What it argues
A Rulebook for Arguments is Anthony Weston's slim, widely assigned handbook on how to build and judge arguments. It is deliberately not a treatise. Weston treats an argument not as a quarrel but as a set of reasons or evidence offered in support of a conclusion, and he organizes the whole book as a series of short, numbered rules you apply rather than theory you have to absorb.
The heart of the book is its rules for short arguments. Identify your premises and your conclusion, present your points in a natural order, start from reliable premises, and stay concrete and concise. Use consistent terms and hold each term to one meaning, and argue from substance rather than emotional overtone or loaded language. From there Weston works through the main argument types: generalizing from examples, reasoning by analogy, citing authorities and sources, and arguing about causes. Each comes with its own cautions, like needing enough representative examples, analogies that are relevant rather than merely catchy, sources that are informed and unbiased, and correlation that is not mistaken for cause.
What it gets right
- 1.
An argument is not a quarrel. It is a set of reasons or evidence offered to support a conclusion, meant to back up an opinion rather than just assert it more loudly.
- 2.
Start from reliable premises. Even a perfectly structured argument fails if it rests on premises the reader won't grant.
- 3.
Use consistent terms and hold each term to a single meaning, so the argument doesn't quietly shift ground as it goes.
What it covers
Who wrote it
Anthony Weston is an American philosopher and longtime professor at Elon University, where he taught philosophy and environmental studies. His work spans critical thinking, ethics, creative problem-solving, and environmental philosophy, and he is known for clear, practical writing aimed at students and general readers. A Rulebook for Arguments, first published in 1987 and now in its fifth edition, has become one of the most widely assigned short guides to constructing and evaluating arguments.