Reason: Mapping Argument with Language, Structure, and the Architecture of Persuasion

How Evidence, Justification, and Clarity Shape Belief and Understanding

Introduction

Arguments come in many forms—from a few clipped sentences to sprawling, multi-volume treatises. But regardless of their size or domain, all arguments share a purpose: to persuade. That persuasion may be directed at others or at the self, and it may appeal to reason, evidence, emotion, or authority. Yet the heart of all reasoned argument lies in the interplay between claims (propositions), support (evidence), and the connective tissue that binds them (justification).

Too often, arguments fail not because they are wrong, but because they are opaque. Their internal structure is hidden, their logic unstated, their language cluttered or confused. Some arguments present no more than a stream of assertions, where the reader is left to guess what is being argued and how the parts connect. Others are so dense with jargon and so poorly expressed that they cannot be followed at all.

This essay outlines a conceptual model of argument that is not hierarchical but networked—where propositions and evidence exist on orthogonal planes, connected by justification. It explores how language allows us to reshape and clarify argument, how clarity is a teachable skill, and how persuasive reasoning functions as a kind of storytelling—grounded not in fancy, but in evidence.

Discussion

1. Arguments Are Not Hierarchies

In traditional models, arguments are depicted as pyramidal or tree-like: raw data at the base, intermediate premises in the middle, and conclusions at the top. This model is misleading. Propositions—the conclusions or claims that arguments are trying to support—do not sit at the apex of a vertical structure. They are not destinations, but targets that exist on a plane orthogonal to evidence.

The elements of an argument are better understood as follows:

• Elemental assertions (evidence): The raw material—facts, observations, data points, quotations.

• Lines of evidence: Mid-level groupings that organize evidence into coherent patterns or themes.

• Propositions: Conceptual claims or conclusions that the argument aims to support.

These are not stacked top-to-bottom but connected laterally. Propositions are not drawn down from evidence but are linked to it through interpretive justification. See: “Appendix A – Worked Example of Lines of Evidence and Cumulative Argument”

2. Lines of Evidence and Many-to-Many Connections

Lines of evidence function like thematic groupings—clusters of content that share some relevance to a broader claim. They organize disparate facts into meaningful structures, making arguments easier to follow and evaluate.

Crucially, the relationship between lines of evidence and propositions is many-to-many:

• A single line of evidence may support multiple propositions.

• A single proposition may be supported by multiple, distinct lines of evidence.

• Some lines may simultaneously support and undermine different claims, depending on interpretation.

This structure more closely resembles a network graph than a tree. The richness of this model lies in its flexibility and its reflection of actual reasoning practices, especially in complex, uncertain, or interpretive domains.

3. Justification: The Essential Bridge

The connection between lines of evidence and propositions is made through justification—the interpretive step that explains why certain evidence supports certain conclusions. This is often the missing layer in poorly constructed arguments.

Justification is not algorithmic. It does not follow universal rules. It relies on:

• Contextual relevance,

• Shared assumptions,

• Cognitive plausibility,

• And rhetorical judgment.

Making justification explicit is essential for argumentative clarity. Without it, the audience is left to infer connections and may fail to be persuaded even by valid reasoning. Use of logical connect words such as “if”, “when”, “because”, “therefore” and so on help clarify the argument.

4. Language as the Tool of Clarification

Language is not a neutral vessel. It shapes how reasoning is perceived, structured, and understood. It allows for:

• Paraphrasing—restating complex ideas in simpler or more precise terms,

• Condensation—eliminating clutter to reveal core claims,

• Rewording—shifting tone, focus, or emphasis for clarity or persuasion.

These capacities of language are essential in making arguments intelligible. The ability to restate and restructure ideas is what allows us to see the shape of an argument, to assess its logic, and to revise it as needed.

5. Clarity as a Teachable, Often Neglected Skill

Despite its importance, clarity is often neglected in academic and professional writing. In some disciplines, jargon and convoluted syntax are mistaken for rigor or precision. But this is a serious error.

Clarity is not the enemy of complexity—it is the precondition of precision. Without clarity, claims cannot be evaluated. Without transparency, justifications cannot be traced. And without legibility, even valid arguments become functionally inert.

Clarity can be taught. It requires attention to:

• Conceptual structure,

• Linguistic economy,

• Audience needs,

• And rhetorical coherence.

The failure to teach and value clarity contributes to an endemic problem in scholarly communication: arguments that cannot be followed and, therefore, cannot persuade.

6. Argument as Storytelling—With Grounding

Arguments are not only networks—they are narratives. Like stories, they have beginnings (evidence), developments (justification), and endings (propositions). The art of argument lies not just in being correct, but in telling a believable story, grounded in reality, structured with clarity, and aimed at a coherent conclusion.

