What Are Arguments of Fact?

Writing arguments about facts is an important part of academic persuasive writing. This may seem contradictory at first – how can you argue about facts? The key is that facts and claims of fact are slightly different.

When making an argument of fact, you are arguing for a particular assertion about reality that is not already widely believed or accepted.

Claims of fact are statements about what was, what is, or what will be – concerning the past, present or future. However, they are distinct from facts because facts are generally accepted. They may be accepted because we already have a lot of evidence to support them, and/or because they are easily empirically verifiable – that is, we can directly observe them to be true. In contrast, claims of fact are neither generally accepted nor easily empirically verifiable. However, even if they can’t be 100% proven true, you can support these claims with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. (Of course, what constitutes a generally accepted fact may depend somewhat on your audience. For academic writing, the broad academic audience is the benchmark, not fringe groups that reject empirical evidence.)

Some examples help illustrate the distinction between facts and claims of fact:

Generally Accepted Fact: The 2008 financial crisis led to a major recession in many countries.
Claim of Fact: Deregulation of the financial industry and lack of oversight on mortgage lending practices were primary causes of the 2008 financial crisis.

Generally Accepted Fact: Vitamins are essential nutrients required in small amounts for human health.
Claim of Fact: High doses of supplemental vitamin C help prevent colds and flu.

Empirically Verifiable Fact: Students’ reading scores have decreased in the last few years.
Claim of Fact: The disruptions to education during the pandemic caused students’ reading scores to decrease.

In each case, the “factual claim” is an assertion about reality that is still open to debate, yet you can find some reputable evidence and make logical arguments to support it.

Common Types of Arguments of Fact

Arguments of Definition

A significant number of legal and policy debates revolve around questions of fact. Tax laws represent a major area where we frequently encounter such issues.  For instance, the question of whether Scientology should be classified as a business or a religion has profound implications for its tax-exempt status. Ostensibly an inquiry about objective reality, it defies straightforward empirical resolution. We must carefully examine the evidence through the lens of our legal definitions of “business” and “religion,” assessing which characterization best aligns with observable facts about Scientology.

Consider how important and influential arguments about definitions can be:

• Immigration law – Defining key concepts like “refugee,” “asylum seeker,” and “temporary protected status,” has major implications for who qualifies for various immigration benefits and protections.
• Intellectual property – Patent, trademark, and copyright laws hinge on precise definitions of terms like “fair use.”
• Environmental regulations – Determining what qualifies as “waters of the United States,” “wetlands,” and “endangered species” under environmental statutes impacts jurisdiction and requirements.
• Healthcare policy – Definitions around “medically necessary,” “experimental treatment,” and “disability” affect insurance coverage decisions.
• Employment law – Interpretations of “employee” vs “independent contractor” as well as concepts like “hostile work environment” have major workplace ramifications.
• Free speech jurisprudence – Definitions of “incitement,” “true threat,” or “obscenity” mark the boundaries of First Amendment protections.
• Antitrust/competition policy – Concepts like “monopoly power,” “consumer harm,” and “relevant market” require careful delineation.
• Ethics policies – Defining “conflict of interest,” “whistleblower,” and “research misconduct” governs ethical oversight.

Many arguments in these fields revolve around who or what, exactly, is included or excluded from particular definitions.

Scientific Arguments

Many scientific inquiries grapple with questions rooted in empirical fact. For instance, the debate over whether IQ tests accurately measure intelligence has persisted for decades. While the widely accepted consensus at present is that IQ tests do not provide a comprehensive measure of the multifaceted concept of intelligence, there remains some ongoing dispute and nuance around this issue.

A more popular example arises when contemplating the likelihood of discovering extraterrestrial life. This is a factual scientific question, yet one that admits a range of potential answers based on differing assumptions and perspectives. One view could be that given the vast expanse of the universe, we are extremely likely to eventually encounter other life forms. An opposing stance might deem it highly improbable that we will ever make such a monumental discovery, asserting that life may be extremely rare or even unique to Earth.

Here are some other common areas of argument in both natural and social sciences:

• Efficacy of Medical Treatments – For any given medical condition or treatment, scientific debates often weigh evidence from clinical trials, observational studies, and mechanistic research to determine how effective the treatment truly is and whether potential side effects outweigh benefits.
• Diet & Nutrition – Scientists argue over the role different nutrients, such as fats, carbs, proteins, and vitamins, play in healthy diets based on interpreting contradictory studies and determining relevance of data from animal models versus human trials.
• Nature vs. Nurture – Many fields, like psychology and genetics, have long-running arguments about the relative importance of innate biological factors versus environmental influences in shaping human traits, behavior, and mental development.
• Origins of the Universe – Cosmologists argue over different theories, like the Big Bang, steady state, or multiverse, to explain the origins and evolution of the observable universe based on available evidence.
• Environmental Impacts of Technologies – Scientists argue over potential ecological risks and life cycle analyses of new technologies, like nanotech, geoengineering, fracking, or GMOs, based on modeling their environmental effects.
• Sources of Social Inequality – Researchers argue over the relative importance of factors like economic systems, discrimination, culture, family structure, etc. in perpetuating wealth gaps and social inequalities.
• Criminal Justice Reform – Social scientists debate the effectiveness of different policies, like stricter sentencing, rehabilitation programs, and addressing root causes, in reducing crime rates based on empirical data.

