Claim-Evidence Writing
Learn
Effective argumentation in government and economics requires more than stating opinions—it demands clear claims supported by strong evidence and logical reasoning. This lesson builds the skills needed to construct and evaluate arguments in academic and civic contexts.
The Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) Framework
Claim
A claim is an arguable statement that takes a position on an issue. Strong claims are:
- Specific: Not too broad or too narrow
- Arguable: Reasonable people could disagree
- Supportable: Evidence exists to back it up
- Clear: The position is unambiguous
Weak Claim: "The economy is important." (Too vague, not arguable)
Strong Claim: "Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would reduce poverty rates in urban areas while potentially causing small job losses in low-margin industries."
Evidence
Evidence consists of facts, data, examples, and expert testimony that support the claim. Strong evidence is:
- Relevant: Directly connects to the claim being made
- Credible: From reliable, authoritative sources
- Sufficient: Enough to adequately support the claim
- Current: Up-to-date when recency matters
- Representative: Not cherry-picked outliers
Types of evidence commonly used in government and economics:
- Statistical Data: Unemployment rates, GDP figures, voting statistics, demographic data
- Expert Analysis: Economist reports, policy institute research, government agency findings
- Historical Examples: Past policies and their outcomes
- Legal/Constitutional Sources: Court decisions, constitutional provisions, statutory language
- Primary Sources: Original documents, speeches, testimonies
Reasoning
Reasoning explains HOW the evidence supports the claim. It bridges the gap between data and conclusion. Strong reasoning:
- Makes explicit connections between evidence and claim
- Explains significance and implications
- Addresses potential counterarguments
- Identifies assumptions and limitations
Constructing Arguments in Government
Policy Arguments
When arguing for or against a policy, include:
- Problem Definition: What issue needs to be addressed?
- Policy Proposal: What specific action should be taken?
- Evidence of Need: Data showing the problem's scope and severity
- Evidence of Effectiveness: Research or historical examples showing the policy would work
- Cost-Benefit Analysis: Weighing advantages against disadvantages
- Counterargument Response: Addressing opposing viewpoints
Constitutional Arguments
When making constitutional arguments:
- Cite specific constitutional text (Article, Section, Amendment)
- Reference relevant precedent (prior court decisions)
- Apply appropriate interpretive methods (textualist, originalist, living constitution)
- Distinguish contrary precedents or explain why they should be overruled
Constructing Arguments in Economics
Economic Analysis Framework
- Identify Trade-offs: What are the costs and benefits of different choices?
- Consider Incentives: How will people respond to policy changes?
- Use Data Appropriately: Support claims with relevant statistics
- Acknowledge Uncertainty: Economic predictions involve assumptions that may not hold
- Distinguish Positive from Normative: Separate "what is" (positive claims) from "what should be" (normative claims)
Evaluating Arguments
Logical Fallacies to Avoid
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack
- False Dilemma: Presenting only two options when more exist
- Appeal to Authority: Using someone's status rather than evidence to support a claim
- Slippery Slope: Claiming one action will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without evidence
- Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion as a premise
- Post Hoc: Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B
Questions for Evaluating Arguments
- Is the claim clearly stated and arguable?
- Is the evidence relevant, credible, and sufficient?
- Does the reasoning logically connect evidence to claim?
- Are counterarguments addressed fairly?
- Are assumptions and limitations acknowledged?
Examples
Example 1: Complete CER Argument on Fiscal Policy
Claim: Counter-cyclical fiscal policy can help moderate the severity of economic recessions.
Evidence:
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $787 billion in stimulus spending during the Great Recession.
- According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, this legislation increased employment by 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs and raised GDP by 1.7 to 4.5 percent in 2010.
- Economic theory predicts that during recessions, when private spending falls, government spending can help maintain aggregate demand.
Reasoning: The CBO analysis demonstrates that the 2009 stimulus had measurable positive effects on employment and output during a period of severe economic contraction. This supports the theoretical prediction that when private actors reduce spending (causing a recession), government can partially offset this reduction by increasing its own spending. While the exact magnitude of fiscal multipliers is debated, the evidence suggests the policy achieved its intended counter-cyclical effect. Critics note the policy also increased federal debt, creating trade-offs that must be weighed against the short-term economic benefits.
Example 2: Evaluating a Flawed Argument
Original Argument: "The minimum wage should not be raised because teenagers don't need that much money and economists all agree it would destroy jobs."
Analysis of Problems:
- Straw Man: Implies minimum wage workers are primarily teenagers, when data shows most are adults (BLS data: two-thirds are over 25).
