Recognizing Arguments

- Necessary for understanding a text.

These are words or phrases that typically serve to signal the appearance of an argument's
conclusion or of its premises.
Ex.
There is God. Those who believe in him will have everlasting life.
God exists, for the world is an organized system and all organized system must have a creator.
The creator of the world is God.
(Both sets state that God exist. The first set makes additional claims about God, but does not
supply reasons why one should belive that God exists. The second set provides reasons why God
exists. The argument of the second set of statements can be organized into premises and a
conclusion.
Premise 1: The world is an organized system
Premise 2: Every organized system must have a creator.
Conclusion: The creator of the world is God
The structure of the argument can be recognized because the word "for" follows the statement
"God exists." and precedes the statements that are Premises 1 and 2. This tells us that the
statements are premises for the conclusion, There are many words that function as premise
indicators and conclusion indicators.
Since carrots are full of vitamins, it follows that your body will benefit if you eat them.
In this argument, how do we know which part is considered the premise and which part is the
conclusion? The premise here is the fact that carrots are full of vitamins. The conclusion is that
your body will benefit from you eating carrots.
This statement about carrots includes indicator words. Indicator words provide assistance to you
when you are trying to identify an argument and its parts. The phrase Since carrots are full of
vitamins uses the indicator word 'since' which is often associated with premises. The last part of
the sentence uses the phrase, 'it follows that' to show that it is a conclusion.
Premise indicators: Words and phrases that help us recognize arguments by indicating the
presence of premises (statements being offered in support of a conclusion).
because
since
given that
seeing that
as shown by
assuming that
considering that
for the reason that
Conclusion indicators: Words and phrases that indicate the presence of a conclusion (the
statement claimed to follow from premises).
therefore
thus
it follows that
which proves/implies that
which means that
as a result
so

we may conclude
Arguments and Explanations
It can be easy to mistake explanations for arguments, since explanations also use
words like because and therefore
Consider:
Therefore is the name of the tower called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the
language of all the earth. (Genesis 11:9)
This sentence does not assert a conclusion supported by premises. Rather, it gives an explanation. It
explains why the tower was called Babel. Of course, this explanation could be asserted as a
conclusion or a premise in another argument. Perhaps it is not true that this is why the tower is
called Babel. But this sentence by itself does not contain an argument.
But sometimes, a genuine argument looks like an explanation:
Ellen R. Foxs complaint that you noted that Catherine Deneuve was perhaps not as
slender as she once was but that you did not mention Donald Trumps growing girth is
easily explained. Mr. Trump never appeared nude in a movie that made his shape a matter
of interest.3

Though it uses the word explained, this is an argument, one we might paraphrase like so:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Nude appearance in a movie makes ones appearance a matter of interest.

Mr. Trump never made a nude appearance in a movie.
Ms. Deneuve did make a nude appearance in a movie.
Therefore, Mr. Trumps appearance is not a matter of interest, but Ms. Deneuves
appearance is a matter of interest.
5.
It is appropriate for a newspaper to comment on the appearance of a prominent
person if their appearance is a matter of interest.
6.
Therefore, it was appropriate for this newspaper to comment on the appearance of
Ms. Deneuve without commenting on the appearance of Mr. Trump.

Argument one person wants to convince the other person

that it is going to snow tomorrow. He will cite predictions
from the weather station, as well as the clouds visible on the
horizon, the damp chill in the air, and the squirrels furiously
hiding their nuts.
Explanation one both people agree is it going to snow
tomorrow because, they say, there is a cold front coming in
and the air feels damp.
In both cases, the example of snow is used, but note that the
argument is trying to convince someone of the truth of their
statement, whereas with the explanation, it is not a matter of
if the statement is true, but why it is true.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive Arguments
An argument is said to be deductive if its conclusion is claimed
to necessarily follow from its premises. That is, if it is claimed that since the
premises are true or acceptable, the conclusion must also be true or
acceptable, then the argument is deductive. We can also define deduction by

saying that in a deductive argument, the logical relation between the premises
and the conclusion is claimed to be 100% supporting.
Notice that as long as the supporting relation between the premises and the
conclusion is claimed to be a matter of logical necessity, the argument is
treated as deductive. It is up to us to scrutinize carefully whether the
conclusion indeed necessarily follows from the premises. The following are
examples of deductive arguments:
Workers would lose job security if more jobs go overseas.
More jobs would go overseas if globalization continues.
Workers would lose job security if globalization continues.

