Causal Arguments
Lesson 5 - Master the Academic Essay
In lesson one, I introduced the thesis statement. The focus of lesson two was a philosophy of research. In lesson three, I addressed to fundamental methods for doing good research. In lesson four, we looked at arguments from definition.
In lesson five, we’ll continue building our case by establishing causal arguments.
Keep in mind, we are seeking arguments that support our thesis—our main argument—the spine of our paper.
In classical rhetoric, we discover what can be said about a text, a character, an incident, or a phenomenon by way of stasis theory or topics of invention. For our purposes, there’s little need to emphasize the differences between stasis theory and topics of invention, but the distinction can be helpful in carrying out quality research.
Drawing from classical rhetoric, stasis theory is technically diagnostic (i.e., What are we arguing about or what is our point of disagreement?). Topics of invention, on the other hand, are generative. They help us discover what we can actually say about our subject.
Stasis Theory consists of:
Conjectural questions (i.e., did something happen?): Where is the evidence? Who are the witnesses? What is the likelihood: Is it possible? Is it probable? Is it likely? Is it certain?
Definition questions (i.e., what is it? / what is the problem?): What is its nature, genus, species, and/or properties? What is not included in the boundaries of its definitions?
Qualitative questions (i.e., what kind of thing is it? / how serious is the issue?): is it good/evil? is it just/unjust? is it expedient/inexpedient?
Jurisdictional or policy questions (Is this the right one?) Is this the right court? Is this the right person? Should action be taken? What should be done to solve the problem?
Following Cicero, who codified Aristotle’s common places or topics, there are five topics of invention: definition, comparison, relationship, circumstance, and testimony. In his book, The Office of Assertion, Scott Crider lays out the topics of invention as follows:
What is the definition of X? What are its characteristics, both general and specific.
What is the difference between X and Y? How are they different, and how are they alike, and to what degree?
What is the relationship between X and Y? cause and effect? antecedent and consequence? contraries or contradictions?
What are the circumstances of X? Is it impossible; is it improbable; is it probable; is it certain?
Is there any credible testimony that supports my argument? Is there an authority, a statistic, a law, a maxim, a precedent, or an example?
In terms of academic writing, we can supply supporting arguments for our thesis by using causal arguments. Causal arguments belong to the relational category of inquiry in the topics of invention. What caused the phenomenon in question or what effects did it have?
In Gregory Roper’s book, Mastering the Four Arguments, he classifies the causal relationship question as stasis theory rather than a topic of invention. I suppose such a distinction is of little importance given our purposes here and because the various aspects of rhetorical arguments have been classified and organized differently at different periods of history, but I mention it only because the purposes of the questions matter in relationship to where we are in our research and writing.
Are we still diagnosing an argument to discover where the disagreement lies? Or, are we attempting to generate arguments by discovering what can be said truthfully about the phenomenon under consideration? In any case, Roper lists the following eight causal arguments which can be helpful in discovering the arguments that best support our thesis during our research process.
Proximate causes are those causes that happen just before the event under consideration.
Remote causes are those causes that contributed further back in the chain of events.
A necessary cause “is a factor that must be present for the effect to take place.”
A sufficient cause “is one that is enough all by itself to make and effect happen.”
Precipitating causes “are the final steps that, when all the other factors are in place, kick off the actual results.”
Contributing causes are those causes that are neither necessary or sufficient all by themselves.
Hidden causes are those causes which are either unknown or not understood.
Reciprocal causes are the looped causes, those which lead back to another cause and then back to themselves again.
When considering arguments, it must be recognized that causal arguments function in the logos domain rather than the ethos or pathos domains of persuasion. Thus, the logic for cause and effect must be both sound and valid. Roper suggests that in order for a causal argument to work well in it’s persuasive function, it must:
Describe fully the phenomenon or event under consideration.
Then either: lead the reader to understand the chain of events that led to the phenomenon or event or lead the reader to understand the effects that came out of the phenomenon or event.
While also eliminating any false causes, those factors that may appear to be part of the chain of causality but were in fact not part of it.1
Given the complexity of causal arguments, consider trying your hand at answering the following question by developing a causal argument: What prevented Odysseus from returning to his home in Ithaca before Telemachus reached manhood?
Gregory Roper, Mastering the Four Arguments, 51.