1. Can I eliminate vagueness in my writing with stipulative definitions?
2. If it's so hard to eliminate vagueness, how can I always do it?
3. Why do we treat clarity as the only virtue in argumentative writing?

1. Can I eliminate vagueness in my writing with stipulative definitions?

Sometimes. Stipulative definitions pose an attractive temptation to writers who want to narrow down their discussion. Say how you will use a word, and you can leave out all sorts of distracting details. But bear in mind that this move can free your writing from one problem only to leave it open to others.

Stipulative definitions work best when they fix the meaning of a neologism or abbreviation: "I will use 'STS' to refer to Socrates' theory of the state"; "Let 'Constable green' mean the color of lawns in Constable's landscapes." Such definitions free the author from having to repeat a long phrase or explain a concept every time it comes up. As long as you do not sprinkle abbreviations and technical terms through every paragraph of an essay, stipulative definitions that do this work make writing clearer.

Problems arise when a stipulative definition narrows down an existing word. If you intend to prove that there is no cure for baldness, and you begin by defining baldness as "the absence of hair from 80 percent of the scalp or more for at least ten years," you will probably reach your desired conclusion, but only by first having narrowed down the significance of that conclusion.

You may also find yourself begging the question (see Chapter 6). If you define "age-appropriate reading skills" as "those reading skills achieved by most people of a certain age," you will be able to conclude that most American students have age-appropriate reading skills, but only because you have already embedded that conclusion in your stipulative definition.

Finally, a surprising number of authors begin with stipulative definitions only to forget them as they write. This happens especially with extremely abstract concepts like beauty. You may begin by stipulating that beauty, in your discussion, will imply only "the quality of an object that arouses pleasure without appealing to self-interest"; in all likelihood, you will wind up discussing beautiful things that do arouse self-interest, because the word "beauty" in fact applies to them.

2. If it's so hard to eliminate vagueness, how can I always do it?

No one can. Vagueness makes language possible. Without it we could never use old words to describe a new experience. Because a word like "table" is vague, for example, very new kinds of tables get called by the old name and no one has to invent a brand-new word every time. Such vagueness does not threaten clear writing as long as no substantial points depend on a vague term.

To call a claim excessively vague is to say that it leaves its implications inappropriately undefined. Thus, one should ask political candidates who vow to eradicate all unjust taxes how they plan to define "unjust." They may be calling for as much as the elimination of income tax or as little as the repeal of sales tax on shoes.

Our legal system offers an example of how to treat vagueness. On one hand, many laws, such as those defining fraud and libel, appeal to what "a reasonable person" would believe. Judges and juries have to make judgments about what that hypothetical person might conclude in any specific case, but good judgments are the rule rather than the exception.

On the other hand, the legal system will strike down a law as "void for vagueness" if its application has been left so unclear as to invite capricious and unpredictable use. "Disturbing the peace," as it is defined in some jurisdictions, can be taken so broadly that attorneys may well defend someone arrested on that charge on the grounds that people never know when they disturb the peace.

3. Why do we treat clarity as the only virtue in argumentative writing?

Good writing possesses a number of virtues besides clarity. A lively style, the judicious choice of words, the well-turned phrase, all contribute to the best writing. This is not to mention such essential elements as evidence for factual claims and logical coherence, both of which will receive attention in coming chapters.

The present chapter emphasizes clarity for three reasons. First, it is a necessary condition of good argumentative writing even though it is far from sufficient. When we turn soon to the validity of arguments and the basis for factual claims, we will have to presuppose that someone can integrate that material into writing that has already achieved sufficient clarity.

Second, good argumentative writing aims at communicating its points, and clear writing, by definition, communicates well.

Third, even though other elements of writing--which may reduce its clarity--contribute to the overall effect of an essay, clarity is the hardest to accomplish. If the best writing lies on a spectrum somewhere between excessive clarity (tedious to read, insensitive to the subtleties of an issue) and excessive obscurity, nearly everyone's writing improves by aiming at the former extreme in order to avoid the latter.