Key ideas

• Arguments are central to our lives as human beings because we need to establish accurate models of reality in order to get the results that we want.
• Humans are often not very good at reasoning and argument. This is partly because thinking is hard work – but it’s also because the existing models we use for reasoning often don’t work very well.
• This article introduces a new model, the argument claim hexagon model, that can be used to analyse existing arguments and develop new ones.

1. The problem

Arguments are central to our lives as human beings.

We cannot function without having discussions about competing descriptions of reality:

• what we do as societies and countries is founded on reasoning and argument
• much of what we read and talk about involves reasoning and argument
• good decisions cannot be made without recourse to reasoning and argument.

There are six types of question that we are continually asking of everything:

• is X true or false?
• what causes X / what are the effects of X?
• how should X be defined or classified?
• what does X mean?
• is X good or bad?
• what action should we take in response to X?

Reasoning and argument involves thinking about and discussing the answers we come up with to those six questions. These answers help us to form models of reality about the past, present and future. And we form these models of reality for our personal lives; on a wider local, national or planetary scale; and on the widest cosmological scale.

It’s certainly arguable that the more accurate models of reality individuals, companies, institutions, societies and countries can develop, the greater the chance they have to be successful.

Yet although reasoning and argument are critical to humans, few people spend much time on understanding the structure of arguments or improving their reasoning skills.

Reasoning involves thinking – and thinking is often considered excessively hard work. It can be easier to stay within one’s personal comfort zones and not challenge one’s assumptions than risk the discomfort and possible danger of arriving at controversial conclusions.

In addition, I’m not sure that many of our existing models for understanding reasoning and argument work effectively. While there are many useful argumentation models such as argument mapping and the Toulmin model, they are often too complex for introducing people to argument and reasoning. It’s also debatable whether the teaching of critical thinking has made a significant impact in the quality of people’s reasoning.

2. A possible solution

The purpose of this article is to introduce the argument claim hexagon model. It’s a new model I’ve developed for understanding the structure of arguments. I’ve found it very useful for understanding other people’s arguments and developing my own arguments. Hopefully, you will find it useful too.

Where argument fits in

It’s important firstly to understand the context that argument fits within.

There are three main approaches to discussing or communicating claims about reality:

• argument
• explanation
• exploration.

Arguments involve contested claims about reality.

Explanations happen when claims about reality are agreed, accepted or uncontested by the parties involved.

Explorations happen where claims about reality are uncertain and it has been decided that further work is needed to establish some certainty.

(Assertion is sometimes treated as a separate category to these three. However I regard assertion more as a failed argument in which a claim is made, but no reasoning is provided to back up the claim.)

We travel easily between the two main poles of argument and explanation, both as individuals and in groups. What has been accepted, agreed, or settled can quickly become contested when new facts or developments occur. And what has previously been contested can become agreed.

Of course, claims of reality that you might accept, as an individual or jointly with others, may be strongly contested by other individuals or groups.

Understanding the components of an argument

An argument can be defined as the process of reasoning by which a claim is accepted or rejected by judging:

• the adequacy of the reasons and evidence provided
• the relevance of any stated or unstated assumptions to the strength of the argument.

Definitions

A claim can be defined as a statement about an aspect of reality that is backed up by reasons and evidence. (The exception to this is that a claim of fact can exist as a claim without needing reasons.)

A reason can be defined as a statement that provides support to a claim – or, to put it another way, gives the reader or listener confidence about accepting the claim.

A claim is normally connected to the supporting reasons by the word ‘because’.

Evidence can be defined as claims of fact that provide support to a reason.

Assumptions are beliefs, principles, or conditions which the person making the claim suggests should be taken to be true without further justification. They can be implicit or explicit.

Warrants are another component of arguments. They can be defined as underlying principles which show how the reasons provided support the claim, As this is an introductory article, I will leave discussion of warrants for later.

The argument claim hexagon model

The purpose of the argument claim hexagon model is to help people:

• identify the different types of claims being made in an argument and understand how they are related to each other
• check the adequacy of the reasoning being made
• provide strategies for making better arguments.

The model uses the six different categories of claim:

• Fact – what is true or false?
• Cause and effect – what causes what?
• Definition and classification – how should something be defined or classified?
• Interpretation – how should something be understood?
• Evaluation – is something good or bad?
• Action – what should be done?

Most arguments will have one primary or main claim, which is supported by other subsidiary claims.

