2.4 Analyzing Arguments and Author's Craft

Structure of an Argument on the SHSAT

Many informational passages on the SHSAT are persuasive, meaning the author is attempting to convince the reader of a particular point of view. To analyze these passages effectively, you must understand how arguments are structured. An argument is built from three main components: the central claim, supporting claims, and evidence.

• Central Claim (Thesis): The main argument the author is making. It represents the primary purpose of the passage. Every paragraph in the text should work directly or indirectly to support this claim.
• Supporting Claims: Smaller, specific points that break down the central claim into manageable arguments. These are often introduced at the beginning of individual paragraphs as topic sentences.
• Evidence: The factual material used to back up the supporting claims. Without evidence, a claim is simply an opinion.

To analyze an argument, you must trace the connection between these levels. Ask yourself: How does this specific piece of evidence support this paragraph's claim, and how does that claim support the author's overall thesis?

---

Evaluating Evidence and Counterclaims

Not all arguments are created equal. The SHSAT will often ask you to evaluate the strength of an author's argument by examining the quality and relevance of their evidence.

Types of Evidence

1. Empirical Evidence: Scientific data, statistics, measurements, and research studies. This is the strongest type of evidence because it is objective and verifiable.
2. Anecdotal Evidence: Personal stories, individual experiences, or observations. While engaging, anecdotal evidence is weaker because it may represent an isolated incident rather than a widespread trend.
3. Logical Reasoning: Using deductions, analogies, and cause-and-effect relationships to prove a point.

Assessing Evidence Strength

When evaluating evidence, consider its sufficiency (is there enough evidence to support the claim?) and relevance (does the evidence directly connect to the claim being made?). A common flaw in weak arguments is a logical gap, where the evidence provided does not actually prove the claim it is attached to.

The Role of Counterclaims

Strong writers do not ignore opposing viewpoints. Instead, they address counterclaims (the arguments of those who disagree) and immediately refute them with evidence. This process, known as concession and refutation, strengthens the author's argument by demonstrating that they have considered multiple sides of the issue.

---

Common Logical Fallacies in Arguments

When analyzing arguments, you must also be alert to flaws in reasoning. These are known as logical fallacies:

• Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on a very small sample size of evidence.
• Circular Reasoning: Restating the claim in different words rather than proving it with actual evidence.
• Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute.

---

Author's Craft and Rhetorical Devices

Author's craft refers to the deliberate choices a writer makes to convey meaning, persuade the reader, or create a specific style. Rhetorical devices are tools within author's craft that help achieve these goals.

• Rhetorical Questions: A question asked for effect, where the answer is implied or immediately answered by the author. Rhetorical questions engage the reader and lead them to a specific conclusion.
• Repetition and Parallelism: Repeating key words, phrases, or grammatical structures. Parallelism (e.g., "of the people, by the people, for the people") creates rhythm, balance, and emphasizes key points.
• Analogy: An extended comparison between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. Authors use analogies to explain complex, abstract, or scientific concepts by comparing them to simple, familiar processes.

Rhetorical Appeals

Writers use three primary modes of persuasion, originally defined by Aristotle:

• Logos (Logical Appeal): Appealing to the reader's intellect through facts, logic, statistics, and sound reasoning. For example: citing studies on emissions reductions to support public transit funding.
• Pathos (Emotional Appeal): Appealing to the reader's emotions (fear, sympathy, pride, anger). For example: describing a family losing their home due to climate change.
• Ethos (Ethical Appeal): Establishing the author's credibility, character, and authority on the subject. For example: highlighting the author's twenty years of experience as an urban planning professor.

---

Comparing Two Texts (Paired Passages)

The SHSAT occasionally includes paired passages—two separate texts written by different authors on the same topic. Comparing these texts requires a high level of synthesis.

Comparative Strategy

1. Analyze Passage 1 Independently: Identify its main idea, tone, and supporting evidence before looking at Passage 2.
2. Analyze Passage 2 Independently: Follow the same process, noting its central argument and tone.
3. Identify Points of Intersection: Determine where the two passages overlap. What topic, event, or figure do they both discuss?
4. Analyze Agreements and Disagreements: Do the authors share the same perspective, or do they conflict? For example, Passage 1 might argue that solar energy is the most viable power source for the future, while Passage 2 might argue that nuclear energy is superior, citing solar energy's land-use drawbacks.
5. Evaluate Tone and Style: Compare how the authors present their arguments. Is one author objective and scientific while the other is emotional and urgent?

---

SHSAT Argument Analysis Traps

• The Unsupported Claim Trap: This choice states a claim that sounds logical or true in the real world, but it is incorrect because the author does not actually provide evidence for it in the text.
• The Extreme Position Trap: This option mischaracterizes the author's argument by using absolute language (e.g., claiming the author wants to "ban all cars" when the author only advocated for "increased public transit funding").
• The Confused Source Trap: In paired passages, this choice attributes an argument, statistic, or tone to the wrong passage (e.g., stating that Passage 2 contains a particular statistic when it was actually in Passage 1).