The most common approaches to teaching argument are formal. That is, they see arguments as formal systems or structures that must have certain features if they are to be complete or effective. The formal approach most familiar to contemporary readers is probably the one Stephen Toulmin presents in "The Uses of Argument." Toulmin analyzes arguments (concentrating on legal arguments) and concludes that effective arguments contain what he calls a claim (a proposition about fact, value, or policy), support for that claim in the form of evidence, and a warrant, which connects the support with the claim.

The difficulty with formal approaches to argument is primarily the uses people make of them. It is far too easy to turn a thoughtful, philosophical analysis into a prescription. Thus, Toulmin's analysis of how arguments work has become, in too many cases, a prescription for how to construct arguments. It is far too easy to present these prescriptions to students and to imply, or state directly, that effective arguments result from filling in the blanks or spaces in a formula dictated by an analysis. Doing so has two consequences that may not be entirely positive. The first is to say that writers can place features (words, phrases, etc.) in texts that directly affect readers as a stimulus calls forth a response. The other is to (too often) locate the efficacy of an argument in the formal features of the text (i.e., to judge an argument by the presence or absence of a specific type of claim, a warrant, or support). An inexperienced student writer can be forgiven for assuming that writing an argument consists of little more than filling in a pre-established pattern or formula.

While I do not wish to discount Toulmin's analysis of argument (or anyone else's for that matter), I want to propose an approach to teaching argument that places less than the usual emphasis on the formal features of a finished argument, and instead focuses on the processes of critical thinking and analysis that brings that finished product into existence. The result of this shift--from formal features to critical thinking--is to locate the efficacy of the argument in the writer's ability to take and support a position, to recognize other positions, to construct and support alternative positions, to examine a great variety of information and evidence, and to develop criteria for choosing among a variety of positions that seem equally plausible. One expression of these skills is the body of knowledge and procedure identified in recent years that we have come to call Critical Thinking. Thus, in addition to argument, the other important dimension to this text is critical thinking.

Critical thinking cannot be taught all at once, and there is no special formula for teaching it. It is, by all accounts, developmental. The standard accounts of critical thinking (Perry, Kurfiss) indicate that critical thinking abilities develop through identifiable and sequential stages or positions. These are roughly as follows (See Kurfiss for a complete treatment of this sequence):

DUALISM: This position is typical of college freshmen. Typical dualists believe in a fixed or single truth that is available to all. When they are asked to choose between two or more alternatives, they are likely to do so on the basis of their belief that a particular position is right or wrong. Dualists do not admit uncertainty, and they believe that authorities (teachers, texts, etc.) have the answers.

MULTIPLICITY: Students in this position recognize that there are multiple views, and that it is not possible to be certain which are right. Since there is no way (they believe) to compare or evaluate alternatives, all are equally valid.

RELATIVISM: Thinkers in this position recognize that most questions and issues are complex and uncertain. They compare and evaluate competing positions, but they may not know how to choose among equally plausible and convincing alternatives.

COMMITMENT TO RELATIVISM: Thinkers in this position use values to choose among available alternatives.