Showing the model in action

To show how the model can be used in practice, I’ve used a partly hypothetical example analysing the structure of claims in the development of criminal legislation and the prosecution of offences using that legislation.

The example I’ve used is the development of legislation outlawing the possession of 3D printer firearms templates ie. templates which enable the manufacture of components for firearms using 3D printing. It was proposed as a new offence as part of the UK Criminal Justice Bill 2023/24, which ultimately didn’t pass into law because the 2024 General Election was called.

I’ve divided the analysis into two parts:

1. understanding the claim categories involved in the development of the legislation

2. understanding the claim categories that would be involved in a related criminal trial.

Example 1: The claim categories involved in the development of the legislation

The primary claim is a claim of action – namely what steps should be taken to deal with the problem of 3D printer firearms templates. Other subsidiary claims are needed to support the primary claim.

Claims of fact

Establishing that there is a problem starts with claims of fact. These factual claims could include the number of people who have been shot by firearms created by 3D printers and the number of 3D printer firearm templates being discovered.

Claims of interpretation

We then move to claims of interpretation. Increasing numbers of people being shot by 3D printed firearms might lead to the interpretation that the problem will continue to get worse in the future. In addition, a review of the current laws might lead to an interpretation that the current legislation doesn’t enable anyone to be prosecuted for making or possessing firearm templates. Both these claims would need to be backed up with reasons.

Claim of definition/classification

Another key part of the argument is the claim of definition and classification. To establish that the issue is suitable for legislation, reasons need to be provided that the possession of 3d printer firearms templates fits into the classification of a crime as being “a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property” ¹.

Claim of evaluation

Underpinning the claim of definition/classification is a claim of evaluation. In this case, the evaluation claim that the possession of 3D printer firearm templates can lead to physical harm being done is not something that is open to challenge.

Claim of action

So, with support from the claims of interpretation and the claim of definition/classification, we can then move up to the main claim which is a claim of action – namely what should be done.

Claims of action often have a problem-solution-results structure. The framing of the problem comes out of the claims of fact and interpretation. That the solution involves legislation comes from the claim  that the possession of 3D printer firearms templates fits into the definition of a crime. Further work then needs to be done to ensure that the actual legislative wording will effectively address the problem and achieve the desired outcomes.

Example 2: The claim categories involved in a criminal trial

Once legislation has been passed, the prosecution of offences under that legislation involves a different set of claims. Let’s assume that the legislation to outlaw the 3D printer firearms templates was in fact passed and look at the claims that would have been involved in a trial.

The primary claim here is a claim of definition and classification, namely whether the defendant should be found guilty or not guilty.

Claims of fact

One of the key claims in any trial will be about facts. The prosecution will put forward various claims of fact to the court and provide evidence for them. If the defendant is pleading not guilty, the defence will challenge at least some of these claims. For example, the defence may try to prove that the 3d printer templates found are actually templates for other perfectly legal components.

Claims of interpretation

Where the defence accepts some of the factual claims, they may seek to establish that the prosecution’s interpretation of them is incorrect. For example, the prosecution may argue that the fact that the defendant rents the unit means that he must be responsible for the presence of the potentially illegal items. The defence, while accepting that the defendant is the renter, may challenge that interpretation by claiming that he sublet to someone else the part of the unit where the potentially illegal items were found.

Claim of definition/classification

All these claims and counter-claims are only relevant in terms of the definition of illegality provided by the legislation. This is why the arrows from the claims of fact and interpretation both point towards the claims of definition and classification category. At the end of the trial, the jury have to decide on the basis of the legislative definition and the competing claims from prosecution and defence whether to classify the defendant as guilty or not guilty .

Claim of action

Once the primary claim of guilt has been decided, a secondary claim needs to be decided on, namely what should be done. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge will hand down a punishment based on the legislation and any mitigating factors.

The different types of claims

Part of the effectiveness of using the argument claim hexagon is being able to clearly identify the different types of claim and assess the strength of the claim. So here is more detail about each different type of claim.

Claims of fact

Description: Claims of fact can be defined as “statements that can be proven to be true or false” (Hart) ² by the use of objective evidence. There are many different types of information that can be accepted as evidence:

• data from scientific experiments or clinical trials
• statistical data (eg. survey, market research, sales data)
• statements from experts
• quotes from books or papers
• eyewitness statements
• physical documents (eg. contracts, manuscripts, letters)
• forensic evidence (eg. DNA samples, fingerprints)
• mineral deposits.

Purpose and importance: The purpose of discussing claims of fact is to establish whether they are true or false.

