3.11 Evaluating Reasoning and the Author's Authority and Appeal
Key Takeaways
- Evaluation of reasoning asks whether the conclusion follows from the premises, which is separate from whether the premises are true.
- Unstated assumptions carry most of the weight in a draft's argument, and naming them is the standard way to test the reasoning.
- An author's authority is established by relevant expertise, disclosed method, and fair treatment of opposing views, not by credentials alone.
- Relevant expertise means expertise in the matter at hand; a credential from an unrelated field is an appeal to false authority.
- Conceding a genuine counterargument strengthens an author's appeal, while ignoring an obvious objection weakens it even if the argument is otherwise sound.
3.11 Evaluating Reasoning and the Author's Authority and Appeal
The Revision outline names evaluation of reasoning and evaluation of author's authority and appeal as two separate sub-topics. Together they ask whether a draft's argument holds up as an argument, and whether the writer has earned the reader's trust.
Reasoning: Does the Conclusion Follow?
Evaluating reasoning is not the same as fact-checking. It asks a conditional question: if the premises were true, would the conclusion have to be?
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Valid | The conclusion follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true |
| Sound | Valid and all premises are actually true |
| Strong (inductive) | The premises make the conclusion probable, not certain |
A draft can be internally valid and still worthless because a premise is false; it can have impeccable facts and still fail because they do not connect.
The Missing Link
The most testable reasoning failure is the gap between what is shown and what is concluded.
"The district's reading scores rose the year after it adopted the new phonics curriculum. The curriculum works."
Between the premise and the conclusion sit at least three unstated assumptions: that nothing else changed that year, that the same students were tested, and that a one-year movement is not normal fluctuation. Naming them is the whole exercise.
Surfacing Unstated Assumptions
- Write the premise and the conclusion as two separate sentences.
- Ask what a reader would additionally have to believe to get from one to the other.
- Ask whether that belief is plausible and whether the draft ever defends it.
| Argument in the draft | Unstated assumption |
|---|---|
| "Attendance rose after the late-start policy, so students are sleeping more." | Attendance measures sleep |
| "The firm's competitors all outsource, so the firm must outsource to survive." | Survival depends on matching competitors' cost structure |
| "The bill passed unanimously, so it was well designed." | Unanimity tracks quality rather than political convenience |
An unstated assumption is not automatically an error. It is an error when it is doing load-bearing work and is not defensible. Revision items often ask which sentence, if added, would most strengthen the argument — the credited option is usually the one that defends the load-bearing assumption rather than the one that adds more of the same evidence.
Recurring Reasoning Failures in Drafts
- Correlation asserted as causation. Two things moved together; the draft says one produced the other.
- Circularity. The premise restates the conclusion. "The policy is unfair because it treats people unjustly."
- Composition and division. What is true of the parts is asserted of the whole, or the reverse. "Every course in the program is rigorous, so the program is rigorous" ignores sequencing and coherence.
- Equivocation. A key term shifts meaning mid-argument — "free" as in unpriced, then "free" as in unconstrained.
- Suppressed alternative. A cause is asserted while an obvious competing explanation goes unmentioned.
Authority: What Earns the Reader's Trust
Evaluation of the author's authority and appeal asks how a writer establishes standing and whether that standing is warranted. Three components:
| Component | What it looks like | What undermines it |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant expertise | Training, position, or documented experience in the matter at hand | A credential from an unrelated field |
| Disclosed method | Stating how the writer knows: sample, sources, time frame, limits | Conclusions with no visible basis |
| Demonstrated fairness | Accurate statement of opposing views, acknowledged limits, disclosed interests | Straw-manning opponents; hidden stakes |
The Relevance Requirement
A Nobel laureate in physics writing on monetary policy carries no more authority than any well-read layperson. The exam tests this directly: an option that credits a source because the author is "a distinguished scholar" without regard to field is an appeal to false authority.
Related patterns to distrust in a draft:
- Vague authority. "Experts say," "studies show," "it is widely agreed" — no one is named, so no one can be checked.
- Borrowed authority. Citing a prestigious institution's name for a claim its research does not make.
- Position mistaken for evidence. An official's title explains why the claim is newsworthy, not why it is true.
Fairness as a Source of Authority
Counterintuitively, conceding a real objection increases a writer's authority. A draft that acknowledges the strongest opposing evidence and explains why the conclusion survives it reads as more reliable than one that never admits difficulty.
Weakens authority: "Opponents simply want to protect their own budgets." Strengthens authority: "Opponents correctly note that the first two years of the program showed no measurable gain; the effect appears only after the third year, once teacher training is complete."
The second version states the opposing evidence accurately and answers it. On revision items about authority and appeal, the credited option is normally the one that engages the counterargument on its merits rather than the one that dismisses it or that adds emphasis.
Disclosure
A writer who discloses a stake — funding, employment, affiliation — is treated as more credible than one whose stake is discovered later. In a draft, a sentence acknowledging a limitation or an interest is a strengthening addition, not a weakening one, even though it admits something unfavorable.
A draft argues: 'Reading scores rose the year after the district adopted a new phonics curriculum, so the curriculum works.' Which addition would most strengthen the reasoning?
Which sentence in a draft would most increase the author's credibility on a contested policy question?
An argument runs: 'Every course in the honors program is individually rigorous, so the honors program as a whole is rigorous.' What reasoning failure does this exhibit?