WHAT makes a strong argument - one that will pass the scrutiny of your audience? Simply wording an argument strongly doesn’t make it any more weighty than pounding one’s fist on the table makes one’s opinion right. Here are three things you should aim for:

First, be consistent. Have you undermined your own position by mentioning an objection and failing to rebut it? Considering objections strengthens your argument, but only if you can rebut them successfully. A rebuttal must show either that an objection is wrong or that it is somehow irrelevant. Let’s suppose you contend that we’re in the grip of climate change, yet you mention that some experts disagree. Unless you can show me why I should discount the skeptical experts’ opinion, you’ll have undermined your argument.

Second, is your argument rationally compelling? Since an opinion piece is too short ever to be comprehensive, choose your arguments judiciously. Address the most significant and highly relevant considerations bearing on your issue. Once you have sketched out your arguments try this test: could someone else, given the same information as you’ve presented, reach a different conclusion from yours? If the answer is yes, your argument is weak. Why might someone reach a different conclusion based on the same information? If you have addressed all the major considerations, then the problem probably lies in something left unsaid. What assumptions does your reader perhaps not share with you?

For example, suppose you are against the introduction of a national identity card. In support, you claim that identity cards infringe civil liberties. But I might say, “So what?” If I feel sufficiently threatened by whatever it is identity cards are supposed to stop, I may think it’s sometimes worth trading freedom for safety.

Your argument presupposes that infringing civil liberties is always a bad thing. Here is an assumption we don’t share.

If you identify such potential clashes you can address them by supporting your view further.

You might say, for instance, that a government with the power to infringe civil liberties is potentially more dangerous than a few crooks, however bad. Now you have a chance of winning me over. Unless you justify potentially controversial assumptions, I may fail to see the point of your argument and conclude something different than you.

Third, check your foundations. All arguments must “bottom out” somewhere. They come to rest on fundamental premises that you take for granted. These are the claims on which ultimately all your arguments rely. How solid are they?

Ask yourself on what basis you make each claim. Is it common knowledge? Expert opinion? A statistic? Your own personal knowledge or experience? Why would someone else accept it?

If, for instance, you think something is common knowledge, is it clear that it’s correct and not just a commonly held - but mistaken - opinion? Common misconceptions, such as stereotypes, are not solid grounds for rational argument.

IF IT is the opinion of an expert, what makes this person an expert? How good are their credentials? Do other experts in the relevant field agree? Could your source’s opinion be biased? Would your readers readily accept the opinion of a tobacco industry expert who says smoking is beneficial, or of a climatologist whose research was funded by a petrochemical company? What about the opinions of a politician, or of an editor or journalist? What factors might influence the views they present?

Even “factual” claims can be wrong or misleading. Statistics can be based on poor research or be misinterpreted or misused. People can choose what facts to present and not give the whole picture. This doesn’t mean you should ignore factual claims or statistics. Just be mindful that there may be another version.

If you’re writing from experience, think “big picture” then illustrate with specific detail. Anecdotes or personal touches can resonate with audiences because people can relate to them. But make me see beyond the personal. You can elicit my sympathy by describing the pain and loss of dignity suffered by a terminally ill grandparent; but, however sympathetic, I may not be convinced that euthanasia is therefore right. The leap from your personal experience to changing legislation is too great. Make me see the bigger, more universal picture, where those suffering could be “me and mine”. That thought is more likely to be compelling.

The idea is to think critically about your own argument before your audience does, so you can strengthen it before you present it. But critical thinking begins with clear thinking. The strength of an argument lies in the logical connections between thoughts. If those thoughts and the connections between them are not clearly articulated, they are impossible to evaluate. To check your argument effectively you must have a very clear idea of exactly what it is - the bare, logical bones of it. So plan your case with care: keep the language simple, unadorned and to the point, devoid of rhetorical devices and use a technique like argument mapping to clarify the connections. Argument maps show the rational relationships between your thoughts much more clearly than prose does, allowing you to check them more easily.

Have you given your argument the “all clear”? Then it’s time to choose the right language with which to present it.

Yanna Rider is a Melbourne University philosophy fellow and works with Austhink, a Melbourne-based consultancy and software firm specialising in critical thinking skills for schools, government departments and businesses.