What distinguishes connectives from evidence in arguments?

Connectives play a crucial role in arguments by linking different parts of reasoning, facilitating the flow of thought and making it easier for the audience to follow the argument's structure. Unlike evidence, which consists of facts, statistics, or other concrete data that can be clearly verified as true or false, connectives are more about the relationships between statements or ideas and do not themselves carry an inherent truth value.

For example, words and phrases such as "therefore," "however," or "for example" function as connectives. They guide the audience on how to interpret the evidence or claims presented but do not present factual information that can be validated independently. Because of this characteristic, connectives cannot always be judged to be true or false; they serve primarily as a framework for the argument rather than as content that holds factual veracity.

In contrast, evidence relies on the verifiability of the information provided, which is typically more concrete and subjective interpretations can arise around how that data is utilized or referenced within an argument. This distinction reinforces the idea that while both connectives and evidence are vital components of effective arguments, they serve different purposes and operate under different criteria of validation.