2.6 Complex arguments 47
are a necessary part of the text, of course,
because without them the argument would
not make much sense. (Try reading the
passage without them and you will see this for
yourself.) But they are neither reasons nor
conclusions of the author’s argument. In fact
they really belong to an opposing argument,
because they are about the women’s case for
equal prizes, not the author’s case for keeping
the men’s prize money higher.
We can think of these opening sentences –
everything preceding the word ‘But... ’, as
the target for the author’s argument. The
whole point and purpose of that argument is
to respond to the women’s alleged claim of
unfairness and inequality. Another way to put
this is that the first two sentences place the
argument into a context. Or you could say
that they introduce it, or provide background
information. Any of these labels would do.
Some textbooks refer to parts of a text
which function as the target for an argument
as a counter-argument, but this is misleading. If
anything is to be called a counter-argument
here it is the author’s argument, because the
author is the one responding, not the women.
What the first two sentences are doing is
explaining the context; setting the scene.
So, in standard form we have:Context (or target): Top women tennis players
used to complain about the inequalities of
prize money.
But . . .
R1 Men have to win three out of five sets;
the women only two.
R2 The men play harder and faster and use
more energy.
R3 Any of the men would beat the best
woman.IC The men have more prowess.C The disparity was justified and should
not have been abolished.evaluated like any other argument, once it has
been extracted from the report. Instead of
being asked to respond to the author’s
argument, you would be asked to respond to
the consortium’s argument, as it is represented
in the report. To extract the argument, all you
have to do is transpose the reported speech
back into direct speech, at which point it will
have the same standard form as [2].
More about context: targets and
opposing views
As already noted in argument [1], interpreting
an argument can leave you with parts of the
text which don’t seem to be reasons or
conclusions. In fact they don’t seem to belong
to the argument at all. In some cases there are
parts that even appear to oppose it.
Here is an example:
[3] Top women tennis players used to
grumble that their prize money was less
substantial than that paid to top male
players in the same competition. They
argued that they were being unequally
treated. But the disparity was entirely
justified and should never have been
abolished. Male players just have more
prowess than women. They need to win
three sets out of five to take the match;
the women only two. They have to play
harder and faster, and expend far more
energy on court than the women. But
most of all, if the best woman in the
tournament played any of the men, there
would be no contest: the man would win.Activity
What do you make of the first two sentences
of [3]? Discuss where you think they fit in.Commentary
The short answer is that the first two sentences
don’t fit in – not to the actual argument. They