This doesn’t mean arguments are fictions. On the contrary, the distinction between argument and storytelling lies in the former’s aspiration to grounding—in truth, evidence, and reason. But the storytelling aspect is vital. An argument that cannot be followed will not be believed, no matter how well-founded it is.

7. Toy Models, Binary Opposition, and the Role of Sophistry

In simplified models of argument, one may stage a binary: a proposition P and its negation ¬P, each with evidence for and against. This symmetry is useful for teaching, but rare in practice. Most real arguments are one-sided, shaped by advocacy, cognitive bias, and emotional investment.

Arguing both sides, however, is possible—and valuable. It sharpens reasoning, reveals weak assumptions, and deepens understanding. The ancient art of sophistry, though maligned, can be recast as a method for exploring interpretive space, not just manipulating it.

In a world of entrenched belief, the ability to argue both P and ¬P is not deception—it is epistemic agility.

Summary

Arguments are not linear ladders of deduction but lateral networks of persuasion, composed of evidence, justification, and propositions. Propositions do not sit at the top; they exist in a different conceptual space, tied to evidence by interpretive acts. Lines of evidence organize the material, and justification bridges the gap. The relationship between support and conclusion is many-to-many, flexible, and grounded in context.

Clarity is both a rhetorical virtue and an intellectual necessity. Language allows us to restate, condense, and clarify complex reasoning—but only if we wield it well. Where language fails, argument fails. Precision is impossible without clarity.

Finally, argument is not merely a formal structure—it is a form of storytelling, constrained by reason and evidence, but animated by the desire to persuade. Mastering this form means mastering structure, language, and the interpretive leap that connects what we know to what we conclude.

Readings

Clear, J. (2020). Writing for understanding: On the role of clarity in reasoned discourse. Oxford University Press.

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2021). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (5th ed.). W. W. Norton.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). University of Notre Dame Press.

Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. Viking.

Ricks, C. (1990). Clarity and confusion in contemporary prose. Harvard University Press.

Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2016). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (12th ed.). Pearson.

Appendix A – Worked Example of Lines of Evidence and Cumulative Argument

Below is a structured presentation of an argument regarding mysterious high-volume howls in North American woods, stripped of unsupported assertions on both sides. All challenges to the proposition (¬P) are framed using either direct evidence or clearly qualified interpretations of existing data. Speculative gestures are avoided or explicitly marked as such, and unjustified counterclaims are not included.

• Two contrary propositions:
  P = Some mysterious recorded howls are caused by an unknown animal.
  ¬P = The howls are caused by a known animal.

• Multiple lines of evidence, each containing elemental assertions.

• Justification linking each line (or parts of it) to one or both propositions.

• A many-to-many structure: evidence may support or challenge both propositions depending on interpretation.

Line of Evidence 1: Extraordinary Acoustic Volume

Evidence:

• Eyewitnesses across multiple states describe the howls as “body-shaking,” “penetrating,” and “unlike anything heard before.”

• Some reports estimate the sound was audible from over a mile away in open terrain.

• Audio recordings indicate unusually high decibel levels with substantial low-frequency resonance.

Supports P:

• The intensity and timbral features of the howls exceed known patterns from local wildlife (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elk). This suggests the presence of a vocal mechanism not known in documented North American species.

Against P (¬P):

• In limited controlled acoustic studies, wolves are capable of producing long-distance calls with substantial amplitude and low-frequency components.

• Empirical comparison to wolf recordings shows partial overlap in range, although full matches have not been demonstrated.

• Thus, while known animals can reach significant volumes, recorded howls remain acoustically atypical in shape and intensity.

Line of Evidence 2: Sonographic Analysis

Evidence:

• Spectrograms of the howls show unique frequency patterns, including:

  • Modulation rates outside canid norms,

  • Multi-band harmonics extending beyond those seen in wolves,

  • Persistent resonance patterns inconsistent with any known North American mammal.

Supports P:

• The distinct acoustic signature is not found in sonographic databases of wildlife vocalizations, indicating either a previously undocumented biological source or a misclassified signal of unknown origin.

Against P (¬P):

• Wildlife sonographic databases, while extensive, have documented edge cases where known species produced abnormal vocalizations under duress, injury, or hybridization (e.g., wolf–dog crosses).

• Existing peer-reviewed studies on wolf vocal variability show substantial within-species range. However, no known recordings match the sonographic signature in question, which keeps the burden of explanation unresolved.

Line of Evidence 3: Long-Term Geographic and Temporal Recurrence

Evidence:

• Verified recordings from over 2,000 miles apart (e.g., Oregon and Appalachia), taken more than a decade apart, show identical or near-identical sonographic characteristics.

• These recordings were made by independent field investigators using calibrated equipment and environmental logs.