These are only a few examples, but they illustrate how even straightforward scientific questions often elude simple, unequivocal answers. The process of investigating such issues requires carefully weighing accumulated evidence while entertaining multiple hypotheses. The richness of the scientific endeavor lies in an openness to continually refine our understanding as new data emerges.

Arguments of Interpretation

Literary analysis and questions of interpretation also frequently constitute arguments grounded in factual evidence. When analyzing a work’s meaning or evaluating differing interpretations, one is fundamentally making claims about observable reality within the text itself.

While determining whether a TV show is “good” or “bad” inherently involves subjective value judgments, examining the show’s underlying themes, messages, and potential impacts is an exercise in factual argumentation. Asserting that a show perpetuates certain societal biases or promotes particular ideological viewpoints requires citing specific examples, dialogue, plot points, and character arcs as empirical proof. Similarly, claims about the overarching lessons or significance a literary work conveys must be substantiated through careful textual analysis and marshaling of evidence from the source material.

Thus, the process of deconstructing and interpreting the meanings of creative works enters the factual realm of logically evaluating evidence to make defensible claims. The fields of literary criticism, anthropology, philosophy and others are replete with reasoned arguments over subjective experiences and abstract concepts, grounded in observable data. This underscores that factual arguments are not the purview of only the STEM disciplines, but exist in areas of academic discourse across the liberal arts, as well.

Here are some examples:

• Interpreting symbolism – Critics in arts and literature create arguments about the symbolic meanings of key objects, characters, or events.
• Identifying themes – Critics in arts and literature also argue about the themes (lessons) that a particular work may be intended to convey.
• Analyzing or applying meaning – Philosophers and critics argue about what exactly is meant by a particular text and/or how those ideas can be used. Many of these questions involve applying a particular theoretical framework or lens to a text.

Applying Toulmin to Arguments of Fact

Identifying Reasons and Grounds

In an argument of fact, the reasons and grounds overlap and blur together. (This phenomenon actually lines up with how Toulmin originally presented his framework, and unsurprisingly, he was initially focused on arguments of fact.)

Fortunately, with arguments of fact, it’s not that important to be able to make that distinction, so if you find that you struggle a bit to distinguish between reasons and grounds, don’t worry about it. However, you may note when you’re writing out your enthymemes for factual arguments that instead of using the word “because” to connect a claim and reason, you might find that it makes more sense grammatically to say, “and we know this because.” I find that doing it that way often makes the rest of the Toulmin framework a bit easier to apply.

In arguments of fact, your reasons and grounds will primarily consist of empirical evidence and possibly testimony. When you use empirical evidence, your warrants will be substantive warrants. These are assumptions about what empirical evidence means. When you use testimony, your warrants will be authoritative warrants. These are assumptions about who can or should be trusted.

Empirical Evidence: Reasons, Grounds, Substantive Warrants, and Backing

Empirical evidence comes from our senses – observations, studies, and experiments, whether conducted by ourselves or others. This kind of evidence is probably the kind that is most familiar to you.

Let’s look at an example. Imagine that I am a prosecutor, and I am trying to convict a woman named Martha of hitting a man named George with a golf club. One of my pieces of evidence is Martha’s fingerprints on the golf club. As I’m planning my argument to present to the jury, I could outline it like so:

Claim: Martha hit George with the golf club.
Reason: I know this because Martha’s fingerprints were found on the golf club.
Grounds (How do I know the reason is true?): The specific evidence that Martha’s prints were indeed on the golf club, such as forensic reports or photographs.
Warrant: Someone’s fingerprints on the golf club is a sign that they used it to hit George.
Backing (How do I know the warrant is true?): My explanation of why fingerprints on the weapon are indicative of guilt. This backing could review what we know about how fingerprints are transferred, how they can smudge over time, and so on to justify this connection between evidence and conclusion

However, I must also consider potential rebuttals. I need to be prepared for what Martha’s defense attorney might say.

Rebuttal of Reason/Grounds: Were there any potential errors in the fingerprint analysis? In other words, is it possible that Martha’s fingerprints are not actually on the golf club?
Rebuttal of Warrant/Backing: Are there other reasons Martha’s fingerprints might be on the golf club besides her using it to hit George? In other words, could her fingerprints be on the golf club with a completely innocent explanation?

