(upbeat music)
- In conversations with colleagues,
or scroll through social media,
you find no shortage of statements about what's true
or what you should believe.
We all make claims, maybe even with evidence
to back them up.
But are these claims built on a solid foundation
with no cracks?
And if there are cracks, can you find them?
A good argument is deliberately constructed
from a solid foundation.
They aren't built with funny comebacks or louder voices.
Solid foundations are built with claims that are supported
by reasons that are glued together by evidence.
Consider my coworker clients who took different positions
on how to deal with their massive growth.
Ranjeet argued for staying in their current space
and instituting a distributed workforce.
While Eric argued for moving into a larger space.
Ranjeet's claim: It's best to provide
a distributed work option.
Eric's claim: It's best to keep all the employees together.
Since these claims are statements that support the argument,
they should be arguable.
Both Ranjeet and Eric's claims were arguable.
But if Eric had said, "I don't like working from home,"
or Ranjeet had said, "I know lots of people
who like working from home,"
these wouldn't have been arguable claims
because they don't allow people to disagree.
Personal opinions aren't sturdy building blocks
for a good argument.
Reasons follow the word because,
and provide support for claims.
Ranjeet argued that keeping the existing space
and offering a distributed work option is better
because it gives employees more choices.
When Ranjeet asked Eric why he supported moving
into a larger space, Eric's reason was,
because physical togetherness creates a sense of family
that's part of the company's commitment to our employees.
But had Eric asked Ranjeet why he's afraid of taking
a chance on a larger space, that would have been
an example of a bad argument tactic, a logical fallacy.
Beware of replacing an actual claim
with a distorted version of it.
Ranjeet never claimed he was afraid of taking a chance
on a larger space.
Had Ranjeet argued that Eric is too old to understand
what younger employees want,
that would have been an example of a bad argument,
another fallacy.
A good argument requires using good evidence
to support reasons.
Ranjeet provided data from a study indicating
that 87% of employees prefer to choose their work location.
Eric provided data from a study
that showed that location-based work environments
have higher retention and produce more innovative products.
Assuming both studies were reliable from unbiased sources
and using valid samples,
this evidence could be considered reliable data.
If Eric had offered that everyone he's talked to
supports getting a bigger space,
that wouldn't have been good evidence.
It's tempting to use your own experience as good evidence,
but more anecdotal evidence doesn't equal reliable data.
When Ranjeet offered support
for distributed workforces from a professor
who teaches optimizing organizational structure,
it was an appeal to authority evidence.
When Eric countered that a board member preferred
making the move to a bigger space, this was weaker evidence.
Evidence from someone who is an authority
is stronger than evidence from someone who has authority.
Construct good arguments from solid foundations
and you'll communicate conclusions that can be counted on
to guide wise decisions.
(upbeat music)