Convergent arguments are the most commonly used arguments in politics, business, day to day reasoning and even in science.
In politics, each political party provides several independent reasons for why the voter should vote them into power.
In business, we use convergent reasoning to justify business investments, strategies, plans and decisions.
In our day to day reasoning we use convergent arguments to justify our personal capital purchases such as property, automobiles and also for personal investments. Many of our decisions about our children's education are reasoned and justified using convergent arguments.
When scientists want to figure out why and when Dinosaurs became extinct, they use several independent pieces of evidence to support their hypothesis regarding the causes and period when it happened. This is nothing but a convergent argument.
What is a convergent argument?
A convergent argument is one in which the premises offer independent support to the claim. Here's an example:
Complete lockdowns of cities is not a good option for managing pandemics such as COVID 19 (C1) because lockdowns:
- slow down the development of herd immunity (P1)
- destroy businesses and leads to widespread unemployment (P2)
- create great hardships for migrant labor and the poor who are dependent on daily wages for their survival" (P3)
(Here 'C1' is the claim. P1, P2 and P3 are premises provided as supportive of the claim C1)
When you look at the argument above, you see that each premise independently supports the claim. Removing any of the premises does not make any other premise irrelevant or redundant. In other words, this argument has provided independent reasons for supporting the claim that lockdowns are not a good option during pandemics.
Where do you find these type of arguments?
Convergent arguments are the most commonly used arguments in politics, business, day to day reasoning and even in science.
In politics, each political party provides several independent reasons for why the voter should vote them into power.
In business, we use convergent reasoning to justify business investments, strategies, plans and decisions.
In our day to day reasoning we use convergent arguments to justify our personal capital purchases such as property, automobiles and also for personal investments. Many of our decisions about our children's education are reasoned and justified using convergent arguments.
When scientists want to figure out why and when Dinosaurs became extinct, they use several independent pieces of evidence to support their hypothesis regarding the causes and period when it happened. This is nothing but a convergent argument.
Now lets look at various examples of convergent arguments from different domains and varying situations
Business:
Claim: Investing in employee training programs improves overall company performance.
Premise 1: Research studies consistently show that organizations that invest in employee training and development have higher employee satisfaction and engagement levels.
Premise 2: Companies with well-trained employees tend to demonstrate higher productivity, as they possess the necessary skills and knowledge to perform their tasks effectively.
Premise 3: Case studies of successful companies have shown a positive correlation between employee training initiatives and increased customer satisfaction, leading to improved business outcomes.
Law:
Claim: Implementing stricter penalties for white-collar crimes deters fraudulent activities.
Premise 1: Analysis of historical white-collar crime cases reveals a pattern of offenders being more likely to engage in fraudulent activities when they perceive the potential penalties to be lenient or insufficient.
Premise 2: Studies examining the impact of increased penalties on other types of crimes, such as drug offenses, have demonstrated a deterrent effect, suggesting that similar results may be expected for white-collar crimes.
Premise 3: Comparative analysis of jurisdictions with varying levels of penalties for white-collar crimes consistently shows that regions with stricter penalties tend to experience lower rates of such offenses.
Medicine:
Claim: Regular physical exercise reduces the risk of developing chronic diseases.
Premise 1: Scientific research conducted over multiple studies consistently indicates that individuals who engage in regular physical exercise have a lower risk of developing conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.
Premise 2: Longitudinal studies tracking individuals' exercise habits and health outcomes demonstrate a clear correlation between increased physical activity and reduced incidence of chronic diseases.
Premise 3: Expert medical opinions from leading health organizations, such as the World Health Organization and American Heart Association, consistently advocate for regular exercise as a preventive measure against chronic diseases.
Education:
Claim: Implementing technology in the classroom enhances student learning outcomes.
Premise 1: Studies examining the integration of technology in educational settings consistently indicate that technology-enabled instruction enhances student engagement, motivation, and participation.
Premise 2: Research findings show that technology facilitates personalized learning, enabling educators to cater to individual student needs, learning styles, and pace, resulting in improved academic performance.
Premise 3: Case studies of schools that have implemented technology in their classrooms consistently report positive outcomes, including higher student achievement, increased collaboration, and improved critical thinking skills.
In each of these examples, the premises independently provide support to the claim.
How do you evaluate convergent arguments
- You look at each premises and see what type of a premise it is and then use the appropriate evaluation technique applicable to it to judge its acceptability.
- Next determine whether the premise is relevant to the claim, and how it is relevant - positively, negatively or irrelevant
- Check the truth of the premise if feasible, and if not, make a judgement of whether it is true
Once you have done this, you will know which premises offer support to the claim, extent of support (low, medium, high etc.) and whether the premise is true.
- Discard premises that are false.
- Discard premises that are negatively relevant
Take all the premises that are true and positively relevant into consideration and judge for yourself whether the premises offer adequate grounds for the truth of the claim. Or in other words, once you take into consideration all the premises are you convinced that the claim is true. If the premises convince you about the truth of the claim, then you have a good argument. If it doesn't persuade you to believe the claim - you have a poor argument. If you are somewhat convinced but not fully, you could say that you have a weak argument.
We need to keep in mind that we are evaluating arguments to decide whether to believe the claim or not. And in all probability, our belief in the claim will determine our course of action.
For example, if the claim is that lockdowns are not good during a pandemic, and if we believe the claim based on the reasons provided, then we will adopt the belief as our own that lockdowns during pandemic are bad.
In the workplace, if an argument is made for setting up a new garment factory in Sri Lanka, and if we are persuaded by the reasons provided, then we will support the decision to set up the factory in Sri Lanka. If the reasons do not persuade us, we will oppose the decision. If the reasoning is not good enough to convince either way, we are likely to ask for more information before we can come to a conclusion about the decision being good or bad.
All theories are essentially arguments supporting some hypothesis or other. Reasons / evidence offered in support of the hypothesis are normally independent of each other, making the theory a convergent argument. If you can prove one of the premises/evidence to be false, or if you can point out one instance (piece of evidence) when the theory doesn't hold good, the theory will fall apart. Theories are evaluated in the same manner that we recommend convergent arguments should be evaluated.
