Page 178 - Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd Ed

ANSWERS, DISCUSSION, AND FURTHER ADVICE 16 5

Exercise 5.4

a An argument to support this claim would have to address the meaning of the
word 'failed': Has communism failed communists or has it failed as a polit-
ical and economic system? Does it mean failed of its own accord or defeated
by the economic power of capitalism?
b The strongly descriptive nature of this claim probably means that using
authorities is better than using supporting reasoning for such a claim.
c Although the Australian political system could be used as evidence, such an
argument might not address the hidden implications that democracy here
refers to the daily lives of Australia's citizens (freedom, choice, individuality)
rather than the strict legal definition of the Australian political system.
d The extreme nature of this claim (relative to majority opinion) would suggest
the need for a strong supporting argument that might explain the benefits to
society (if any) of such a step.
e This is a descriptive claim; it would be better to leave it as self-evident in case
our readers become incensed that we feel the need to convince them of some-
thing so 'obvious'!
f We might recognise situations in which, even with a broken leg, immediate
medical treatment is impossible or inappropriate. Any argument would have
to take such considerations into account.
Note my advice that claims b and f do not require argument but, instead,
reference to authority. Deciding when not to reason directly for a claim is part
of the smart thinker's bag of tricks. Generally speaking, these six claims need to
be assessed, first of all, in relation to the events, situations, or decisions that they
represent. Such an assessment is the traditional objective judgment of truth: if
the 'objects' described or stated in the claim are truly represented, then the
claims are acceptable. But, it is not enough to assess in this manner when
thinking about communicating an argument or explanation. Reasoning is a
social act, which requires us to think about the contexts in which we might
provide arguments and explanations: what do others judge these claims to be?
We must reason in ways that take account of the knowledge and assumptions of
our audience, and also conform to the accepted conventions of the circum-
stances in which we are arguing or explaining. For example, an audience of
marijuana-smokers may well accept claim d without question; an audience of
young people who have 'always' had television in their lives might need the
support of some authority before accepting claim b; in an academic paper or
essay, claim e, obvious though it may be, would need to be given some explana-
tion and analysis; in a short discussion between paramedics at a motor vehicle
crash, claim f would probably be stated without the need for argument in its
favour. Finally, decisions about the extent to which we present claims as being
self-evident depend on our conclusions. In any argument or explanation, it is
the specific conclusion that can help us determine (given the inevitable limi-
tations on available time or space for reasoning) what we explain in more detail