1.3a

God does not exist in space-time

If something does not exist in space-time, then it cannot have a
shape or form.
Things without any shape or form cannot be either male or female.
God cannot be either male or female.

1.3.2 Inductive Arguments

Inductive arguments are more modest when it comes to the inferential claim.
It claims only that its conclusion probably follows from its premises. That is,
the inferential claim is that since the premises are true or acceptable, the
conclusion is likely to be true or acceptable. Put differently, the logical relation
between the premises and the conclusion is claimed to be less than 100%
supporting.

1.3b

As with deduction, the inferential claim in an inductive argument should be

examined to see if the premises indeed makes the conclusion more likely to be
true or acceptable. Here are some examples of induction:
The windows are broken.
There are footprints with mud on the floor.
Some jewels and electronics are missing.
Some intruders entered the house and burglarized it.

1.3c

Its been observed that the farther galaxies are from the Earth, the
faster they are moving away.
The universe is expanding.
Many people believe that crop circles are created by space aliens.
Space aliens have visited the earth.

Validity and Soundness

Because the inferential claim in deduction differs from the inferential claim in
induction, we use different concepts to assess how well the premises support
the conclusion. For deductive arguments, we use the concept validity.
Validity can be defined in three ways, even though they basically say the same
thing:
1. A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion indeed necessarily
follows from its premises.
2. If the premises are true/acceptable, then the conclusion must also
be true/acceptable.
3. 100% supporting

1.3d

The third definition seems to be the simplest. A deductive argument is valid if

its premises support its conclusion one hundred percent.

Valid = 100% supporting

It is important not to confuse the term deductive with valid. An argument

is deductive when its conclusion is claimed to necessarily follows from the
premises. After we critically examine the logical link between the premises and
the conclusion, and find that the supporting relation is indeed airtight, then
we say that the deductive argument is valid. This means that an argument can
be deductive but invalid. That is, its conclusion is claimed to necessarily
follows from the premises, but as a matter of fact the supporting relation is
found to be short of 100% supporting.
Both of the argument (1.3a) and (1.3b) are valid. We will learn how to
determine the validity of some deductive arguments in the next two chapters.
The second concept we use to evaluate deduction is soundness. For a
deductive argument to be sound, it has to meet two conditions. First, it has to
be valid. Second, each and every one of its premises has to be either true or
acceptable.

Sound = valid + true/acceptable premises

Here is an example of sound argument:

Platypuses are mammals.
Platypuses lay eggs.
Some mammals lay eggs.

1.3f

The argument (1.3f) is sound because the logical connection between its
premises and the conclusion is valid and both the premises are true. Given
that arguments (1.3a) and (1.3b) are valid, they would also be sound
arguments if all of their premises are true. For each argument, go over its
premises one by one to see if each of them is true. If you agree that each and
every one of its premises is true, then you would have to accept its conclusion.
A sound argument is the most compelling reason one can come up with to
convince others to agree with her belief or position. A sound argument is a
proof. A logical person has to accept the conclusion of a sound argument as
either true or acceptable. Refusing to accept the conclusion of a sound
argument would be illogical, and thus unreasonable and irrational.
As long as a deductive argument fails to meet one of these two conditions,
then it is unsound. So if a deductive argument is invalid, then it is unsound.
The argument
If John F. Kennedy was assassinated, then he is dead.
John F. Kennedy is dead.
John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

1.3g

is invalid despite all of its premises being true. The best way to recognize an
invalid deductive argument is to identify its argument form. We will study
how to do so in two deductive systems. Another way to see that (1.3g) is
invalid is to compare it to the next argument:
If John F. Kennedy was killed in a plane crash, then he is dead.
John F. Kennedy is dead.
John F. Kennedy was killed in a plane crash.
We notice there is something wrong with (1.3h) because its two premises are
true, but the conclusion is false. If it were valid, then according to the

1.3h

definition of soundness it would be sound. But it cannot be sound because its

conclusion is false. This shows that (1.3h) cannot be valid. Since (1.3g) shares
the same logical structure (form) with (1.3h), it is also invalid. An argument
such as (1.3h) is called a counterexample. Using a counterexample is a clear
and effective way of showing that any other argument with the same argument
form is also invalid.
A deductive argument is also unsound if one or more of its premises are
false/unacceptable. For example, the argument
All Republicans are social conservatives.
All social conservatives are against gay-marriage.
All Republicans are against gay-marriage.

