Almost all the time, reasoning is presented in what we call prose – i.e., in streams of words and sentences, whether spoken or written. Any person hearing or reading argument-laden prose has the task of figuring out what arguments are being conveyed:

    To identify an argument in prose is to locate an argument within a

    body of prose, and to specify clearly what it is.

Locating

To locate the argument is to be able to say where, exactly, it occurs in the prose; and conversely, what parts of the prose are (and are not) parts of the argument. When dealing with simple arguments presented in short texts, this may be straightforward. The more usual situation, however, is that the argument is complex, and is interwoven in the prose, with a lot of other material, making the task of pinning it down rather more difficult.

Specifying

It is one thing to know where an argument is, but knowing exactly what it is, is another thing entirely. Thus the second part of the identification task is being able to say ‘in your own words’ what the author was trying to argue. In other words, the problem is to re-present the argument

  - fully

  - clearly and unambiguously

  - correctly, i.e., being faithful to the argument actually presented in the prose.

In the ideal case, you would have worked up the argument into canonical form. A good argument map presents an argument fully and clearly, so the ‘specifying’ sub-task can be thought of as mapping the argument in the prose.

A Challenging Task

Trivial cases aside, identifying arguments in prose is a tricky business, because:

  - Often the author of the prose has weak reasoning skills, has only a weak grasp of the argument to begin with, and is not good at drafting argumentative prose.

  - The prose generally is trying to convey much more than just the argument itself. The additional material becomes mixed – or entangled – with the argument.

  - An author may be more focused on persuading the audience by means more foul than fair, i.e., by relying on various rhetorical tricks rather than clear display of logical reasoning.

  - Due largely to the distinctive structure of complex arguments, there is an inherent tension between presenting an argument clearly and producing natural, flowing, enjoyable prose.

Top Down Approach                                                                                                                                  

Given the challenges involved, it helps to take a careful, systematic approach to argument identification. One systematic approach is ‘top down’. First, try to establish the main contention, i.e., the main issue being argued or disputed. Second, identify in the prose, and state clearly, the reasons or objections bearing directly upon it. Third, identify the reasons or objections bearing upon those, repeating as necessary.

Bottom Up or Jigsaw Approach

Alternatively, you can proceed in the other direction, i.e., first identifying in the prose all the claims which appear to be part of the argument, and then trying to piece them together into a larger structure. This is like doing a jigsaw, where two pieces ‘fit’ if one belongs to a reason for the other.

Note, however, that some pieces may not belong to the jigsaw at all, and many pieces of the jigsaw are missing, since authors generally do not state many of the claims which form parts of their arguments.

See also: Topic Argument