Intro

I’m a researcher in complex, ill-structured topics, and I’m always on the lookout for new tools that are useful in my work.

When Francis introduced his new argument claim framework, I immediately saw a lot of potential there and started experimenting with it.

I found it incredibly useful in the context of work with multiple claims and verifying layered arguments.

The argument claim hexagon delivers several important advantages:

1. It helps me map out an argument’s aspects to get a clearer understanding of its structure and intent.
2. It shows where the emphasis is in an argument and reveals missing/weak parts.
3. The hexagonal structure implies interconnectedness. It helps me trace how one type of claim leads to another in a logical sequence.

Now the framework is becoming an integral part of how I approach complex arguments. In the following case study, I’ll walk you through applying the framework and the insights it has unlocked.

Case study

In the case study, I will explore the argument from a podcast by Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz from a16z on the crisis in American universities.

They outline the many functions that universities serve in modern society and explore each one in detail. Probably their most important take is summarized in this quote from Ben Horowitz:

We as a society are running a scam and ripping off a huge percentage of young people who are going to college with a clear expectation to get a higher quality job and be able to repay their student debt. But that’s not the case.

Timecode: 43:08

Their generalized argument is that ‘modern universities are essentially a scam’.

The key tension of this argument is:

Students go to university to get a high-paying job.

Yet many of them end up with low-paying jobs and huge debt.

In the podcast Ben and Marc also discuss the potential solutions to the problem, including:

• unbundling university
• making knowledge cheaper and more accessible
• challenging the value of credentials.

There’s a lot to unpack here!

First, let’s break down this argument using the argument claim hexagon.

Now it’s much clearer!

We see the components that are well developed and also that some components are much less established/implicit.

The same information from the hexagon is provided in a table below for easier reference.

 

Claims of	Elaboration
Fact	Students expect to get a high-paying job Student loan crisis Many students unable to repay debt Tuition inflation Knowledge is widely available Students pay for credentials, not for education
Cause and effect	Students expect to get a high-paying job → They are willing to take debt → Many end up with low-paid jobs → It doesn’t allow them to repay debt → Leads to student debt crisis If student debt is forgiven, it shifts the payment burden to society
Definition and classification	Can be classified as a scam
Interpretation	The phrase ‘We as a society are running a scam’ implies agency and intention
Evaluation	Not a sustainable or viable scheme Bad for economy Bad for students
Action	Unbundle university Make knowledge cheaper & more accessible Challenge the value of credentials

Challenging the argument

Now let’s try to apply critical thinking and challenge this argument.

Following the  hexagon, I see three main vantage points:

• Cause and effect
• Facts
•  the Definition/Interpretation interplay.

Let’s start with the first:

1. Cause and effect

Obviously, it’s quite a low-resolution causal structure. Let’s try to zoom in a bit.

First let’s explore the expectations part of the causation claim:

Students expect to get a high-paying job

Here we can safely assume that for some students, getting a high-paying job is not their main or only expectation.

Others might include:

• personal development
• the social environment
• getting a better understanding of the world
• development of meta-skills

We might then want to explore this route further and find some relevant data (which will also update the Facts section).

The next possible problem in the Cause and effect component is that no distinction is made between different degrees (the claim refers to university as a whole). Yet we know that not all degrees are equal. So we might want to unpack this statement  too.

This leads us to the next element:

2. Facts

To challenge this element we need to find supporting and counter evidence for each of the Claims of fact (this is beyond the scope of this article).

Also you can clearly see how Facts are connected to the Cause and effect element.

So if we challenge the former it will lead to breaking the latter.

Let’s summarize two hypotheses that we formulated working with the Cause and effect element.

The first hypothesis:

Student expectations from university education form distinct patterns. Some students primarily focus on career outcomes while others hold a more diverse set of expectations including: personal development, social connections, and meta-skills.

To support this new claim we would need to explore relevant sociological data.

The second hypothesis:
Different types of university degrees have significantly different predictive power for future financial success

To confirm or refute this hypothesis we are going to need the following data:

• average salaries by degree type/field.
• return on investment calculations for various degrees.

Also, we might want to compare the employment statistics for graduates and non-graduates to explore things in context.

Now let’s move to the third vantage point:

3. The definition/interpretation interplay

The definition of scam used by Ben Horowitz is implicit. However I can try to make it explicit based on other parts of the podcast.

And it looks like it’s a classical definition of a scam:

A scam is an intentional deception for financial gain.

Intention is key here.

This is the most complex and controversial part of this argument.

To unpack it further it we need to explore the following questions:

• Do universities intentionally oversell the value of their degrees?
• Is there a difference between the intentions of different university actors (administration, faculty, board)?
• What is the role of the widespread narrative here?
  • A university degree is essential for success in life.
• How do societal structures and incentives create outcomes that might appear intentional?

Remember, intention is key here. So we need to establish it clearly.

We also need to assess how externalities and distorted incentives contribute to this problem.

An example of distorted incentives is that some university boards prioritize endowment management over education. So their intention is not to scam students, but to maximize the size of the endowment.

Wrapping up

Now you can clearly see the benefits of the framework.

It allows you to deal with each component of the argument by applying the specific toolkit.

Facts require evidence.

For causation, we need validity testing and logical fallacy identification.

For Interpretation, we need to identify cognitive biases and apply ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses)

Overall the argument claim hexagon framework can help you identify strengths and weaknesses and construct better arguments.

 

Author

Andrew Altshuler. Researcher turned consultant & educator. Tana Ambassador, founder @TanaStack. 16 years of experience in Knowledge Management. Focused on knowledge systems, digital twins & AI agents.