1.3i

is a valid categorical syllogism (we will learn how to determine the validity of
categorical syllogisms in Chapter 2). But it is unsound because its first premise
is not true.
If a deductive argument has false premises and a false conclusion, people tend
to think that it must be invalid. But this is incorrect. Whether a deductive
argument is valid or not is determined by its argument form, and not by
whether its sentences are true or acceptable. Compare (1.3i) with (1.3j).
All Democrats are conservatives.
All conservatives are against stem cell researches.
All Democrats are against stem cell researches.
Notice that the premises and the conclusion of (1.3j) are false; yet it is valid
because it has the same argument form as (1.3i).
CHAPTER 2: ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
2.1 Paraphrasing Arguments

1.3j

The most common, and perhaps the most useful technique for analysis
is paraphrase We paraphrase an argument by setting forth its propositions in
clear language and in logical order. . . . great care must be taken to ensure
that the paraphrase put forward captures correctly and completely the
argument that was to be analyzed.

"Peter Abelard . . . General germs (e.g., justice, yellow, smooth plainly do exist, but
are there abstract objects that actually exist, beneath or behind those terms, in some
non-physical world? Abelard held that there are no such entities, but that we are
sometimes misled by the words we use for the common properties of things. His
position came to be known as nominalism . . . In logic, Abelard explored the relations
of premises and conclusions in deductive arguments. He was one of the first to
emphasize the syntactic nature of validity. An argument is valid, he pointed out, not
because of the semantic content of its propositions, but because of the formal
relations among those propositions.

2.2 Diagramming Arguments

With a diagram we can represent the structure of an argument graphically; the
flow of premises and conclusion is displayed in a two-dimensional chart, or
picture, on the page. . . . When an argument is complex, with many premises
entwined in various ways, a diagram can be exceedingly helpful.
. . . . first number all the propositions it contains, in the order in which they
appear, circling each number. Using arrows between the circled numbers, we
can then construct a diagram that shows the relations of premises and
conclusions without having to restate them. . . . a conclusion always appears
on the space below the premises . . . coordinate premises are put on the
same horizontal level.
When the several premises of an argument are not all coordinate--that is,
when some premises give direct support not to the conclusion but to other
premises that support the conclusion:
1
|
|

2
|
|
3
Another strength of diagrams is their ability to exhibit relations between the
premises . . . In some arguments, however, the premises support the
conclusion only when they are considered jointly[:}.
1....2
|
|
|
3
Some complications may be revealed more clearly using paraphrase. When
an argument has a premise that is not stated explicitly, a paraphrase allows us
to formulate the tacit premise and then add it to the list explicitly. A diagram
requires the representation of the tacit premise in some way that indicates
visually that it has been added (a broken circle around a number is commonly
used) . . .
The number of arguments in a passage is determined, most logicians agree,
by the number of conclusions it contains.
Two conclusions (and hence two arguments) may have a single stated
premise.
A single argument means an argument with a single conclusion, regardless of
how many premises are adduced in its support.
. . . the same proposition can serve as a premise where it occurs as an
assumption in an argument; or as a conclusion where it is claimed to follow
from other propositions assumed in an argument. "Premise" and "conclusion"
are always relative terms.
Multiple arguments . . . [N.B. multiple arguments require multiple conclusions.]

"William of Ockham, sometimes spelled Occam, (c. 1288-c. 1348) . . . The great
intellectual theme of William's life was simplification. . . . 'Ockham's Razor' . . .; one
should not multiply entities beyond necessity. [Simplification led him to accept

nominalism.] nominalism; what exists in the universe are only individuals. The
universals, or Platonic forms, of which some philosophers write, he believed to be no
more than the products of abstraction by the human mind."

2.3 Complex Argumentative Passages

Analyzing passages in which several arguments are interwoven, with some
propositions serving as both premises and subconclusions while other
propositions serve only as premises, and still others are repeated in different
words, can be a challenge. . . . More than one plausible interpretation may be
offered, and in that case more than one diagram, can reasonably be used to
show the logical structure of that passage.
Repetition complicates the task of analysis. Individual propositions are
sometimes repeated within an argument in differently worded sentences,
sometimes for emphasis and at other times by oversight. . . . we can assign
the same number to different formulations of the same proposition.
. . . a premise may appear in compressed form, sometimes as a short noun
phrase.
Paraphrasing involves setting forth the argument in a clear and precise form.
Diagramming involves the laying out the structure of the argument in two
dimensional spatial relations. Premise and conclusion are numbered and arranged
to identify the relations of support between propositions.