Supports P:

• The long-term recurrence and wide distribution of the same sound type, across unconnected locations, suggests a stable, biological phenomenon with consistent vocal characteristics—consistent with an unknown but real species.

Against P (¬P):

• Documented cases exist of certain wolf packs or regional animal populations developing idiosyncratic howling patterns.

• However, no known species has been shown to produce such consistent acoustic profiles across thousands of miles and over a decade.

• This limits—but does not eliminate—the plausibility of a known animal explanation, suggesting a significant gap in existing acoustic documentation.

Line of Evidence 4: Failed Replication by Human Sources

Evidence:

• Professional audio engineers and trained vocalists attempted to reproduce the howls using voice, tools, and software.

• None achieved recordings that matched the frequency range, modulation pattern, or duration of the original howls.

• Side-by-side sonograms show large divergence in structural features.

Supports P:

• Human-made hoaxes or synthetic artifacts are empirically ruled out, as replication attempts fail to reproduce the key acoustic features. This eliminates the leading non-biological alternative.

Against P (¬P):

• There are no known human sources or playback technologies that can account for the specific structural and volumetric elements of the recordings without leaving digital or mechanical traces, which are absent.

• Therefore, the evidence does not currently support a hoax hypothesis, and no counter-explanation has been successfully demonstrated in the empirical literature.

Line of Evidence 5: Absence of Confirming Biological Evidence

Evidence:

• Despite numerous acoustic events and witness reports, no fur, DNA, scat, or definitive track evidence has been collected or verified by wildlife biologists.

• Game cameras and motion-sensor arrays in areas where sounds were recorded have failed to capture correlated biological imagery.

Against P:

• Biological phenomena of this scale—especially if audible over miles—should leave tangible ecological traces.

• The absence of these may suggest either that the source is not biological, or that it is so rare or elusive that standard detection methods are insufficient.

• Peer-reviewed field studies of elusive species (e.g., snow leopards) show that long-term absence of physical evidence is possible but rare when consistent acoustic activity is present.

Supports P (minimally):

• Some known species (e.g., the okapi, or forest elephants) evaded detection for decades despite leaving indirect signs.

• However, the evidence gap remains a major weakness in the unknown-animal hypothesis and demands continued field investigation.

Line of Evidence 6: Implausibility of a Sustained, Multi-Decade Hoax

Evidence:

• Dozens of recordings spanning several decades, captured across thousands of miles in North America, show consistent sonographic features.

• Eyewitnesses and investigators report no sightings of equipment, actors, or logistical indicators of hoax execution.

• No confessions, leaked documentation, or credible demonstrations of similar hoax capability exist in the public or investigative record.

• Known audio projection systems do not match the acoustic volume and fidelity of the recordings without introducing mechanical artifacts.

Supports P (Unknown Animal Hypothesis):

• The hoax hypothesis would require numerous independent individuals or groups, across multiple regions and decades, to:

  1. Possess or create high-output sound projection technology capable of producing biologically anomalous sounds.

  2. Operate without detection, often in remote wilderness, and leave no trace of gear or activity.

  3. Reproduce specific sonographic profiles that match across time and geography, with no known precedent in human-generated soundscapes.

  4. Coordinate or converge without communication, publication, or notoriety, despite widespread cultural interest in cryptid phenomena.

• This explanation becomes increasingly convoluted and inferentially burdened—it requires more assumptions than it resolves. In contrast, the unknown animal hypothesis offers a parsimonious explanation that fits the empirical pattern without speculative elaboration.

Against P (Supports ¬P only weakly):

• While isolated hoaxes are possible and occasionally documented (e.g., through prank recordings or wildlife mimicry), no documented case matches the acoustic features or scale of these howls.

• To date, no hoax has been forensically confirmed that duplicates the characteristics seen in the contested recordings.

Conclusion from This Line:

• The absence of direct evidence of hoaxing, coupled with the technical and logistical implausibility of the scale required, undermines the hoax hypothesis as a credible counterargument.

• This line of reasoning strengthens the plausibility of the unknown-animal proposition by eliminating the only serious non-biological rival explanation currently proposed.

Conclusion of the Argument Structure

The proposition that the howls are caused by an unknown animal (P) is supported by:

• Multiple lines of acoustic and empirical data,

• Demonstrated failure to replicate with known biological or technological sources,

• A consistent, anomalous acoustic profile across vast space and time.

The contrary proposition (¬P) has not yet been supported by directly matched acoustic data, replicated field observations, or plausible mechanical explanations. The burden of proof remains unmet on that side, and speculative alternatives have been intentionally excluded here due to lack of evidence.

This does not prove P, but it raises the plausibility of an unknown biological source, while casting doubt on explanations based on current zoological catalogs, hoax hypotheses, or man made noise.