FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENT

DISTINGUISHING ARGUMENT FROM NON-ARGUMENT

An argument is present whenever one or more statements are offered to prove a further statement.

Arguments may be as long as a book or as short as a single sentence. For example: The Braves will win because Greg Maddux is pitching.

It is important to realize that passages may be argumentative (in the ordinary or broad sense), disputatious, opinionated, etc., without being an argument. A string of assertions does not alone make an argument.

There must also be present an INFERENCE RELATIONSHIP; it must be evident that the purpose of some of the statements is to directly support, back-up, prove, a further statement. This further statement is the conclusion of the argument. The supporting statements represent the evidence, as the arguer sees it, and are referred to as premises.

Every argument is an attempt to settle an issue, answer a question, or relieve doubt. For example, the issue implicit in the above argument is whether the Braves will win (a given game). The argument seeks to settle the issue, as it takes a position on it and gives a reason to support that position.

Many arguments contain INDICATOR WORDS that typically clearly indicate the presence of an inference relation. For example, "because" in the above argument indicates that a reason, a premise, will follow.

A Few Premise Indicators: because, since, for.

A Few Conclusion Indicators: therefore, hence, thus, so.

Practice: Make a list of additional words and phrases that may operate as premise or conclusion indicators.

Keep in mind that these indicator words do not operate perfectly. Consider the following passage: The Braves lost because the bullpen was shaky. Is it an argument? No, it is an EXPLANATION. There is nothing here to prove; it is an obvious fact that the Braves lost. A reason is given, namely that the bullpen was shaky, but it is given to explain the fact of the loss, not to prove it. One may of course argue over the quality of the explanation, but that is another matter and does not alter the fact that the passage is an explanation.

In short, if reasons are offered to PROVE THAT a particular opinion is true or should be accepted, you have an argument. If reasons are offered to EXPLAIN WHY something is the case, why a fact or situation is as it is, then you have an explanation.

Practice: Construct two explanations.

ANALYZING AND SIMPLIFYING ARGUMENTS: WHAT ARE THE PARTS AND WHERE DO THEY FIT?

You have identified the conclusion; now write it down at the bottom of a sheet of paper, rephrasing as needed to maximally clarify its meaning. (This rephrasing, using simple declarative sentences whenever possible, may be necessary for all parts of the argument.)

Next identify the primary or main premise claims, those which appear to most directly connect (or were thought by the arguer to directly connect) to the conclusion. Write them down across the page and above the conclusion.

Sub-premises are those claims that directly support or connect to the primary premises. Identify them and write them above their respective premises. Note that a primary premise, relative to its supporting sub-premise, is itself a conclusion; as to the argument as a whole, however, it is only an intermediate conclusion.

You may continue in this fashion or you may summarize the remaining data relevant to each line of reasoning and locate it appropriately.

At this point, having in the process eliminated repetitions, irrelevancies, and rhetorical excesses and ornamentation, you are in a position to fairly and effectively evaluate the quality of the argument.

Practice: Find an argument and reconstruct it according to the above method

These pointers on reconstructing a found argument apply equally to the construction of your own argument. You will see that they are incorporated into the following procedure for CONSTRUCTING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT:

Identify the ISSUE precisely and specifically.

Gather and consider relevant EVIDENCE. You may end up refining your issue-statement in the process.

Take a position on the issue, responding directly to your express statement of the issue. This is the CONCLUSION of your argument.

Identify the main lines of support that the evidence offers your conclusion. Craft simple declarative sentences to represent each distinctive line of reasoning. These will be your PRIMARY PREMISE CLAIMS.

You now have your argument in skeletal form. It is time to put meat on the bones. You do this by organizing and marshalling your evidence in support of each of your primary premise claims. Your main premises in effect become topic sentences for paragraphs. In longer arguments, of course, sub-premises will also serve in this capacity.

In summary, consider the following formulation of the above:

The issue is…

My position on the issue is…

My main reasons for this conclusion are (1) … (2) … (3)… etc.

I will now develop my argument by elaborating my support for each of my main premises in turn.

Voila, a clear argument, ready for evaluation.

ARGUMENT EVALUATION: TRUTH OF PREMISES AND STRENGTH OF SUPPORT:

A reliable argument is one that satisfies two conditions. Its premises are true AND they logically support the conclusion.

There is a simple and foolproof method for judging the quality of any argument. This method consists in asking and answering three (sometimes just two) questions:

TRUTH

Are the premises true?

LOGICAL SUPPORT

Do the premises guarantee the conclusion?

OR

Do the premises strongly support the conclusion?

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE

It is perhaps self-evident that one cannot draw acceptable conclusions from false, unreliable, incomplete, or misleading evidence.

The highest level of logical connection is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An argument that exhibits this absolute connection is referred to as valid, or as having a VALID FORM.

For example: All A is B.
X is A

X is B

Check this yourself. Substitute any terms you choose for A, B, and X. If the premises you create are true, the conclusion will also be true.

If an argument is valid then there is no point in asking how strongly its premises support its conclusion. The reasoning pattern of a valid argument guarantees that its conclusion follows from its premises. If those premises are in fact true, then the conclusion too must be true.

