"Towards a Theory of Visual Argument" Summary

In “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument,” David Birdsell and Leo Groarke want their readers to improve their understanding of visual argument. They feel that visual argument is as important as verbal argument and that it should be recognized and treated as such. To help the reader gain a better understanding of visual argument, Birdsell and Groarke present the reader with three main issues: the issue of clarity, the issue of context, and the issue of resemblance and representation.

For their first point, Birdsell and Groarke compare the clarity of visual argumentation to that of verbal argumentation. They argue that both can be vague, so the claim that visuals are not clear enough is invalid. Birdsell and Groarke take a similar approach for the issue of context. They use the example of context clues used in reading and say that this concept should also be applied when analyzing visuals. The last point offered by Birdsell and Groarke is that of resemblance and representation. The authors give clear examples of the difference between resemblance and representation by mentioning symbols that may represent certain things, but that don’t necessarily resemble them.

Birdsell and Groarke close by bringing up a minor point about the difference between persuasion and argument. They then reiterate their points regarding clarity, context, and resemblance and remind the reader that an understanding of visual argumentation is an important part of a comprehensive understanding of argument.