As the prosecutor, I need to consider how likely it is that the defense attorney will raise either or both of these objections, and be prepared for how I will respond to them.

Testimony: Reasons, Grounds, Authoritative Warrants, and Backing

The other main type of evidence that we have in arguments of fact is testimony, that is, someone else’s word or expert opinion.

Let’s imagine that I’m still the prosecutor, and I’m still trying to convict Martha, and now I have a witness named Roger.

Claim: Martha hit George with the golf club.
Reason: I know this because Roger says she did it.
Grounds (How do I know the reason is true?): The specific evidence that Roger says Martha did it. (Hopefully, we get Roger on the stand and hear it out of his own mouth. Second best might be a recording of Roger saying it. The farther we get from hearing it directly from Roger, the weaker these grounds become, and in fact, legally we probably wouldn’t be allowed to use it at all!)
Warrant: If Roger says it, it’s true.
Backing (How do I know the warrant is true?): My explanation of why we should believe Roger, including why he’s trustworthy, how he was in a good position to see what happened, etc.

Again, I must also consider potential rebuttals. I need to be prepared for what Martha’s defense attorney might say.

Rebuttal of Reason/Grounds: Is there any doubt that Roger actually pointed the finger at Martha? (If we got him on the stand, probably not. However, if we have recorded evidence or secondhand evidence, it may be possible that Roger has been misunderstood or taken out of context, and he didn’t actually say that Martha did it.)
Rebuttal of Warrant/Backing: Could Roger be mistaken or lying?

As the prosecutor, I need to consider how likely it is that the defense attorney will raise either or both of these objections and be prepared for how I will respond to them.

Preponderance of Evidence

When making an argument of fact, your goal is to present a preponderance of evidence that tips the scales in favor of your claim. Usually, a single piece of evidence alone is not sufficient. You want to accumulate and marshal multiple pieces of evidence that collectively support your factual assertion.

At the same time, you should directly refute any evidence that seems to contradict your claim. There are a few ways to approach this:

• Show that the contradictory evidence is inaccurate or misrepresented. For example, clarifying that a quote was taken out of context or an observation was flawed.
• Demonstrate that the evidence, even if factual, does not actually undermine your claim when properly interpreted. You can argue that the source is untrustworthy or mistaken about the implications.
• Provide explanations or alternative interpretations that resolve the seeming contradiction between the evidence and your claim.

The goal is to bolster evidence supporting your side, while systematically refuting or reinterpreting evidence opposed to your claim. By addressing contradictions head-on, you leave your audience with a preponderance of evidence weighted toward accepting your factual assertion as more likely to be valid.

Substantive Warrants

In making arguments with empirical evidence, you inevitably rely on one or more substantive warrants. Being aware of the type used allows you to scrutinize and support the underlying assumption more rigorously.

Substantive warrants, which underlie the use of empirical evidence, are more complex than other types of warrants. There are five main kinds of substantive warrants related to empirical claims:

Sign Warrants
These assume that one observation signifies or is a sign of something else. For example, claiming “Martha is guilty because her fingerprints were on the weapon” uses a sign warrant that her prints signal guilt. When we say something is a “red flag,” we’re employing a sign warrant. These are potentially the most common type of warrant underlying empirical evidence because if you use statistics to support a claim, you are likely relying on a sign warrant. For example, consider the enthymeme “Streaming services have grown at an astounding rate and we know this because Spotify increased from 100 million paid subscribers to 236 million in just the past five years.” This enthymeme assumes that an increase from 100 million to 236 million is a sign of an astounding growth rate.

Generalization Warrants
These involve generalizing from a specific example or set of examples to a broader group. If you claim “Marijuana is an effective pain relief medicine” based on studies showing it reduced pain, you are generalizing from those study samples to a universal claim.

Comparison Warrants
These assume what is true in one case will hold true for a similar, analogous case. For instance, “The U.S. can improve its economy by eliminating the penny, as other countries have done” compares national economies.

Analogy Warrants
While also comparing things, analogies are different from comparisons because analogies find similarities between two superficially dissimilar things. Saying “The universe has an intelligent designer, like a watch” posits an analogy between the complexity of each.

Cause-Effect Warrants
These are the oddball warrants of the substantive warrants. You will have a cause-effect warrant when your enthymeme uses the word “because” to indicate a CAUSE rather than a supporting reason, as in “The U.S. has high rates of poverty because it lacks a strong social safety net.” In that enthymeme, I am not saying that the lack of a strong social safety net is evidence showing that the U.S. has high rates of poverty; I am saying that the lack of a strong social safety net is a cause of the high rates of poverty. The assumption here is that lack of a strong social safety net can cause high rates of poverty, and I will need to provide backing for that. (In fact, causal arguments often depend at least as much on backing as they do on grounds.)

Related Writing Projects

• Argument of Fact – Scholarly Sources
• Empirical Research Report