The word ‘argument’ has many meanings, depending on the context. It can mean a friendly difference of opinion, a negotiation point, a statement of reasoning a lawyer might use, to an expression in a mathematical formula.

A quarrel is far more specific, requiring a disagreement, the cause of which is often lost in the chaos of emotion a quarrel elicits. The only other meanings of the word I can think of is as a collective noun for a group of energetic and opinionated mammals noisily exchanging insults, such as monkeys, squirrels, cooks, and lawyers. It also refers to the tip of a crossbow bolt.

There is a standard three step formula for making an argument stick in the minds of the receiver. It is evident in every news cast you ever heard, the ‘newsreaders secret formula.’

  • Tell them what you’re going to tell them. This is always called ‘the headline’.
  • Tell them. The story, or series of stories.
  • Tell them what you told them. Restate the headline, and any conclusion or resulting actions that emerged.

To win an argument, as you would a negotiation, debate, or in court, you need to modify the news readers trick by adding a step.

That step is analysis of a guiding fact, or set of facts.

This enables you to analyse those facts in a way that leads you to the conclusion you are arguing for.

For the sake of ease of use you can break this into a pneumonic ‘CRAC’

  • Conclusion. State your conclusion.
  • Rule. Identify the fact or facts upon which your conclusion is based.
  • Analysis. Provide an analysis of how that rule makes any conclusion other the one you’ve reached invalid.
  • Conclusion. Restate the conclusion.

This CRAC process was used very effectively recently by an acquaintance chairing a community group that was protesting a pending building approval decision of their local council.

She stated that the approval, if it was to proceed, was in defiance of the councils own regulations.

She then cited the specific regulations.

She then pointed out the specific parts of the pending approval that was in breach of the regulations, and why they breached them.

For good measure she also pointed out 2 other proposals similar to the one that appeared to be about to be approved, that had been rejected on the basis of the specific parts of the regulations stated previously.

She then repeated the conclusion that the project was in defiance of the council’s own regulations, and therefore should not proceed.

It was an impressive performance, well planned, well executed, and ultimately successful after some embarrassing back downs by several councillors.

With a bit of practise, it is easy to use, and always better than resorting to a quarrel.

 

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and his mate Dilbert.