I’ve been working on a model to help people get better at understanding, analysing and developing arguments. It’s called the argument claim hexagon.
Arguments help us to decide:
- what is true or false
- what causes (or influences) what
- how something should be defined or classified
- how something should be understood
- whether something is good or bad
- what should be done.
However I think lots of people struggle to identify and understand the underlying structure of individual arguments. And that makes it harder to assess an argument’s validity.
That’s why I have developed the argument claim hexagon. It shows the six different claims that can be made in arguments:
- claims of truth (what is true or false)
- claims of causation/influence (what causes – or influences – what)
- claims of definition/classification (how something should be defined or classified)
- claims of interpretation (how something should be understood)
- claims of evaluation (whether something is good or bad)
- claims of action (what should be done).
Each argument has a main claim. However that main claim will often be supported by other types of claims. The benefit of the hexagon model is that it shows how subsidiary claims are involved in backing up the main claim.
The model can be used to analyse claims made in books, articles, papers and discussions.
To show the model in action, I’ll use the example of a criminal trial, which involves the prosecution and defence trying to justify opposing claims about the guilt of a defendant.
These are the different claims being used:
- claims of fact: the prosecution and the defence will present competing claims about whether the facts being discussed should be considered to be true or untrue.
- claims of interpretation: the prosecution and the defence will present competing claims about how the facts should be interpreted.
- claims of definition/classification: a jury or a judge will then make a decision about the competing claims of fact and interpretation in line with the details of the legislation in order to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
- claims of action: once guilt or innocence has been established, there is an additional step if the defendant is found guilty. The judge will hand down a punishment based on sentencing guidelines and any mitigating factors.
To be kept informed about the model, please sign up to my newsletter or follow my new X account on claims and arguments.
And thanks to Andrew Altshuler for discussions about many of these ideas.