3.2 Evaluating objections, implications, and limitations of different perspectives or arguments

In this guide, we’ll talk about perspective/argument evaluation. It’s time to be a little judgmental. 

Image from giphy.com

Not all arguments are equal. Actually, some arguments are terrible. (And, no, perfectionists, I’m not talking about your papers.) Sometimes that’s because they’re not articulated well or don’t have the necessary evidence or reasoning to back them up, all of which are perfectly fixable issues. Sometimes, however, arguments are made in bad faith, and there’s no attempt by the author of those arguments to seriously engage with alternative perspectives or provide the necessary level of rigor for the claims that are being made. 

Fortunately, most of the scholarly papers you’ll be working with aren’t examples of the latter. However, the fact still remains that you’ll be working with different levels of argument, and even a perfect argument might not be what you need for your paper. Evaluating an argument is not only evaluating it for how good or bad it is, but also evaluating it for its usefulness to you.

Having the skills to evaluate other people’s arguments also helps to make our own paper’s argument stronger. 

Let’s dive in. 

What’s the Appeal? 

There can be very powerful appeals behind certain arguments. Before you evaluate an argument fully, it can be helpful to identify the appeal. 

Ask yourself: what is this argument selling me? What does it want me to believe? 

Here are some appeals that arguments can make.

• Core Values: arguments can appeal to people’s core values such as freedom, democracy, liberty, truth, morality, order, duty, equality, and the list goes on and on.
• Emotions: arguments can “pull our heartstrings” by making appeals to our feelings. This goes well with an appeal to core values.
• Personal Biases: intentionally or not, arguments can appeal to our own personal biases. If we already agree with an argument’s premise, it’s much easier for the argument to convince us of what it wants to.
• Assumptions: Arguments can rely on people’s preconceptions. For example, the line “9 out of 10 Dentists Recommend CleanTeeth Toothpaste, so you should buy it!” relies on the assumption that dentists are experts on what the best toothpaste is, and recommend it only for their customer’s benefit.
• Logic: Arguments can also appeal to logic. This can take the form of a direct appeal (“the only logical choice is to..”) or (“you would have to be illogical not to accept that…”) Just because an argument claims to be logical doesn’t mean that it actually is.

** Research Tip: It’s not an inherently bad thing for arguments to make appeals. However, it can make evaluation of the argument itself — the claims, evidence and reasoning it uses, that is — more difficult. **

Once we’ve identified those appeals, we should think (at least a little) about how these appeals interact with our own personal biases. It may be helpful to play “Devil’s Advocate” here; think to yourself how would someone with the opposite opinion of me find this argument? It can also help to deliberately go out and read opposing opinions. 

Note that this process can be an emotionally difficult one, and that’s okay. A lot of people can’t do it or refuse to do it. Trying to see an alternative perspective is praiseworthy in its own right. You also don’t have to do this for every single argument you come across or every single thing you believe. 

Evaluation Questions 

Evaluating an argument is difficult. There are many ways you can do it, and these are only a few tips to make the process easier. 

** Research Tip: You can also use these questions to evaluate objections, limitations and conclusions. This is because objections, limitations and conclusions are themselves mini-arguments attached to a larger argument. See below for more specific tips.**

Validity Evaluation 

After you identify the appeals, first ask yourself is this argument valid? The College Board defines validity as when there is logical alignment between the line of reasoning and the conclusion. 

• Does it make sense that the claims and evidence the writer uses lead to the conclusion they get? Is that conclusion perhaps too exaggerated? Does it go further than the evidence does?
• Does the field seem to support one perspective over another? This doesn’t mean that the other perspective is naturally the worse one — not every group is correct, of course — but if this is the case there is probably a good reason why.
• Are there different types of evidence for the different perspectives? If one perspective has statistics and facts and anecdotes and detailed analysis to back it up, and the other perspective is backed up by a dream that the writer’s cousin’s cousin had… In real life, the arguments likely won’t be that different, but identifying the types of evidence used on both sides can help you determine which argument is most valid.

Usefulness Evaluation

Once you evaluate for quality, you can evaluate for usefulness. Again, an argument might be wonderful, but you might have to leave it out because your paper isn't long enough for it or because it's outside the scope, or scale, of your research. 

You can start by asking yourself where would this argument go in my paper? Would you include it in the Literature Review section? In the implications section? Is it a counterargument you would then concede or counter? 

If both arguments are strong and valid, can you use them both? One could be in your Literature Review while the other works as a Counter-argument, for example. 

Objection, Implication and Limitation Evaluation

Here are some specific tips for evaluating objections, implications and limitations.

Objections

• Who does the objection come from?
• Is there any chance the objection has a hidden agenda?

Implications

• Does this implication logically align with the conclusion given?
• Does the implication feel like it’s going too far?

Limitations

• Does this limitation make sense given the research method used or the amount of resources the researcher had? Do you think the research could have overcome this limitation without needing additional help?
• Are there any limitations given at all? Does the argument claim, explicitly or implicitly, to have no limitations?

