Developing an Argument

Political scientists value clear, concise arguments that make testable claims about the processes that explain outcomes of interest. A good argument will state not just what matters for a phenomenon but why it matters and the evidence that demonstrates it.

What is an argument?

In political science, an argument, or a theory, is an empirically testable (falsifiable) answer to a research question, or, in the words of King, Keohane and Verba (1994), “A social science theory is a reasoned and precise speculation about the answer to a research question, including a statement about why the proposed answer is correct” (19).

For example:

Research question: How do populist appeals shape the strength of democratic institutions?

Theory: Populist appeals weaken democratic institutions by suggesting that the voice of the masses is more important than abiding by democratic rules. They therefore decrease the value people place on democratic rules.

Put it into practice!

For each theory below, write down a research question that the theory may attempt to answer.

To see some exemplars, examine the drop-downs below the form.

+ Theory 1: Populist appeals weaken democratic institutions by suggesting that the voice of the masses is more important than abiding by democratic rules and decreasing the value people place on democratic rules.

Possible reserach questions:

What are the causes of democratic breakdown?
Why do democracies break down?
What has driven observed decreases in democratic values in country X?
What are the consequences (effects) of populist rhetoric in democracies?
Given that we know populist appeals democratic institutions, how do they do this? What is the means by which populism weakens democracy?

Why do some states today have generous social welfare programs while others have realatively narrow social welfare programs?
Why do even some wealthy nations have only small social welfare programs?
What are the drivers behind the growth of the welfare state?

+ Theory 3: States will comply with international law only when punishments are clearly specified and violations of international law are visible to observers.

How can international law constrain powerful state actors?
Why do some states comply with international law while others don't?
Why do some international laws elicit conistent complience from states, while others fail to do so?

What does an argument do?

In the social sciences, an argument typically makes claims about the way the world works. It states that the world is one way rather than another and explains why it is that way.

In social science courses, you will rarely be asked to just summarize a set of facts. You will instead be asked to make assertions about how some state of affairs came to be or the phenomenon caused them.
This implies a counterfactual, a statement about how the world would have been under some alternative set of conditions. For example, you might argue that polarization in American politics is caused by people moving to areas where most people share their political beliefs. This statement implies the counterfactual that if people hadn’t moved to places with like-minded people and lived in more politically integrated communities, American politics would be less polarized.
Your argument conveys that you will give evidence that the counterfactual is not correct, conveys why that evidence supports your claim, and offers an explanation for how and why the counterfactual did not occur.

Falsifiable Arguments 101

We often think about the evidence we need to prove our arguments. But political science, like other sciences, typically operates by falsifying other explanation: presenting evidence that a given explanation or counterfactual is incorrect. It is important to make sure your arguments are falsifiable, or that they can be shown to be wrong.

How do you make your argument falsifiable? How do you make it causal? What is the ‘right’ about of detail and complexity in an argument? Watch this video for a quick lesson answering these questions.

For an argument or theory to be causal, it should must make a statement about how some cause brings about some effect - in other words, how some independent variable brings about some dependent variable.

How can you make your argument stronger?

A thesis statement will respond to a specific question, whether that question is explicitly asked in a prompt or is a question you have yourself developed. Your thesis statement should be a clear answer to a clear question.

Your answer should have several parts. It should state both “what” your argument is statement and also “how” your argument works. If you argue that wealth causes democracy, your explanation of “why” wealth causes democracy should be clearly previewed in your thesis.

In college-level papers, thesis statements can be more than one sentence long! Being concise is always good. But if your thesis is somewhat complex, it is ok for your statement to be longer. The “how” part of your paper may involve two or three causal steps, and it is worth taking another sentence to clearly lay them out.

Applying Scope Conditions

Most papers are not about making sweeping arguments that showcase everything you know, but about making a valid and compelling argument within a set of parameters. Those parameters are either provided by the assignment or you impose on yourself to keep your argument clear and effective.

In writing, be explicit about the “scope conditions” of your argument. In other words, under what conditions or in which cases is your argument valid?

Example: “In democracies,” i.e., not for every country we’ve looked at, but only for democracies.
Example: “Among late developers” i.e., only in those countries that developed recently.

Evaluating your Argument

Can readers take your thesis statement and test it like they would a hypothesis? Would they know what to look for to evaluate how well your argument is made? If so, it’s got the makings of a strong thesis.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested. For example, in the statement "wealth leads to democracy," we can imagine testing it by looking for wealthy countries that aren't democratic.

If readers can look at your thesis statement and quickly think of what evidence would refute your claim, it might mean there’s room for healthy debate on the topic – and it might mean there’s a genuine weakness in your argument – but it also means you probably have a clearly written, falsifiable thesis statement.

A very common thesis-related problem for students is that readers don't know how to evaluate whether the argument is right or wrong. This idea of being able to test arguments against new evidence is what makes political science "scientific."

Additional Tips

Be direct, and own your answer. Don’t say, “The purpose of my paper is to show that economic development causes democracy.” Say, “Economic development causes democracy, because…”

But it is OK to use the first-person voice in political science! (Example: "Wealth is a necessary condition for democracy. I show this by examining all countries with an average GDP above $6,000 per year")

Make it clear where your thesis statement is. You don’t have to put the thesis statement at the end of a short, first paragraph...but this is common, because it keeps you from writing too much/too little introduction, and it’s often where your reader will look first (because it is so common!)

Avoid the word “prove,” which implies definitive proof (which is rarely possible in social sciences)

Avoid overly stylized language in your thesis statement, and keep it as clear, specific, and unambiguous as possible.

It’s ok to argue that sometimes things work one way, and sometimes another. For example, “wealthy countries are usually democratic, but sometimes they aren’t.” However, it’s much stronger to try and make this difference part of your argument---”Wealthy countries are usually democratic because [reason], but oil-rich countries are an exception because [reason].”