Constructing Strong Arguments

The Proposal That Convinced Nobody

The data was solid. The analysis was thorough. The recommendation was sound. Yet the proposal was rejected. Why? Because the argument was structured as a data dump rather than a persuasive case. Evidence without structure isn’t an argument—it’s a spreadsheet.

By the end of this lesson, you’ll construct arguments that are logically valid, well-evidenced, and structured to persuade even skeptical audiences.

🔄 Quick Recall: In the previous lesson, we used decision frameworks like the weighted matrix and second-order thinking. Remember how frameworks externalize complex thinking? Arguments need the same treatment. Today we build frameworks for constructing arguments, not just evaluating them.

The Anatomy of a Strong Argument

Every argument has three components:

1. Claim: What you’re asserting is true. 2. Evidence: The facts, data, or reasoning that support the claim. 3. Warrant: The logical connection explaining WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Most weak arguments are missing the warrant—they present evidence and assume the audience will connect it to the claim. They won’t.

Weak: “We should invest in employee training. Companies that train employees have lower turnover.” Strong: “We should invest in employee training [claim]. Companies that invest in training see 34% lower turnover [evidence]. In our industry, each departed employee costs approximately $45,000 to replace, meaning a $50,000 training investment would save us an estimated $150,000 annually in retention costs alone [warrant].”

I want to argue that [your claim].

Help me build a complete argument:
1. STATE THE CLAIM precisely
2. PROVIDE EVIDENCE (3 pieces, ranked by strength)
3. CONNECT each piece of evidence to the claim
   with an explicit warrant
4. IDENTIFY ASSUMPTIONS I'm making
5. ADDRESS the top 2 counterarguments
6. STATE THE CONCLUSION clearly

✅ Quick Check: Take this claim: “Remote work improves productivity.” What evidence would you need? What warrant connects that evidence to the claim?

The Steel Man Technique

A “straw man” weakens the opponent’s argument to attack it easily. A “steel man” does the opposite: you present the strongest possible version of the opposing view, then respond to that.

Why steel-man?

It builds credibility—you’ve clearly thought about alternatives
It disarms opponents who were ready to present those arguments
It leads to better conclusions because you’ve genuinely considered the best counter-evidence
It earns intellectual respect from your audience

My position is [your argument].
The opposing view is [the counter-position].

Steel-man the opposition:
1. Present the STRONGEST version of their argument
   (better than they'd present it themselves)
2. Identify what's genuinely valid in their position
3. Show where my argument still holds despite their
   strongest points
4. Acknowledge any areas where my position should
   be modified based on their valid concerns

Argument Structures

Structure 1: Classical (Claim-Evidence-Warrant)

Best for: Formal proposals, research presentations, written arguments.

State your claim
Present evidence (strongest first)
Explain the warrant for each piece of evidence
Address counterarguments
Restate your conclusion

Structure 2: Problem-Cause-Solution

Best for: Persuading someone to take action.

Describe the problem (make it vivid and relatable)
Identify the root cause (not just symptoms)
Propose your solution
Show evidence the solution addresses the cause
Call to action

Structure 3: Rogerian (Common Ground)

Best for: Persuading hostile or skeptical audiences.

State the opposing view fairly and accurately
Acknowledge what’s valid in their position
State your view
Show where the two views overlap (common ground)
Propose a synthesis that incorporates the best of both

✅ Quick Check: You need to convince a skeptical boss to approve a new project. Which argument structure would work best? Why?

Common Argument Weaknesses (And Fixes)

Weakness	Example	Fix
No warrant	“Sales are up. We should expand.”	Add WHY sales growth justifies expansion
Weak evidence	“I feel like this would work.”	Replace feelings with data
Ignored counterarguments	Complete silence on objections	Steel-man and address them
Hidden assumptions	“Customers will adopt this quickly.”	Make assumptions explicit and justify them
Overstated conclusion	“This will definitely solve the problem.”	Qualify appropriately: “likely” or “based on evidence”

The Argument Stress Test

Before presenting any argument, stress-test it with AI:

Here's my argument:
[paste your complete argument]

Stress test it:
1. Identify every assumption I'm making
   (stated and unstated)
2. Find the weakest link in my reasoning
3. Present the strongest possible counterargument
4. Check for any logical fallacies
5. Rate the overall strength (1-10) and suggest
   the single most impactful improvement

Building Arguments Layer by Layer

For complex topics, build your argument in layers:

Layer 1: The foundation. What facts are undisputed? Start here to establish common ground.

Layer 2: The interpretation. What do these facts mean? This is where reasonable people may disagree—acknowledge that.

Layer 3: The conclusion. Based on your interpretation, what should happen? This should feel like an inevitable conclusion if layers 1 and 2 are accepted.

Layer 4: The action. What specifically should the audience do? Be concrete.

Try It Yourself

Choose a position you hold on any topic. Build a complete argument using the classical structure:

State your claim in one sentence
Provide three pieces of supporting evidence
Write the warrant connecting each piece of evidence to your claim
Steel-man the strongest counterargument and respond to it
Stress-test the entire argument with AI

Did the stress test reveal any weaknesses? Revise and re-test until your argument is solid.

Key Takeaways

Strong arguments have three components: claim, evidence, and warrant (the logical connection)
Most weak arguments fail because they omit the warrant—they assume the evidence speaks for itself
Steel-manning (presenting the strongest counter-position) builds credibility and leads to better conclusions
Three structures suit different situations: classical for formal settings, problem-cause-solution for action, Rogerian for skeptical audiences
Always stress-test arguments before presenting them—AI finds weaknesses faster than your own brain
Making assumptions explicit and qualifying conclusions appropriately prevents overstatement

Up Next

In Lesson 8: Capstone: Analyze a Real-World Claim, you’ll apply every critical thinking tool from this course to evaluate and respond to a complex, real-world claim.