The biggest thing I would say to keep in mind is to check for reasonableness. Arguments that are too extreme tend not to be as reliable as arguments that are more nuanced.

https://media.giphy.com/media/HEpYpa6ja3sJ2/giphy.gif

Image from giphy.com

Not all arguments are equal. Some arguments are terrible. (And, no, perfectionists, I’m not talking about your papers.) Sometimes that’s because they’re not articulated well or don’t have the necessary evidence or reasoning to back them up, all of which are perfectly fixable issues. Sometimes, however, arguments are made in bad faith, and there’s no attempt by the author of those arguments to seriously engage with alternative perspectives or provide the necessary level of rigor for the claims that are being made. 

Fortunately, most of the scholarly papers you’ll be working with aren’t examples of the latter. However, the fact still remains that you’ll be working with different levels of argument, and even a perfect argument might not be what you need for your paper. Evaluating an argument is not only evaluating it for how good or bad it is, but also evaluating it for its usefulness to you.

Having the skills to evaluate other people’s arguments also helps to make our own paper’s argument stronger. 

Let’s dive in. 

What’s the Appeal? 

There can be very powerful appeals behind certain arguments. Before you evaluate an argument fully, it can be helpful to identify the appeal. 

Ask yourself: what is this argument selling me? What does it want me to believe? 

Here are some appeals that arguments can make.

• Core Values: arguments can appeal to people’s core values such as freedom, democracy, liberty, truth, morality, order, duty, equality, and the list goes on and on.
• Emotions: arguments can “pull our heartstrings” by making appeals to our feelings. This goes well with an appeal to core values.
• Personal Biases: intentionally or not, arguments can appeal to our own personal biases. If we already agree with an argument’s premise, it’s much easier for the argument to convince us of what it wants to.
• Assumptions: Arguments can rely on people’s preconceptions. For example, the line “9 out of 10 Dentists Recommend CleanTeeth Toothpaste, so you should buy it!” relies on the assumption that dentists are experts on what the best toothpaste is, and recommend it only for their customer’s benefit.
• Logic: Arguments can also appeal to logic. This can take the form of a direct appeal (“the only logical choice is to..”) or (“you would have to be illogical not to accept that…”) Just because an argument claims to be logical doesn’t mean that it actually is. Research Tip: It’s not an inherently bad thing for arguments to make appeals. However, it can make evaluation of the argument itself — the claims, evidence and reasoning it uses, that is — more difficult. 

Once we’ve identified those appeals, we should think (at least a little) about how these appeals interact with our own personal biases. It may be helpful to play “Devil’s Advocate” here; think to yourself how would someone with the opposite opinion of me find this argument? It can also help to deliberately go out and read opposing opinions. 

Note that this process can be an emotionally difficult one, and that’s okay. A lot of people can’t do it or refuse to do it. Trying to see an alternative perspective is praiseworthy in its own right. You also don’t have to do this for every single argument you come across or every single thing you believe. 

Evaluation Questions 

Evaluating an argument is difficult. There are many ways you can do it, and these are only a few tips to make the process easier. 

Research Tip: You can also use these questions to evaluate objections, limitations and conclusions. This is because objections, limitations and conclusions are themselves mini-arguments attached to a larger argument. See below for more specific tips.

Validity Evaluation 

After you identify the appeals, first ask yourself is this argument valid? The College Board defines validity as when there is logical alignment between the line of reasoning and the conclusion. Does it make sense that the claims and evidence the writer uses lead to the conclusion they get? Is that conclusion perhaps too exaggerated? Does it go further than the evidence does? 

Does the field seem to support one perspective over another? This doesn’t mean that the other perspective is naturally the worse one — not every group is correct, of course — but if this is the case there is probably a good reason why. 

Are there different types of evidence for the different perspectives? If one perspective has statistics and facts and anecdotes and detailed analysis to back it up, and the other perspective is backed up by a dream that the writer’s cousin’s cousin had… In real life, the arguments likely won’t be that different, but identifying the types of evidence used on both sides can help you determine which argument is most valid. 

Usefulness Evaluation

Once you evaluate for quality, you can evaluate for usefulness. 

You can start by asking yourself where would this argument go in my paper? Would you include it in the Literature Review section? In the implications section? Is it a counterargument you would then concede or counter? 

If both arguments are strong and valid, can you use them both? One could be in your Literature Review while the other works as a Counter-argument, for example. 

Objection, Implication and Limitation Evaluation

Here are some specific tips for evaluating objections, implications and limitations.

Objections: 

• Who does the objection come from?

• Is there any chance the objection has a hidden agenda? Implications: 

• Does this implication logically align with the conclusion given?

• Does it feel like it’s going too far? Limitations: 

• Does this limitation make sense given the research method used or the amount of resources the researcher had? Do you think the research could have overcome this limitation without needing additional help?

• Are there any limitations given at all? Does the argument claim, explicitly or implicity to have no limitations?