- False Appeal to Authority: Claims economists "all agree" when in fact economists disagree about employment effects (as shown by competing studies and the 2021 letter signed by economists supporting increases).
- Oversimplification: Uses "destroy jobs" rather than discussing nuanced estimates of modest job losses in some sectors.
- Missing Counterargument: Does not address evidence that minimum wage increases reduce poverty and may increase consumer spending.
Improved Version: "Minimum wage increases may cause some job losses in price-sensitive industries, though the magnitude is debated among economists. Studies estimate effects ranging from negligible to modest reductions in employment for low-wage workers. Policymakers must weigh these potential job losses against benefits including reduced poverty, increased consumer spending, and improved worker retention."
Example 3: Constitutional Argument Structure
Issue: Does Congress have the power to establish a national healthcare program?
Claim Supporting Federal Power:
- Constitutional Basis: The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress power to "regulate Commerce...among the several States."
- Precedent: In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that Congress can regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, even if the activities themselves are local.
- Application: Healthcare represents approximately 18% of the U.S. economy and inherently involves interstate transactions (insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies all operate across state lines).
- Reasoning: Because healthcare markets are national in scope and substantially affect interstate commerce, Congress may regulate them under the same logic that allows regulation of other national markets.
Counterargument: In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to compel individuals to purchase insurance, though it upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of the taxing power. This suggests limits on how Congress may structure healthcare regulation.
Practice
Apply your claim-evidence-reasoning skills to the following questions.
1. Which of the following is the strongest claim for an argument about tax policy?
2. A student writes: "Free trade is bad because my uncle's factory closed when production moved overseas." What is the primary weakness of this evidence?
3. "We cannot allow any immigration because if we let anyone in, eventually there will be millions of illegal immigrants and our culture will be completely destroyed." This statement contains which logical fallacy?
4. Which of the following would be the most credible evidence for an argument about the effect of interest rates on home buying?
5. A politician argues: "My opponent's healthcare plan will lead to socialism, which means government control of everything, which means the end of freedom as we know it." What is wrong with this reasoning?
6. In a policy argument, what is the purpose of the "reasoning" component?
7. "Senator Jones is wrong about healthcare policy because he was once arrested for a traffic violation." This argument commits which fallacy?
8. A researcher claims that increasing police funding reduces crime, citing data from one city over one year. What additional evidence would most strengthen this claim?
9. Which of the following best distinguishes a positive claim from a normative claim in economics?
10. "Either we eliminate all environmental regulations, or our economy will collapse under the weight of bureaucracy." This statement is an example of:
11. An economist argues that a carbon tax would be effective, citing support from 45 Nobel Prize-winning economists. While this is relevant, what additional evidence would most strengthen the argument?
12. A well-constructed argument about raising or lowering the retirement age for Social Security should include all of the following EXCEPT:
Check Your Understanding
Key Concept Review 1: What are the three components of the CER framework, and why is each important?
Show Answer
Claim: The arguable statement or position being defended. It must be specific, arguable, and supportable. Evidence: The facts, data, and examples that support the claim. It must be relevant, credible, and sufficient. Reasoning: The explanation of how the evidence supports the claim. It makes explicit connections and addresses counterarguments. All three are necessary because a claim without evidence is mere assertion, evidence without reasoning may not clearly support the claim, and reasoning without evidence is speculation.
Key Concept Review 2: What is the difference between a straw man fallacy and a steel man approach?
Show Answer
A straw man fallacy misrepresents an opponent's argument, making it weaker and easier to attack. A steel man approach does the opposite: it represents the opposing argument in its strongest possible form before responding to it. Steel manning demonstrates intellectual honesty and leads to more productive debate because you address the best version of counterarguments, not a caricature.
Key Concept Review 3: Why is it important to distinguish between positive and normative claims in economic arguments?
Show Answer
Positive claims describe what is (factual, testable statements about the world), while normative claims describe what ought to be (value judgments about what is desirable). The distinction matters because they require different types of support: positive claims can be evaluated with data and evidence, while normative claims involve values that cannot be proven or disproven. Conflating the two can lead to presenting value judgments as if they were established facts, or dismissing factual evidence because of disagreement about values.
Next Steps
- Practice identifying claims, evidence, and reasoning in news articles and editorials
- Write a policy argument using the CER framework on a current issue
- Evaluate your own past arguments for logical fallacies
- Continue to the Unit Checkpoint to test your understanding of all unit concepts