Discussions about models of reality have at their heart the need to establish whether the claims of fact used are correct.

It is only then that one can move on to discussions of cause and effect, definition and classification, interpretation, evaluation and action. And if a claim of fact is found not to be true, it can collapse the entirety of any argument that relies on that claim.

Key question:

• is X true or false?

Claims of cause and effect

Description: Claims of cause and effect aim to identify how or why certain events, actions, or conditions lead to specific outcomes. Examining causality can involve either starting with the cause in order to identify the effects or starting with the effects to investigate the causes.

Causality can only be established in relation to evidence from the present or the past. Predictions about the future should always be considered claims of interpretation.

Purpose and importance: The purpose of claims of causality and influence is to identify the extent to which certain events, actions or conditions lead or have led to particular outcomes. This means that understanding causality is critical to being able to operate effectively in the world. Getting the outcomes we want or avoiding the outcomes we don’t want depends on having a proper understanding of cause and effect.

Key questions:

• what causes X?
• what are the effects of X?

Claims of definition and classification

Description: Definitions specify the meaning or essential characteristics of concepts, terms, objects, or phenomena. Criteria are developed from the meaning or characteristics, which are used to establish a particular definition.

Classification involves a sorting process, by which instances are either included in or excluded from a particular category using the relevant definitional criteria.

So, for example, defining the concept of fascism will involve identifying the essential characteristics of a fascist state. Classifying a particular government as fascist or not will involve examining the extent to which that government’s beliefs and behaviours can be considered similar enough to the defined characteristics of fascism.

Some classification categories also include related claims of causality and action. For example, the classification of diabetes is associated with claims about what causes diabetes and what treatment strategies are required.

Purpose and importance: The purpose of definition is to make communication more effective by providing a clear and precise understanding of what is being defined. The purpose of classification is to organise and simplify knowledge by grouping entities, concepts, or phenomena into categories based on shared characteristics.

Definition is important because it’s provides a solid foundation on which to base discussions about concepts, terms, objects, or phenomena. Classification is important because the sorting of items into categories allows more efficient communication, analysis and decision-making.

Key questions:

• how should X be defined?
• how should Y be classified?

Claims of interpretation

Description: Claims of interpretation are made to explain the meaning, significance, or implications of information, events, or phenomena.

Claims of interpretation can be small-scale, such talking about the implications of someone’s bad mood or last month’s poor sales figures. Claims of interpretation can also include large-scale intellectual frameworks such as liberalism, Marxism and postmodernism.

Purpose and importance: The purpose of claims of interpretation is to deepen understanding, offer new perspectives and connect facts to broader themes. Claims of interpretation are important for offering insight that goes beyond surface-level observations and for advancing understanding in areas where meaning is complex or subjective.

Key questions:

• what does X mean?
• how should X be understood?
• what are the implications of X?

Claims of evaluation

Description: Claims of evaluation are statements which make a judgement about the worth, quality or effectiveness of something. In short, the judgement is about whether something should be considered positive or negative in itself – or better or worse in relation to other things. The process of evaluation requires criteria against which something is assessed.

Possible categories of evaluation include:

• moral or ethical – whether something is right or wrong – or just or unjust
• aesthetic – whether something can be considered beautiful, moving or creative
• performance – how effectively does the object of evaluation achieve the desired outcomes.

Where there are competing criteria and tradeoffs to be made, a hierarchy of criteria needs to be established. For example, a company may have two evaluation criteria of improving design quality and keeping costs down, which can be in conflict. The company would then need to decide which of the two criteria should be considered more important.

Purpose and importance: The purpose of claims of evaluation is to allow us to make judgements. They are critically important to us as humans in allowing us to reason about our moral, ethical, aesthetic and performance decisions. They are also critical in guiding improvement for individuals, businesses and public agencies by highlighting areas of strength and weakness – as well as for ensuring accountability.

Key question:

• is X good or bad?

Claims of action

Description: Claims of action are statements about what should be done or not done by an individual, a group of individuals or an organisational body (eg. a business, non-profit organisation or government). Claims of action are often some of the most complex claims because they will generally include many, if not all, of the other claim categories.

Claims of action should cover three main areas:

• the problem: an understanding of  what the problem is and how it has been caused
• the results: a clear idea of the desired outcomes and a description of what the world looks like when the problem has been solved
• the solution: a description of the solution and a justification that it can be implemented and will deliver the desired outcomes.

