof is called inductive proof. It is especially productive when the speaker has irrefutable, clear facts as arguments. This proof is productive because the most convincing effect on the audience, especially in a dispute, is concrete, figurative.

The deductive method of proof most often relies on general provisions known to the audience, the truth of which is beyond doubt. Such a proof thus consists of the well-known general position(major premise), the associated judgment leading to its application, and the conclusion.

For example:

No dishonest person will be elected mayor.

X is dishonest.

Therefore, X will not be elected mayor.

Indirect evidence is that the speaker proves the falsity of the opposing thesis. Firstly, this is done either by proof by contradiction, or by exclusion (the alibi method). The method of proof by contradiction is often used in science (see geometry). The “method of exclusion” is also called the “alibi method”, as it is often used in judicial practice. In this case, the truth of the thesis is proven by identifying the falsity of all possible alternatives (cf., for example, a discussion of candidates for a position).

Based on the above, we can draw a conclusion about methods for refuting the opposite thesis. The simplest and reliable way- this is a refutation of a false thesis with facts. Secondly, the opponent’s arguments are criticized, as a result of which the entire system of evidence collapses; thirdly, the illogicality of the opponent’s conclusion from a false thesis is substantiated.