Argument is a way of defining and proving oneself. If we are what we believe in, then trying to transmit our point of view means that we are transmitting an image of who we are. “Transmitting” involves a message emitted from a speaker or a writer, to an audience. In order to reach the audience, that message exists within an argument. For that, we need to constantly present supported speech or writing. An interesting idea that I have read was that premises needed to constantly follow one after another, to the extent that they can be true only if the conclusion was true1 instead of the common reasoning that the conclusion was to be true only if the premises were true. That was meant to assure that the links in the argument give it its merited value: the audience can then be persuaded much easily.
Like a scientist in need of specific questions for his working hypothesis, we feel the urge to point out some types or argument: deductive, inductive and hypothetico-deductive (abductive)2. The first type to consists of a validation of a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The second, as mentioned in the source, occurs when an observed pattern induces a generalization. The last type would consist of a fact, followed by a related hypothesis about the fact, which leads to a validation of that hypothesis. In that way, since the last two types involve generalizations that contradict the concept of supported evidence for a valid argument, I think deduction would be the most efficient type of argument. I recall “To Kill a Mocking bird”, an old American movie, that involves a scene of a trial, illustrating conveniently the need for facts in order to assure what we claim. It shows both, an example of deduction as well as how we can prove ourselves by argument. This illustrating example occurs in a field where argument is the core: law. Atticus Finch, a lawyer, urges witnesses as well as solid evidence for the abuse of a white girl, Mayella Ewell, by Tom Robinson, a black farmer3. Atticus Finch stood up for his belief supported by critical reasoning, that Tom Robinson was innocent. Hence, we are what we believe in, what we argue. How we act equally induces who we are and what we believe in. Traffic, which is a major problem in Cairo, is mostly a result of misconduct of the citizens. We daily observe drivers going in any direction anytime; that is what I observe that generates our prison of traffic; those drivers’ conduct define them. They think they are right and their actions are the ultimate evidence for their argument. Indeed, we can say there is argument whenever what you do or say enables others to learn about your perspectives. Whenever there is “for” or “against”, or “I think”, there is argument, that shapes who we truly are.