Purpose and importance: The purpose of claims of action is to come to conclusions about the best course of action using reasoning. To get the outcomes we want and to avoid the outcomes we don’t want requires us to choose effective courses of action.

Key question:

• what action should we take in response to X?

3. Potential results from using the model

Key benefits

There are four key benefits of the model:

• It provides a systematic way to identify not just the different claims involved in an argument but also how these claims relate to each other. It therefore enables one to identify the primary, subsidiary and secondary claims in an argument.
• The visual nature of the hexagon allows a quicker understanding of the structure of an argument than if the explanation had just been presented in words.
• Identifying the explicit structure of an argument makes it easier to check the gaps in someone else’s argument and to challenge it more effectively.
• When one is developing an argument oneself, it allows one to systematically map the structure of the argument one is making and ensure that it is as complete as possible.

Potential uses

In addition to helping people analyse and develop arguments, there are other ways in which the model can be used:

1. Writing

Writers can use the argument claim hexagon model to plan and assess their writing – and deepen their engagement with other people’s ideas  – by:

• getting clear on the main claim or claim they are making in an article or a book and then using that clarity to develop the overall structure of the text
• assessing how well the subsidiary claims, reasons, and evidence back up their main claim and whether there are any gaps in their argument that may need filling in
• identifying any implicit assumptions that may need to be made explicit or that may need backing with reasons and evidence
• using the model to understand other people’s ideas and the quality of their reasoning more deeply.

2. Reading

Bonnie Meyer of Pennsylvania State University and her colleagues have been developing the text structure strategy theory since the mid-1970s. ³ They have identified six main text structures for all expository (or explanatory) text:

• comparison
• problem-and-solution
• cause-and-effect
• sequence
• collection
• description.

Their research suggests that teaching readers (from the very young through to elderly people) to identify these structures helps them to understand and remember more of what they read.

However their work misses out the vast amount of text that involves argument. It would be interesting to test whether teaching readers to identify the different types of argument claims and how they can fit together might have similar results in how much they understand and remember the articles, blog posts and non-fiction books they read.

3. Error correction

Oxford physicist and philosopher David Deutsch has developed the concept of error correction, which suggests all progress is dependent on the identification of errors in the functioning of knowledge and systems. The identification of errors then enables mistakes to be fixed.

One way to correct errors is to use the argument claim hexagon to question the status of all the different types of claim involved in different models of reality. Then we can make beneficial changes to these models of reality when particular claims don’t hold up.

Conclusion

As you will probably have noticed, the structure of this article is in the form of a claim of action. I started with the problem, suggested a possible solution and then outlined some potential benefits that might result from implementing the solution.

However it remains a hypothesis rather than an argument because I don’t yet have any evidence that using the argument claim hexagon model will provide people with beneficial results. So please let me know if you find the model useful by putting a comment on X or BlueSky – or by letting me know in an email.

I will working on a course to help people use the model as a systematic process. Please sign up to the Argument Academy newsletter below so you can be informed when it is ready.

Appendix 1 – The different categories of claims

I have taken five of the argument claim types from The Craft of Research (Fourth Edition, 2016) by Wayne C. Booth et al. ⁴

I’ve simplified two of the category names as well as changing ’cause and consequence’ to ’cause and effect’.

Reading Chris Hart’s inclusion of claims of interpretation in his list of argument claims in his book Doing a Literature Review ⁵ made me realise that this claim type needed to be added to the five claim types from The Craft of Research. So I have used six different claim types, which I think is a comprehensive list. (Like Booth et all, Hart only includes five types of claim as he misses out claims of causality from his list.)

Claim categories	Original name	Source	Reason for change
Fact	Fact or existence	The Craft of Research	To make the category name simpler
Cause and effect	Cause and consequence	The Craft of Research	I think 'Cause and effect' is a clearer category title
Definition & classification	Definition and classification	The Craft of Research	No change
Interpretation	Interpretation	Doing a Literature Review	No change
Evaluation	Evaluation or appraisal	The Craft of Research	I don't believe that including 'appraisal' adds anything to the description
Action	Action or policy	The Craft of Research	'Policy' is implied within 'Action' so having just one word makes the category title simpler

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Andrew Altshuler for discussions about many of these ideas.

Notes

1. https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/crime-info/what-crime/[↩]
2. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Sage.[↩]
3. Meyer, B. J. F., & Ray, M. N. (2017). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152. Retrieved from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/217[↩]
4. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The Craft of Research, Fourth Edition. University of Chicago Press.[↩]
5. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Sage.[↩]