Analysis

It is the backbone of every reasoned argument

Analysis is simply a process of separation No claim is believable without analysis A lack of analysis renders a claim an assertion Anyone can do it, few people do A lack of analysis is typical of poor reasoning

Take your conclusion: that’s where all arguments start

Think of an claim that supports (or disproves) your conclusion

Why is the claim true? Iteratively ask yourself ‘why?’. Why is what you’re saying true, use Reasoning, Evidence and Illustration to show the progressions of your argument.

Why is the claim relevant? Assuming your claim is true, why should we care?

To provide reasonable analysis you should answer two questions:

Conclusion

Series of Claims (C1, C2, C3…)

Why are the claims true?

Why are the claims relevant?

Conclusion: The Black Market for drugs is worse than their harms if legal

C1: The Black Market has harms (H1, H2, H3…)

eg. H1 = Drug wars.

Drug wars occur because illegal supply of drugs has to come from a criminal gangs. Areas to supply to (territory) is valuable to various gangs, therefore

gangs fight for it.

Drug wars kill more people and use more policing resources than would be

otherwise if drugs were legal.

You’ll need a weight of arguments

You’ll have to compare those arguments to competing counter arguments

Why? Argument: Prisoners have issues that affect them too and should be considered Like what? Prison overcrowding and abuse by wardens are key issues that are understood almost solely by prisoners, and hence are not heard. SO WHAT? Democracies should accommodate all people with a stake in that society.

This house would legalize all drugs

Line: it would save lives

Claim 1: Drug takers die from

complications in consumption

Analysis: Drugs are also

sometimes spiked with lethal substance

Soln: Regulate drugs by ensuring purity of

supply (labelling, etc.)

Line:

Because: Maintaining life is of the

utmost priority Because:

all other rights depend upon it

Not True Worse than Alternative Not relevant

Explain why your arguments are more important to the claim. Or why yours outweigh the counter-arguments, even if they’re true. Or go negative, why are their arguments not important or insignificant or false?

Counter Argument: “Drugs should be banned because they’re addictive and stop people being able to make positive life choices” Possible Response: “That argument ignores the fact that if you’re not alive you can’t make any life choices, if they’re argument is over life choices, the argument falls to our side of the claim. Legalising drugs saves lives and gives people a chance to turn their lives around before they are cut short ”

It’s nearly impossible to make an arguments that do not have a response. So it’s important that you remember to explain every part of your argument, so you can understand how it is being attacked, and respond appropriately. Substantial analysis makes it harder for the other side to dispute your claim (given time constraints). Explain well enough and your arguments will prove or disprove the claim, and you’ll (possibly) win.

Thanks!