Argument/Claim

At the risk of being too obvious, the first component of a valid argument is that it is, in fact, an argument. Beyond transmitting information or documenting facts, a valid argument must make a clear and coherent claim. Arguments or claims are inherently persuasive and seek to make a point. By definition, this means that the claim may disputed or contradicted. Implied, unclear, or nebulous argument statements require revision until the claim is succinct and bold.

For example, consider the statement (which is pure invention):

Leonardo da Vinci was a Renaissance artist 

Unfortunately, this statement is not an argument because it is a statement of fact. Few would venture to dispute this statement in this form. If the implied argument is to claim something significant about the meaning of being a Renaissance artist, the statement should be revised to make that clear, such as (also completely hypothetical): 

Like all Renaissance artists, Leonardo da Vinci was more like a modern-day craftsman than a modern-day artist

The result is a much bolder and more provocative assertion. It makes the claim clear to the reader and must be validated through the other components of the argument, like evidence.

Evidence/Proof

Once you have asserted a claim, it is essential that you expose the reasons you support it. Think of being in a court of law. The claim is that a person is guilty or innocent. The rest of the proceedings display the evidence in favor or against this claim. This may include statements or testimony, objects, or data derived from research. It does not include how you connect the evidence or proof with the claim. Do not confuse an argument with persuasive logical reason with an argument supported by evidence. Evidence must be external to the claim itself. 

For example, consider this evidence for our claim above (which is still completely invented): 

Many documents report Leonardo da Vinci was hired to provide a skill but not to fashion a work of art.

The evidence refers to physical documents that provide data to be considered concerning the original claim. This evidence can then be examined for its credibility, usefulness, or accuracy.

Warrants/Premises

In argumentation, warrants and premises refer to the connection between the evidence and the claim. We must evaluate the assumptions required to draw the claim as a conclusion from the evidence. These tend to be components of argumentation that the presenter conceives as fact. All arguments employ warrants and premises even though they may not be articulated explicitly.

For example, consider the claim and evidence offered above. The assertion is that Leonardo da Vinci is more like a modern-day craftsman because few documents contractually obligate him to produce works of art but instead provide a skill. The underlying premise or warrant required to make this connection is that the concept of an artist was stable throughout history, that Renaissance aristocracy comprehended an artwork in the same way modern thinkers do. 

Acknowledgments/Responses

The last component required to have a valid argument is an acknowledgment of or response to an opposing viewpoint. Due to the fact that all arguments can be contradicted, it is essential to the validity of an argument to address these potential objections. An argument that does not make acknowledgments risks producing an unsubstantiated, biased claim. Instead, valid arguments use acknowledgments to provide more support for their own claim.

For example, consider how the following claim adds more weight by acknowledging and resolving potential objections.  

Many Renaissance artists enjoyed a cultural role similar to modern-day artists; however, Leonardo da Vinci was more like a modern-day craftsman. Many surviving contractual documents highlight his unique skill rather than emphasize the more abstract ideas associated with artists (such as genius, talent, or creativity). Although few documents from the Renaissance identify these features for any artist in the period, comparing the language to those for Leonardo reveals a clear bias toward manual labor. 

Relevance/Logic

Is this claim inductive (starts with facts and works to a more generalized conclusion) or deductive (begins with a claim that is used to uncover facts that produce a specific conclusion)? 

How does the claim relate to the stated problem? 

How do the warrants or premises bear on the claim or question?

How does the evidence address the claim? 

Does it all make sense together?