Book Review 

INFORMAL LOGlC 

XIII.1, Winter 199] 

If Only It Were So Easy 

ROBERT C. ROWLAND University of Kansas 

Makau, Josina M. (1990). Reasoning and 
Communication: Thinking Critically About 
Arguments. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 241 
pages. ISBN 0-534-12390-2. Paper. 

In Reasoning and Communication, Josina 
M. Makau provides a brief overview to a 
variety of issues relating to argument analysis 
and evaluation, critical thinking, argument 
creation, and the ethics of rhetoric. In the 
nine chapters in the book Makau defends 
the importance of argument analysis as a 
means of facilitating critical thinking and 
makes a start toward creating a pedagogical 
plan for teaching those critical thinking skiIIs. 

The book opens with a defense of the 
value of critical thinking. In a very standard 
treatment, Makau argues that critical thinking 
is needed in order to make effective deci-
sions at all levels of a society from personal 
choices to the most crucial political decision. 
Makau also claims that the critical think-
ing process is essential to protecting liberty. 

The chapters that follow provide a short 
course in rational argumentation and per-
suasion skills. The second chapter discusses 
a number of elements in the critical think-
ing process including questioning skills, 
research skills, reading skills, and means 
of discovering underlying assumptions and 
values. In the third, fourth, and fifth 
chapters, Makau moves to a consideration 
of issues of interest to an argumentation 
theorist. This section begins with a defense 
of the value of argument that focuses on the 
link between rational consideration of the 

issues and good policy outcomes. In this 
section, Makau distinguishes between com-
petitive and cooperative decision making, 
concluding that competitive decision mak-
ing may lead advocates "to seek only 
evidence that advances a preconceived, 
narrow perspective" (49). Cooperative 
argument, by contrast, "is a process of 
reasoned interaction on a controversial topic 
intended to help participants and audiences 
make the best assessments or decisions in 
any given situation" (49). Makau follows 
this relatively standard defense of the value 
of argument with a discussion of the 
characteristics of argument, concluding that 
good argument "involves a balance beween 
logic and emotion" (57). 

The fourth chapter breaks down 
arguments into a variety of elements. 
Makau's treatment of the various parts mak-
ing up argument is relatively standard and 
includes a focus on claims, issues, common-
places, presumption and burden of proof, 
definitions, types of evidence, and in-
ferences. In this section, Makau also draws 
a traditional distinction between deductive 
and inductive argument forms. 

The fifth chapter moves to a focus on the 
types of audiences that are exposed to argu-
ment and the various situations in which 
argument occurs. Makau's analysis of the au-
dience focuses on what she calls the "compos-
ite audience" that is described as follows: 

This is an audience, either imagined or real, 
that includes people whose critical thinking 
skills permit them to make reasoned deci-
sions about controversial issues. Members 



50 Robert C. Rowland 

of the eomposite audienee also have enough 
information on the panieular topic to make 
an informed judgment about it. (103) 

The composite audience then functions as 
an ideal for decision making and could be 
thought of as a practical definition of 
Perelman's universal audience. Later in this 
chapter, Makau discusses specific contexts 
in which argument occurs, including 
dialogic contexts, written contexts, public 
address contexts, and legal argument. 

In the sixth chapter Makau treats stan-
dards for communication ethics. The focus 
is heavily on the importance of telling the 
full truth. Makau also cites the composite 
audience as an appropriate standard for 
judging the ethics of communication 
practices. 

The last three chapters are grouped 
together under the general heading 
"Applications." In chapter 7 Makau 
focuses on developing arguments to be 
used in advocacy. especially emphasizing 
the process of developing an issue brief for 
advocating a position. Chapter 8 consists 
of discussion of the argument evaluation 
process and concludes with a discussion 
of 21 different fallacies (184-198). 
In chapter 9, Makau applies the previous 
analysis to four key issues of the day: 
sexual identity and gender norms, public 
policy and family. gay rights, and surrogate 
motherhood. 

