Four parts of a good argument 1. Contains a precise claim(s) that is distinguished from alternate or opposing claims 2. That is supported by valid (well grounded on principles and evidence) and reliable (can be repeated over time) evidence; 3. That clearly explains how the evidence supports the claim (or warrants the evidence); 4. Fairly refutes an alternative claim with data and evidence. Fairly means pointing out strengths and limitations of the claim.

Cain Article

Herman Cain is the CEO and President of Godfather's Pizza. He also serves as President of the National Restaurant Association. Mr. Cain began his career in foodservice at Burger King where he worked his way up the ranks to his current position with Godfather's. Cain is also a Republican party candidate. oh, so he started flipping burgers and moved through the industry to the top. Pretty impressive.

There are nearly 740,000 foodservice units in this country, including everything from fast-food chains to fine-dining restaurants. We are an industry dominated by small businesses, and we employ a diverse workforce of over nine million people. Our employees are white, African- American, Hispanic-American, Asian- American and more. We expect to employ 12.5 million by the year 2005, with the fastest growth coming in the category of foodservice managers. Why is he saying they expect in is in the past. This text must have been written before 2005 – more than 5 years before he began running for office. Given that information, I wonder where this article is from? More than 35% of Americans under age 35 had their first job in the restaurant industry. Restaurants offer an important boost into the job market for millions, as well as a clearly-defined career path for those willing to work hard and stay in the business. Ah, this whole section is giving me the background to this food service industry and its impact on the American economy.

There are numerous reasons why I firmly believe a minimum wage increase is attacking the wrong problem. Allow me to list the three reasons I believe to be most important. This is his claim Here, the speaker is telling me he is going to support his claim with three things. He calls them reasons. I wonder what evidence he is going to use.

First, mandated wage increases reduce entry-level job opportunities. A few weeks ago, a colleague in Oregon told me about a homeless 17 year-old he hired in the mid- 1980's. He gave the teenager a job chopping lettuce, deveining shrimp and sweeping floors. That 17 year- old has worked his way up: He's now the executive chef at the restaurant. But the job that brought him into the business no longer exists. When Oregon raised its minimum wage a few years ago and the restaurant owner looked for ways to cut costs, this job was one of the first to go. Now my colleague buys lettuce already chopped from a nearby automated facility. It's a good example of the split personality of the minimum wage. When you make it more expensive to hire people who lack basic work skills and experience, you risk shutting them out of the workforce. Is this a fact or an opinion? How does he know this? This sounds like just another claim to back up his overall claim or thesis. Exactly – his evidence is an example. This evidence is what we call anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Is not necessarily valid or reliable because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts and research. If this is the only evidence he has, I consider that weak. Here is what we call a warrant. It is the reasoning of how this anecdotal evidence supports his claim. He is linking the evidence – the fact that this restaurant owner got rid of a job because it was not cost effective – means that minimum wage forces business to have less jobs, which in turn hurts uneducated workers.

President Clinton and Secretary Reich use several new studies to argue that a minimum wage increase may actually pull people back into the job market by attracting people unwilling to work at the old wage. Economists who've scrutinized these studies question their conclusiveness. I believe even the authors of these studies would caution policymakers about drawing unwarranted conclusions. And remember: No one has ever shown that any jobs were created by an increase in the minimum wage. The counter argument and that there is evidence to support the counter argument. Interestingly, these are studies – meaning more than one. When I see the word “studies,” I think of research. Is this research stronger than anecdotal evidence? I wonder what the research says. If there is more than one study saying the same thing, then that means the research is probably corroborated – or consistent with each other. So, if you have separate research studies coming to the same conclusion as evidence on one side, and an example or story as evidence on the other side, I probably would lean toward the stronger evidence – the studies. I wonder why he doesn’t say who these economists are? I know Clinton was a president. Let me check on Secretary Reich’s background to see who this person is and whether I should trust what he says. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro bert_Reich He says “I believe” which means to me he does not know what the authors of the studies would say. I am getting to doubt the strength of this argument the more I think about what he is actually saying. Is this a claim? A statement of fact? How can he prove this? Where is the evidence for this?