 A rational argument is the exchange of evidence-based reasons that are designed to influence an audience. Rational argumentation is the capacity to give reasons, to connect the claims that one makes to the justification for making those claims. The reasons offered within an argument are called premises, and the proposition that the premises are offered for is called the conclusion. Within arguments, people construct statements that can be used to support a conclusion on a matter that is uncertain or yet to be decided, hoping to influence others to adhere to their position. When people speak to each other or to a group, they make certain claims, they make statements and construct a case that they believe in and that they would like for others to also believe in. A rational argument is a combination of logic, dialect and rhetoric. Arguments involve elements of logic in that they require the use of logic in the connection of evidence to the claims that are being made through inference. Thus, arguments have a structure that is studied within logic. Rational arguments are a dialectic exchange in that arguments are conducted between people with different opinions who exchange ideas in a process of discovering and testing knowledge through questions and answers. Arguments contain elements of rhetoric in the classical sense, where it means the study of how messages influence people. As it focuses on the development and communication of knowledge between speakers and listeners. As we've talked about before, rational arguments can be seen as a subset of all types of arguments, in which case they can be contrasted with non-rational arguments, which are not based upon objective reasons given, instead being based upon the subjective motives and instincts of the individuals involved. Non-rational arguments may be seen as the product of motivated reasoning on the behalf of one or more of the individuals engaged in the argument. Insofar as the individual refuses or is unable to revise or change their opinion in the light of new, relevant information or more coherent logic, the argument is dogmatic and cannot be resolved through reasoned arguments. In such a case the argument may resort to various forms of effective exchange or a resolution may well be unattainable. Thus rational arguments require a set of preconditions before the process can be engaged in. The cases presented by the individuals have to be derived from their objective reasons given, instead of being rationalized from their instinctive beliefs. In a rational argument members have to be willing to change their arguments when new information or a better argument is presented. Reasoned arguments cannot be conducted in the face of dogma, where dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by a member or group without being open to question or doubt through reason. Pre-condition to rational argument is that questions are open to and decided by reason alone. Members engaged in a rational argument hold defeasible cases, where defeasible means that they are open in principle to revision. Reasoned argument provides an objective process for a resolving disputes without resort to force or manipulation in that it simply defines a set of standards that all members must follow in order to try and derive a combined outcome. The term dialectics in the general sense refers to the development of knowledge through questions and answers. The classical example of this would be the dialogues of Plato where Socrates encounters an interlocker and the person states a view. Socrates then asks a series of questions and through the exchange of questions and answers the individual's view is tested, elaborated or clarified. Another good example of a dialectic process could be seen in a court of law, where cross-examination is conducted with a series of questions asked and answers given to try and figure out what is true of the case. Rational argument is a form of dialectic process in that the participants in an argument hold mutually exclusive views. They believe that the claims they make cannot both be true in some way and they seek to find a combined resolution through a collective process of reasoning, which is the argument. Members are not prepared to simply remain with the differences in their perspectives but wish to resolve the issue at hand. They want to come to a common understanding of some kind. In this process members give over their own reasons but are also importantly open to being influenced by others in trying to reach some consensus. The degree of effectiveness to any given argument is often a function of the degree of understanding to the principles and structure that underlie the process. A rational argument is a set of statements to support a conclusion. It starts with a set of premises and then derives a set of conclusions based upon those. As such, arguments have a basic structure to them in that they consist of evidence given, a process of inference used to reach a claim that seeks the adherence of an audience. Reasons are the justification that we give for our claims. Our justifications are not absolute proofs because all of the matters that are being debated are in some way uncertain. Things may depend on some value judgment or they may relate to the unknown future thus we try to justify our claims by giving reasons for them. In an argument we're making a leap from the known to the unknown and the audience is being asked to accept the justification for this. That is to say the reasons given. We have to reach some conclusion and the audience will give their adherence to whoever has the best case to make. A claim is justified if it would be accepted by a critical listener. For example, the process of generating new scientific knowledge often operates in this way, where someone comes up with a hypothesis and the other scientists try to disprove it. Scientists in the lab work as critical questioners of the ideas presented by the theoretical scientists. Scientists remain skeptical about Einstein's special theory of relativity until experiments have been conducted to verify that light did in fact bend around large bodies of matter. If the premise of an argument or the logic used to draw the inference are inaccurate then the conclusion will be likewise inaccurate. Arguments are only as good as the premises that they are founded on and the logic used to draw the conclusion. Often confusion lies in the fact that people are not clear about the premises or logical process in the argument. A hidden premise is a fact or assumption that supports the argument that is not manifest to us. In everyday life the arguments we normally encounter are often arguments where important assumptions are not made explicit. Identifying these hidden assumptions is an important part of being a critical thinker. Likewise, some premises are assumptions that is to say they are not known to be established facts and it is important to make explicit when that is the case. The conclusion of an argument can be true or false meaning it is in some way in line with an objective reality. However, arguments themselves are not true or false. They are simply valid or invalid depending on the logic being used. The term sound refers to the entire argument. An argument is sound when all of the premises are true and its logic is valid. Arguments are expressed to an audience and when all is said and done the success of an argument depends on the ascent of that audience. Ascent means adhering to a claim based upon the reasons given for it. This means the audience accepts the grounds that are given, the justification that is presented and the connection that is made between these justifications and the claim. Argumentation is then one of the ways that we seek to persuade others and reach common consensus without resorting to force, emotional manipulation or other means. A focus on this aspect of argumentation is called rhetoric. The classical understanding of rhetoric is as a study of how messages influence people. It focuses on the development and communication of knowledge between speakers and listeners. Rhetoric in its basic form is about the effective presentation of an argument to a particular audience where one holds in mind the audience and crafts wants words and message to make them most relevant to that particular audience. In its highest form rhetoric is about the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively, especially as a way to persuade or influence other people. Today this term rhetoric has been significantly denigrated in status in no small part due to contemporary media politics and mass marketing as it has come to mean something more like language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable. However a focus on audience and presentation is always a consideration within any argument and should not be inherently given negative connotations.