Reasoning and Communication clearly 
possesses a number of strengths. The most 
obvious strength of the work is the breadth 
of its coverage. In slightly less than 250 
pages Makau manages to cover many im-
portant issues relating to the philosophical 
justification behind critical thinking and 
argumentation, argument description, argu-
ment evaluation, fallacy theory, the ethics 
of advocacy, and argument creation. While 
the work is brief, Makau does a good job of 
laying out a clear position on any number 
of issues. For example, Makau's defense 
of argument as a means to critical thinking, 
which is in turn important for its effect on 
personal and societal decision making, is 

extremely cogent. At other points Makau 
provides useful "rules of thumb" to be 
applied in the argument generation or 
evaluation process. For example, early in 
the work Makau defends the value of the 
following questions as one means of aiding 
the development of critical listening and 
reading skills: 

What conelusions does the anist, author, or 
speaker want me to draw? 
What suppon does the source give for these 
conelusions? 
Is the suppon relevant, reliable, and 
adequate? 
What are the assumptions underlying the 
author's or speaker's reasoning? 
Are these assumptions acceptable to me? 
Has the author or speaker adequately 
considered and presented alternative 
perspectives? (21) 

While clearly not unique, these questions 
represent a useful approach to one aspect 
of the critical thinking process. 

The work has other values as well. 
Makau's focus is on recent public con-
troversies, events such as the Exxon Valdez 
tanker disaster and the Iran/Contra affair. 
This consideration of recent events is useful 
for providing students with a frame of 
reference. Makau's work is also valuable 
in that it is clearly written and explained. 
The examples and illustrations within it tend 
to be topical and interesting. 

Despite its obvious strengths, Reason-
ing and Communication possesses signifi-
cant weaknesses that restrict the contexts 
in which it can serve as a useful text. The 
most important weakness of the book is 
derived directly from its main strength, 
breadth of coverage. The obvious problem 
with Makau's broad approach is that it can-
not do justice to the wealth of important 
issues of concern to a student of argumen-
tation and critical thinking. For example, 
there is almost no discussion of the process 
of describing arguments. Makau seems to 
operate on the assumption that the relation-
ship between the claims, evidence, and 
reasons that make up an argumentative posi-
tion will be relatively clear. Of course, this 



is often not the case. It is therefore not sur-
prising that Makau gives virtually no con-
sideration to the difficulties involved in 
identifYing unstated enthymematic premises 
and conclusions. Clearly, Makau assumes 
that the structure of argument is readily ap-
parent in most cases, an assumption that 
most argumentation theorists probably 
would deny. Similarly, the treatment of 
fallacies is largely undeveloped; 21 fallacies 
in 14 pages obviously can not provide an 
adequate discussion of the complexities in-
volved in fallacy theory or even a complete 
introduction to their application. 

Makau's text is a useful broad introduc-
tory text, with current illustrative examples. 
From a pedagogical perspective, however, 
the book is lacking in developed illustra-
tions of the argument evaluation process and 
also in extended case-studies for student 
analysis. Put differently, the main strength 
of the work, its breadth of coverage, is also 
its main weakness. If one is seeking a broad 
introduction, this is a fine book. If one 
wants an in-depth introduction to argument 
description and analysis, then other works 
might be more appropriate. 

The final weakness of the work relates 
to the implicit view of rational decision 
making in the work. While most students 

Review of Makau 51 

of argumentation would endorse Makau's 
defense of the value of critical thinking 
skills, Makau makes that relationship 
sound more direct than it is. From reading 
Reasoning and Communication, one could 
get the view that if all decision makers 
only had these basic skills then immediately 
they would begin making better decisions. 
Of course, the world is not that simple and 
the relationship between the "best 
arguments and reasoning" and the "best" 
policy is at best problematic. This in no way 
undercuts Makau's analysis of the function 
of argumentation, but it does suggest that 
argumentation theorists should be careful 
not to oversell their product. Developed 
argumentation skills do not guarantee good 
decisions; many of our most disastrous deci-
sions have been made by individuals who 
essentially were following the principles 
outlined by Makau. But the alternative is 
much worse. Reason may be a weak light 
to illuminate the world, but it is the only 
light that we have. 

ROBERT C. ROWLAND 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION 

STUDIES 
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 
LAWRENCE, KS 66045-2177