Consider the following two arguments. Both are valid; in both cases the conclusion follows necessarily from, is guaranteed by, the premises. They are not, however, equally good arguments. One has all true premises and one does not. Two points are here illustrated. First, a reliable argument must have true premises AND exhibit an acceptable logical connection between premises and conclusion. Second, these two questions are distinct and must be asked and answered separately.

If Maddux pitches, then the Braves will win.

Maddux is pitching.

So, the Braves will win.

If today is Monday, then tomorrow is Friday.

Yes, today is Monday.

Tomorrow it will be Friday.

As you may suspect, and as question 3 above implies, validity is not the only acceptable form of logical connection. In fact, many if not most arguments do not even purport to guarantee their conclusion. The question for such an argument is whether its premises STRONGLY SUPPORT its conclusion, whether they make it probable or very likely that the conclusion is true. As you likely perceive, unlike validity, which is an all or nothing status, an argument’s strength is relative to the quantity and quality of evidence contained in its premises. Consider the two following arguments. One is very strong and the other is very weak. Articulate to yourself why this is so.

The sun has risen every day for recorded history.

The sun will, therefore, rise tomorrow.

The sun rose yesterday and today.

The sun will, then, rise tomorrow.

PRACTICE: Construct a series of three arguments that vary in strength.

FURTHER DISCUSSION: DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION: THE BASIC DIVISION WITHIN ARGUMENT:

Arguments that are or purport to be valid are categorized as DEDUCTIVE arguments.

All non-deductive arguments are generally classified as INDUCTIVE arguments. Inductive arguments are always either strong or weak, depending on the degree of support their premises offer their conclusions.

While you may routinely ask of every argument whether it is valid (question two above), once you become familiar with the induction-deduction distinction, you will usually go directly to the relevant test of logical connection. There is, for example, little reason to ask whether an obviously probabilistic argument is valid. When, however, you are unclear on an argument’s inductive or deductive status, ask first whether it is valid, and second, if necessary, whether it is strong.

Realize and remember, above all, that a reliable argument is one that has true premises and an acceptable logical connection. More precisely, a reliable argument must have true premises and be either valid or strong. Such a reliable argument is typically given the label SOUND or the label COGENT. Note, however, that "sound" is sometimes reserved for use with deductive arguments.

A SAMPLING OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS:

DEDUCTIVE arguments encountered and used in everyday life seldom clearly exhibit their structure. Recall, however, that it is the structure, the form or pattern of reasoning in an argument, that marks the argument as deductive or inductive. Recall, further, the purpose of this distinction, which is to focus the question of logical connection on validity or on strength.

Everyday arguments may be rephrased and recast to clarify their claims and highlight their structure. This clarification makes it much easier to decide whether an argument is valid or strong. This clarification is particularly helpful with the validity question, for there are standard forms of valid deductive argument that serve as models for comparison.

HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS

MODUS PONENS: IF A THEN B.

MODUS TOLLENS: IF A THEN B.

NOT B

NOT A

PURE HYPOTHETICAL: IF A THEN B.

IF B THEN C.

IF A THEN C.

DISJUNCTIVE ARGUMENT: EITHER A OR B.

NOT A

PRACTICE: Construct two arguments for each of the valid forms above, substituting your own content claims for the letters.

CAUTIION: Do not confuse the following three INVALID forms of argument with their valid cousins above.

INVALID: If A then B.

Not A.

Not B.

INVALID: Either A or B.

Not B.

PRACTICE: Construct an argument for each of these invalid forms, demonstrating how they allow false conclusions to be drawn from true premises.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS: Three-line arguments which draw a conclusion about the relationship of two terms (representing distinct categories or classes) based on the mediation of a third or "middle" term. Some of these arguments are valid and some are not. For the present you are left to your own ingenuity in figuring out whether a given categorical syllogism is or is not valid. Again recall that an argument is valid when it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The two arguments below are valid.

All Atlanta Braves are baseball players.

All baseball players are athletes.

All Atlanta Braves are athletes.

Notice the form of the above argument; any argument following this form will be valid.

All B are P.

All P are A.

All B are A.

Some students are soccer players.

All soccer players are athletes.

Some students are athletes.

Again, notice the argument’s form:

Some S are P.

All P are A.

Some S are A.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: Inductive arguments are more various and less systematically classified than deductive arguments. While there are distinct varieties of induction, keep in mind that many inductive arguments fit no particular form. Moreover, the important question for any inductive argument is the question of strength. How strongly do its premises support its conclusion?

INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION:

Every dog I’ve encountered has been friendly.

It must be that all dogs are friendly.

ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY:

Every dog I’ve encountered has been friendly.

The dog now approaching me will be friendly.

ARGUMENT FROM STATISTICS:

The national poll showed 70% support for the new tax.

My co-workers probably support the tax.

CAUSAL ARGUMENTS:

The grass is wet this morning.

So, it must have rained last night.

PRACTICE: Construct two examples of each of the above varieties of inductive argument.

MORE EXAMPLES OF INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: