2 Good Analysis, Well-Supported Claims

(Part 1 – audio file generated at crikk.com)

You’re probably already comfortable reacting to media and culture. We click “like” buttons on social media, talk with friends about gaming, post about music we like, and discuss everything from films and TV series to sports, celebrities and fashion.

In day-to-day life we all get to react to media and culture however we want.

And those reactions are not irrelevant to our class this semester. But here, they are a starting point. Our goal is to look deeply at media and culture—to think about why media and culture work as they do, and why we react the ways we do.

At the heart of this is a search for reasons: evidence, explanations, and examples. That’s what I’m looking for in your reflections, class discussions, and other assignments.

In this class, we will go beyond reacting to media and culture—we will aim to understand and explain why things are the way they are. We will use the theories and perspectives we study in class, and our own insights, to uncover patterns and reasons.

As we engage in this process, it’s important to realize that our explanations and insights must take the form of well-crafted arguments.

Making effective arguments isn’t just about expressing opinions; it’s about supporting those opinions with the right kind of evidence. This begins with recognizing the different types of claims we might make and understanding how to support each one properly.

Let’s start by discussing what makes a good argument and how you can strengthen your own analyses.

Good Arguments

When crafting an argument, it’s important to identify the type of claim being made to ensure the strength of the argument and to invite others to engage meaningfully. Whether in academic, professional, or everyday contexts, different claims require different kinds of evidence and support.

The distinction between fact claims, value claims, and policy claims helps people not only clarify their positions but also determine the most effective way to communicate them. These classifications, often explored in communication, rhetoric, and argumentation studies, stem from the need to structure arguments in ways that match the evidence and reasoning required for each type.

Understanding the nature of these claims enhances your ability to analyze your own ideas and makes it easier to invite others to agree with you. Fact claims are grounded in objective evidence, value claims revolve around subjective judgments, and policy claims advocate for specific courses of action. Here’s more about each type of claim and how best to support them.

Fact Claims

A fact claim asserts that something is true or false, based on verifiable information. Fact claims are grounded in empirical evidence and rely on objective reality rather than personal beliefs or opinions. They are about accurately representing observable, measurable aspects of our shared world. For example, a statement like, “Climate change is caused by human activity,” is a fact claim because it can be supported or refuted through scientific evidence, such as research on carbon emissions and global temperature changes. Another example could be, “The Earth revolves around the sun,” which is verifiable through astronomical observations.

To identify a fact claim, look for assertions that can be proven with data, statistics, experiments, historical records or sustained and careful observation. The focus is on whether the statement aligns with observable reality and can be verified independently of personal feelings. When evaluating fact claims, the evidence required often comes from reliable sources of information. Scientific research, government reports, credible news outlets, and expert testimony are appropriate forms of support.

For example, if I argue that “Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer,” I need to provide evidence like medical research studies that show a clear correlation between smoking and lung cancer rates. Personal anecdotes or opinions about smoking would not be sufficient because fact claims depend on empirical, not subjective, evidence. Fact claims can be more straightforward to support because they require logical, concrete evidence that can be confirmed or disproven through investigation.

Value Claims

Value claims, in contrast, are assertions that express a judgment or opinion about what is good or bad, right or wrong, or valuable or insignificant. These claims are subjective and often rooted in cultural, moral, or personal beliefs. For example, “Honesty is the most important quality in a leader” is a value claim because it is based on a judgment about what characteristics make a good leader. Another example might be, “Art is more important than science in shaping culture,” which expresses a personal evaluation of the role of different fields in society. It is a “fact” only inasmuch as it accurately represents the value judgement of the person making the claim.

You can identify value claims by looking for statements that hinge on beliefs, preferences, or standards of judgment. These claims cannot be proved in the same way as fact claims because they rely on the standards or criteria chosen by the individual or community making the claim. The evidence needed to support value claims usually involves philosophical reasoning, cultural examples, expert opinions, or appeals to commonly accepted ethical or aesthetic standards.

For instance, to support the value claim, “Human life is inherently valuable,” a student might draw on ethical theories such as deontology or religious texts that emphasize the sanctity of life. Unlike fact claims, which are backed by objective data, value claims are often supported by consensus within a cultural or ideological group or through appeals to shared principles. In this case, the “evidence” is less about proving something definitively true or false and more about persuading others to share a particular worldview.

Policy Claims

Policy claims advocate for a specific course of action or propose solutions to problems. These claims suggest what should be done in a given situation and are often found in political or social debates. A policy claim takes the form of a statement like, “The government should implement universal healthcare” or “Schools need to reduce class sizes to improve education.” In both examples, the speaker is not merely stating a fact or expressing a value but is arguing that a particular action should be taken to address a situation.

You can identify policy claims by looking for statements that call for action, use words like “should” or “ought,” and imply a solution to a problem. These claims are distinct because they involve practical recommendations and are grounded in the assumption that a particular policy will lead to better outcomes.

To support a policy claim, evidence must include a combination of fact and value claims, as well as projections about potential outcomes. This type of evidence might consist of data showing the consequences of a similar policy in other contexts, expert recommendations, and appeals to the values that underpin the proposed policy. For example, to support the policy claim, “The minimum wage should be increased to reduce poverty,” someone might present data on the current poverty rates, research showing how increased wages have improved economic conditions in other areas, and ethical arguments about the fairness of wage standards.

Policy claims also require support that anticipates counterarguments and addresses potential challenges to their proposed solutions. For instance, a person might argue that raising the minimum wage could increase unemployment. A well-supported policy claim would include evidence to refute such counterclaims or demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the potential downsides.

Well-Supported Claims

Understanding the distinctions between fact, value, and policy claims is key to making persuasive arguments and evaluating the claims of others. The wrong type of evidence can weaken an argument because each type of claim requires specific support. For instance, using personal opinion to argue a fact claim would be inappropriate, just as relying solely on factual data to support a value claim might overlook the subjective nature of the argument. Similarly, policy claims require a combination of factual evidence and value-based reasoning, as well as practical consideration of outcomes.

Misunderstanding the types of claims can cause confusion and frustration in everyday conversations, and sometimes lead to more negative consequences. For example, someone might argue to family members, “We should spend less time on social media to improve our family life.” If this policy claim is mistaken for a fact claim, the focus may entirely shift to proving whether social media use definitively harms family relationships, instead of also considering the suggestion as a course of action based on shared values.

More dangerously, justifying a fact claim using personal feelings, while ignoring actual evidence, can have serious consequences. For instance, someone might say, “I don’t need to wear a seatbelt because I feel safer without it,” mistaking a feeling for a fact. The actual data overwhelmingly proves that seatbelts reduce injury and save lives, and ignoring that factual evidence based on personal feelings can put people in harm’s way.

Misunderstanding the nature of these claims not only leads to unproductive debates but can also obscure important truths and lead to harmful decisions. Recognizing and supporting claims with the appropriate evidence can help make everyday conversations – and class discussions and reflections – clearer and more meaningful, and sometimes prevent serious misunderstandings.

Types Of Media Claims And Evidence

(Audio file generated at crikk.com)