.
An opinion in an argument may be supported with “simple” or “complex” evidence, each signalled by particular language
CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITTEN ARGUMENT
Argument is common in professional writing. Students, for example, need it to answer “analytic” essay questions (see 94. Essay Instruction Words), while business executives might use it to request funding for a project.
Written argument has two essential components: a “main” point whose truth is debatable – i.e. an opinion – and at least one fairly factual supporting statement to give the opinion some credibility. If the second of these is absent, leaving just the opinion, there is no argument, and a likelihood in serious writing of losing the reader’s interest and respect. If the truth of the main point is not debatable – i.e. is a fact – then it and the supporting information form an explanation rather than an argument.
Language associated with the opinion part of an argument is considered in depth elsewhere within these pages in 107. The Language of Opinions. Here I wish to concentrate on the language that can link opinions with their supporting statement(s). The variations are quite numerous because English allows the opinion in an argument to be placed at either the beginning or the end (see 222. Information Orders in Texts, #4).
There are at least three main types of support for an opinion: simple evidence, complex evidence, and criticism of opposing evidence. The first two are the topic of the present post, while the last is considered separately in the next (168. Ways of Arguing 2).
.
SIMPLE EVIDENCE
This term is my own for one or more supporting points that are simply stated rather than explained or discussed in any way. In the following example, the opinion comes first and is supported by two separate points:
(a) The Government should invest in solar energy. It does not harm the environment. It is relatively cheap to produce.
Both of the supporting points here are presented as the writer’s own thinking. However, other people’s points can easily be used too, provided the people’s names are given in a suitable manner alongside them (see 76. Tenses of Citation Verbs). A useful means of linking such naming with the relevant point, indicating agreement with it, is the word as, e.g. As Williams (2019) points out, … (see “Role of as” in 183. Statements between Commas).
Most of the language that can link simple evidence with an opinion comprises conjunctions, connectors and synonyms of connectors. Conjunctions enable the number of separate sentences to be reduced. Connectors and their synonyms keep the different statements separate, but express their logical relationships very precisely (see 40. Conjunctions versus Connectors).
When simple evidence follows the opinion being supported, as in (a), wording linking the two is not compulsory, but if present it must express the idea of “reason”. Possible conjunctions – replacing the first full stop in (a) – include because, for, given that, seeing that and since (see 306. Ways of Giving a Reason, #1). Since suggests a more logical reason-consequence relationship (see 61. “Since” versus “Because”).
Consequence connectors that could replace a conjunction – following rather than cancelling the first full stop – include this is because…, for one thing…, the reason is (that)… and it is not just (that)…. For one thing implies multiple reasons, which may or may not all be mentioned. The last two expressions can, without that, introduce a reason lacking a verb. It is not just (that) is mostly used when the preceding opinion is a complaint and the accompanying reason less the main point than another one following after (see 228. Exotic Grammar Structures 5, #2).
One other way of introducing simple evidence in a new sentence after the opinion is with one reason is…. This too implies that a later sentence will name a further reason (see 263. Uses of “One” and “Ones”, #4).
With a new supporting point after the first, addition-signalling language is usually compulsory. Without it, only the first supporting point will be understood as the evidence. The only exception to this requirement is after an earlier it is not just…, where no special introduction to the next sentence is possible.
One simple signaller of a new supporting point is the conjunction and (in the same sentence as the first point). Another is an addition-showing connector (in a new sentence) – typically also, moreover, furthermore or in addition. After an earlier one reason is, further evidence can be signalled in a new sentence with another or a second or a further.
When simple evidence goes before rather than after an opinion, a slightly different set of optional link words exists. Consider this:
(b) Solar energy does not harm the environment. It is relatively cheap to produce. The Government should invest in it.
Once again, the evidence can be marked as a reason for the opinion by means of reason-showing words. The conjunctions since, because, given that and seeing that (but not for) remain possible at the start of the evidence – now at the very beginning of the argument (see 25. Conjunction Positioning). One other possibility, suggesting uncertainty about the truth of the evidence, is if, meaning “if it is true that” (see 179. Deeper Meanings of “if”). Another, suggesting reluctantly-accepted factuality, is granted that (see 230. Multi-Word Conjunctions, #1).
Whichever conjunction starts, and must be added later on (not a connector), between the two supporting points. As a result, the whole argument will occupy a single sentence.
Alternatively, instead of a starting since conjunction, so can be added later on, after the two supporting points, again with and between them so that everything becomes a single sentence. So suggests the same logicality as since (see 32. Expressing Consequences).
No connector can be used at the very start in place of the since conjunctions, as connectors link back to earlier statements, not forward to later ones. However, since conjunctions can be replaced by a later connector which means the same as so and goes in the same place – at the start of the opinion – but with a full stop not a comma before. Connectors of this kind include consequently, hence, therefore and thus:
(c) Solar energy is not harmful to the environment. (Moreover,) it is relatively cheap to produce. Therefore, the Government should invest in it.
Using connectors like therefore instead of a conjunction allows a choice of link words between the supporting points (after environment). As well as the conjunction and, the connectors moreover, furthermore and in addition are all possible without being necessary.
.
COMPLEX EVIDENCE
This is my own term for supporting information that comprises more than one factual statement but only one supporting point. Again, it may go before or after the opinion. Here is an example of it placed after:
(d) Coal should not be used as an energy source. It produces carbon dioxide. This gas contributes to global warming.
In this case, the second sentence of complex evidence, rather than giving a second reason for the validity of the opinion, helps to explain the first one.
Like simple evidence, the complex kind can be linked to its supporting information in numerous different ways. With the opinion at the start, the conjunctions since, because and given that are again options between it and following evidence, as are the connectors this is because and the reason is that. However, with all of these the second evidence statement, unlike with simple evidence, can always remain a separate sentence, as it is in (d) – there is a free choice about whether or not to add and. This is a consequence of the second evidence sentence not being a new supporting point.
An occasional alternative way of combining the two sentences of complex evidence into one when the opinion comes first seems to be with the relative pronoun which (with a preceding comma): in (d) this can usefully replace the repetitious this gas. On the other hand, no connectors seem possible. Moreover and its synonyms signal a new supporting point, not a continuation of an old one.
If complex evidence is placed before an opinion, the argument might look like this:
(e) Coal produces carbon dioxide. This gas contributes to global warming. Other energy sources should be used.
The conjunction options for linking the evidence with the opinion here are similar to those when simple evidence precedes an opinion. There can be a since conjunction at the very start or so before the opinion. The former again needs and (or which) between the two evidence statements (otherwise the second evidence sentence will be understood as the opinion!), so that everything is in a single sentence. However, the use of so makes an earlier and optional: there can be one or two sentences overall.
If is not normally possible at the start of arguments like (e). The reason is that the second evidence sentence (This gas …) – necessarily linked to if by and – will usually express a fact rather than the uncertain point that if suggests.
Connector alternatives to the possible conjunctions are again consequence ones in the final (opinion) sentence: consequently, hence, therefore and thus. These are the only connector options in arguments like (e): the two evidence sentences, like those in (d), cannot have a connector between them.
The third type of support for an opinion is criticism of opposing evidence. This is different from simple and complex evidence in that it brings in points made by other people which go against the writer’s own opinion. It is considered in detail in the next post.
guinlist 