Standardizing Arguments

1
Standardizing Arguments
2
What does it involve?

• Identifying the propositions that make up the
  argument, determining which are premises and
  which are conclusions, and showing the logical
  relations between them.

Usually we start by identifying the conclusion.
3
Identifying the Conclusion

• 1. Look for indicator words associated with
  conclusions.

2. The conclusion is usually the main point
of the passage.
3. The conclusion usually appears at the
beginning or at the end of the passage.
4
Identify the Premises

• These are the points in the rest of the passage
  that support the conclusion.

You need to identify the kind of premises used in
the argument
5
Different Kinds of Premises

• Convergent Premises

Premises that work independently to
support the conclusion.
6
Different Kinds of Premises

• Linked Premises

Premises that are interdependent and that must
work together to support the conclusion.
7
The Diagram Method With Convergent Premises
8
Example

• Philosophy is one of the best subjects one can
  study at university because it teaches you how to
  think clearly.

9
Example
10
Example

• Since Pat was a professional soccer player, and
  since she is a born leader, she should be the
  captain of the team.

11
Example
12
Example

• Since you came back from Africa you have seemed
  distant and distracted.

13
Example

• This is not an argument even though it contains
  the indicator word since for a premise. It is a
  description of someones behaviour.

14
The Diagram Method With Linked Premises
15
Example

• If Jesse makes that shot, then Ill be a monkeys
  uncle. Jesse made the shot. Im a monkeys uncle!

16
Example
17
Example
18
Example

• You can either take the dogs toy away or put him
  in the den. Since he swallowed his toy, youll
  have to put him in the den.

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Subarguments

•  Arguments used to support one or more of the
  premises of an argument. 

22
Example
23
Example

• Jones took it. Frank knows Jones did it because
  he saw the whole thing on the surveillance tape.

24
Example
25
Example
26
Example

• Boston is a more interesting city than Toronto.
  It has more interesting architecture and there is
  more to do in the Boston area. There are many
  terrific shops and beautiful places to visit
  nearby.

27
Boston is a more interesting city than Toronto.
It has more interesting architecture and there is
more to do in the Boston area. There are many
terrific shops and beautiful places to visit
nearby.
28
Boston is a more interesting city than Toronto.
It has more interesting architecture and there is
more to do in the Boston area. There are many
terrific shops and beautiful places to visit
nearby.
29
Example

• Either we go to the movie or we go out for
  dinner. We cant afford to go to dinner, so we
  should go to the movie. We dont have much cash
  because we dont get paid until next week.

30
Either we go to the movie or we go out for
dinner. We cant afford to go to dinner, so we
should go to the movie. We dont have much cash
because we dont get paid until next week.
31
Either we go to the movie or we go out for
dinner. We cant afford to go to dinner, so we
should go to the movie. We dont have much cash
because we dont get paid until next week.
32
Missing Bits

• Often arguments have missing premises or
  conclusions, or both.

• They are not explicitly stated and
• have to be added when
• we standardize an argument.

33
This can happen when

• 1. The speaker asks a rhetorical question
  (one that anticipates a particular answer).

• The speaker has simply failed to make all the
  premises (or conclusions) explicit.

34
Missing Premise

• You shouldnt eat that Whopper. What about your
  diet?

35
Example

• Conclusion

• You shouldnt eat that Whopper.

Premise

• You are on a diet.
• (This is implied, but was not
• stated explicitly.)

36

• There is also a missing premise about Whoppers
  being the wrong sort of thing to eat when on a
  diet.

Each Whopper contains 40 grams of fat
37
Missing Conclusion

• Youre not going to wear that outfit tonight, are
  you? Its a formal function.

38
Example

• In this example it is the conclusion that is
  missing. We can figure out what it is from the
  question Youre not going to wear that outfit
  tonight, are you? The expected answer when
  someone asks a question like that is No.

39
You shouldnt wear that outfit
That outfit is inappropriate for a formal
occasion
It is a formal occasion tonight
40

• Sometimes the speaker simply fails to make all of
  the premises explicit. When we are lucky, we can
  ask the speaker for more details and he or she
  can then provide us with the missing premises or
  conclusion.

41
Example

• It is Sharons birthday tomorrow. Therefore, Bob
  should buy her a present.

42

• Is there a special relationship between Bob and
  Sharon?

If the speaker tells us that Bob and Sharon are
married, then this should be used as a further
premise to support the conclusion.
43
Which of these should we use?
44

• Other times we cant ask the speaker to give us
  more information (perhaps you are reading an
  article). In such cases we must fill in the
  missing premises ourselves. On occasions like
  this we must use the principle of charity.

45
Using the principle of charity

• 1. The added premises must help make the argument
  as strong as possible.

2. We should not attribute to the speaker
claims that are too strong to be plausible

• 3. Strike a balance between these two
• guidelines.

