Wastes readers time when they try to understand an argument. A common example is inconclusive argument, which leads either to no conclusion at all or to an inane afterthought such as “much has been written about this topic.” Another example is overloaded inference, which could be divided into smaller, simpler inferences.
Published in Chapter:
Inference Tree Use to Design Arguments in Expository Reports
Jens Mende (University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa)
Copyright: © 2009
|Pages: 10
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-845-1.ch056
Abstract
When they write essays, many students merely attempt ‘to fill pages with material gathered from sources’ (Erion, 2000). Consequently, they produce inane arguments of the form: Adams said this, Brown said that, Cohen said the other, etc. Conclusion: much has been written about this topic. This is unacceptable both in academic ICT courses and subsequently in the ICT profession. In academe, a written argument should ‘make a leap from the raw materials of the library to an informed opinion’ (Fasel, 1963). In the profession, a written argument should similarly make a leap from a present state of affairs to a desired future state. So in both situations, writers should be able to devise a report that contains an argument from available facts towards an intelligent conclusion. This kind of report is called an ‘expository report’ (Trimble, 1975), or an ‘argumentative report’ (Dykeman, 1974).