46
Example

• High crime rates are caused by the widespread use
  of probation and suspended sentences. Therefore,
  we should amend the Criminal Law to provide for
  mandatory prison sentences for all crimes.

47

• Conclusion

We should amend the law to provide for mandatory
prison sentences for all crimes.

• Premise

High crime rates are caused by the widespread
use of probation and suspended sentences.
48
So far the argument looks like this
49
Possible hidden premises

• 1.    Crime rates are rising.

2.   A policy of mandatory prison sentences
for all crimes will lead to a reduction in
crime rates.

• 3.   A policy of mandatory prison sentences
• for all crimes is likely to lead to a
  reduction
• in crime rates.

50

• Clearly we need premise (1)
• Does the principle of charity suggest we should
  adopt (2) or (3)?

• (3) because (2) is too strong to be
• plausible whereas (3) will support the
• conclusion but is less contentious
• (but can still be questioned).

51
A policy of mandatory prison sentences for all
crimes is likely to lead to a reduction in crime
rates
High crime rates are caused by the widespread
use of probation and suspended sentences

52
Assumptions/Presuppositions

• Premises that are unstated but are assumed by the
  speaker.

• Often assumptions are unstated because they are
  obvious.

53
Example

• Youd better do what he says. Hes got a gun.

The missing premise in this argument is that if
you dont do what he says, hell shoot you. Since
we all understand this there is no reason to
state it explicitly.
54
Example

• Philosophers make the best lovers because being
  attentive to ones partner is essential to being
  a good lover.

55
Conclusion
Philosophers make the best lovers.
Premise
Being attentive to ones partner is essential to
being a good lover.
56
What assumption is being made here?

• What are the possible missing premises?

• 1.  Philosophers are always attentive
• people.

2. Philosophers tend to be attentive people.
57

• (1) is implausibly strong. To disprove it all one
  needs to do is find one instance of an
  inattentive philosopher (not very hard to do, in
  my opinion) to render the argument ineffective.
  Without that premise, the conclusion cannot
  follow.

• (2) is better. One instance of an
• inattentive philosopher will not
• undermine the argument.

58

• According to the principle of charity, we ought
  to adopt (2) as the missing premise.

59
Counterarguments

• An argument that responds to another argument.

• Indicator words

but, however, on the other hand
60
Counterarguments

• When standardizing a counterargument, one should
  first standardize the original argument it is
  responding to. It is very important to
  standardize it properly. Otherwise, it is hard to
  evaluate the counterargument. Then standardize
  the counterargument.

61
Example

• Some argue that Ridley Scott is a better Director
  than Kubric. They point out that Scott has
  already made many more films than Kubric, and
  that experience is the key to being a good
  director. But experience does not necessarily
  make one a good director. Ed Wood made many
  films, all of which were awful.

62
Standardize the Argument
63
Identify the Counterargument

• Some argue that Ridley Scott is a better Director
  than Kubric. They point out that Scott has
  already made many more films than Kubric, and
  that experience is the key to being a good
  director. But experience does not necessarily
  make one a good director. Ed Wood made many
  films, all of which were awful.

64
The Counterargument

• Ridley Scott is not necessarily a better director
  than Kubric. Although Scott has made more films
  than Kubric, experience does not necessarily make
  one a good director. Ed Wood has a lot of
  experience as a director, but all of his films
  were awful.

65
Components of the Counterargument
66
Counterargument
67
Example

• Sure, I see the merit in raising taxes next year.
  As you say, it will fund some needed social
  programs, but we already pay too much tax in
  Canada. In fact, we pay the highest amount in
  taxes of any G7 nation. Taxes should come down,
  not go up.

68
Argument
Taxes should be raised
69
Counterargument
Taxes should not be raised
We already pay too much tax
We pay the highest Tax of any G7 Nation
70
Counterconsiderations

• Propositions that count against the conclusion.

Indicator Words
although, it is true that, on the other hand,
despite
71
Counterconsiderations

• When we standardize an argument with a
  counterconsideration, we list the
  counterconsideration(s) underneath the
  standardization of the argument.

72
Example

• Despite the fact that the fetus is genetically
  human, abortion early on in a pregnancy is not
  equivalent to murder. What is important is the
  status of the fetus as a moral being or a person,
  and a fetus does not become a person until the
  third trimester.

73
Components of the Argument
74
Standardizing Counterconsiderations
75
Example

• Although Durkheim provided convincing arguments
  to show that the concept of God emerged as an
  inevitable mechanism of social control, these
  arguments do not prove that God does not exist.
  Durkheim merely identifies possible origins of
  the concept of God. The idea of something can
  have social origins and yet exist in reality as
  well.

76
Components of the Argument
77
(No Transcript)
78
The missing argument

• Sometimes you will see a counterargument that
  responds to another position, but no argument is
  provided for the other view.

When this happens, provide only the conclusion of
the original argument and standardize the
counterargument.
79
Example from Politically Incorrect
80
(No Transcript)