PHIL 2010, Introduction to Philosophy

Augusta University
Instructor: Anne Portman

ARGUMENT BASICS

What is an argument?

Argument: a set of statements in which some statements are presented as support for another
statement (the conclusion)
Statement: not just any sentence, but on that makes a claim that is either true or false
Premise: A reason offered in support of a claim
Conclusion: The statement that requires argumentative support

Arguments are different than other kinds of speech like descriptions or explanations,
unsupported claims, commands, or emotive responses. When an argument is being presented,
the goal is to convince others to accept the conclusion, based on the support provided. Having
an argument doesn’t necessarily mean that your argument is any good. An argument might be
such that its premises are false or irrelevant to conclusion, or they might fail to support the
conclusion.

Good critical thinkers are able to identify arguments and evaluate them. This requires
identifying the premises and conclusion and understanding how they are meant to work
together, then determining whether the premises actually provide the support required to
accept the conclusion. Argumentation is like dialogue. When evaluating someone else’s
argument, you will need to provide an argument in return. So critical thinking involves both the
recognition and criticism of arguments that one encounters, as well as the active reformulation
and creation of arguments in response.

The following is an example of a basic syllogistic argument:

P1. All men are mortal
P2. Socrates was a man.
C3. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

Most of the arguments you’ll encounter will not be so simple, nor so clearly laid out. You’ll need
to do some work to identify the premises and conclusion. Continually ask yourself “why” when
you read a passage or engage in conversation. When “whys” are provided, those are premises
advanced in support of claims. Some statements are presented without argumentative support,
in which case they can hardly be identified as conclusions. Critical thinking requires further
interrogation into unsupported claims; philosophy is, in part, the work of turning claims into
conclusions by presenting reasoned support.
One challenge in identifying arguments is that not all arguments’ claims are explicitly stated;
sometimes the premises or conclusion of an argument is implied. For example:
“You spilled it. Whoever makes the mess cleans up the mess.”
What is implied here is the conclusion. You should clean up the mess.

“You should not eat that greasy burger. It is loaded with fat.”
Again, there is something implied, but this time it’s a premise: you should not eat foods
that are loaded with fat.

Some statements look a bit like arguments but, on their own, aren’t.
Some statements are descriptions: declarations concerning how the world is, was, or will be,
which can be true or false. They may be included in an argument as a premise used to support a
conclusion.

Some statements are explanations: a set of statements designed to show why something is the
case. The distinction between arguments and explanations is subtle and can be tricky. It is
something that I and many philosophers struggle with! Both aim to answer the why question,
but do so in different ways. The premises of an argument answer the question, “why should I
accept this conclusion?” An explanation, on the other hand, takes the conclusion as given and
then offers a story about why that particular thing is the case. For example:
Anne: You didn’t turn in your homework, student.
Student 1: Yes. My dog ate my homework.
Here the student is offering an explanation for why it is that they failed to turn in their
homework. Note they are not trying to convince me that they failed to turn in the homework;
both the student and I agree that they failed to turn it in. Instead, the student is telling me why
they failed to turn it in. The student is offering an explanation, not an argument. But now
consider this:
Student 2: Why did I fail this course, Anne?
Anne: You didn’t turn in your homework.
Student 2: My dog ate my homework.
Here Student 2’s sentence is identical to Student 1’s, but Student 2’s sentence is best
understood as offering an argument. They are claiming, implicitly at least, that they shouldn’t
fail the class because their dog ate their homework. Student 2’s intention is to convince.
Although both students’ statements are the same, they have different functions. To determine
what a passage is doing, we will have to go beyond the words themselves and ask what the
author is trying to accomplish.

How to evaluate arguments?

Once you’ve identified the argument, you need to evaluate it, or decide whether you accept
that the conclusion follows from the premises. Here are three steps to get started.

1. Determine whether the argument’s premises are satisfactory; that is, decide whether
we have good reason to believe that the premises are true.
2. Determine whether the premises support the conclusion.
 3. Determine whether the premises offer sufficient support to establish the conclusion.

1) What makes a premise satisfactory? We need to have good reason to believe that it is a true
statement.
The statement is common knowledge. (Take care when classifying something as common
knowledge, though. Historically, many obvious truths have turned out to be false. The status of
knowledge as common can also be contentious.)
The statement appeals to expert authority. (Note that the experts here should really be experts,
having specialized knowledge in the relevant area.)
The statement is a report based on personal experience, i.e. personal testimony. (The person
offering the report should be honest and reliable. The claim itself must be plausible and
restricted to personal experience. Wording matters: “I saw a ghost” vs. “I believe that I saw a
ghost” vs. “I saw something that looked like a ghost.”)

When are premises unsatisfactory?

When they are obviously false, too vague, or ambiguous
When they can be refuted by clear counter-examples
When they can be refuted by satisfactory appeals to testimony, authority, or common
knowledge

2) How do we determine whether the premise of an argument supports its conclusion?

Determining that the premises of an argument are satisfactory is, on its own, not enough to
determine whether or not the argument’s conclusion is supported. We need to attend to the
relationship between the premises and the conclusion. We can frame this in terms of relevance.
Statement A is relevant to Statement B if A’s being true has any effect on whether or not we
should think B is true. This can go either way; A is positively relevant in cases where A supports
B. A is negatively relevant in cases where A suggests that B is not the case.

Note that in some cases, the premises of an argument would be relevant to and support the
conclusion if they were true, but in fact they aren’t true. That is why we need to attend to the
satisfactoriness of the premises as a separate matter.

3) How do we determine whether satisfactory and relevant premises provide sufficient support
to accept the conclusion?
We both intuitively and rationally recognize that there is a difference between having some
evidence and having enough evidence; between having some reason and having sufficient
reason. As we will see below, different forms that arguments can take have different
benchmarks for what justifies their conclusions, and we will work through some of these over
the course of the semester. In many cases, and certainly in this course, whether or not the
premises of an argument are satisfactory and sufficiently supportive of an argument’s
conclusion will be subject to disagreement and debate. That is the work of philosophy!
Engagement with ideas in the form of arguments is an ongoing process. I want to reiterate the
idea of argument as dialogue. It begins with intellectual curiosity in the form of inquiry, then
proceeds by taking in information, building arguments and subjecting them to ongoing critique.
It is okay to change your mind! Changing your mind in response to new, relevant, and
convincing information is a sign of intellectual maturity.

What are some different kinds of arguments?

Deductive: an argument whose premises make its conclusion certain

Inductive: an argument whose premises make its conclusion likely

Consider the following:

P1. Smith owns only blue and brown pants.
P2. Smith is wearing their own pants.
C3. Therefore, Smith is wearing either blue or brown pants.

This is a standard deductive argument. If the two premises are true, the conclusion must be
true. Given this argument’s logical structure, it is easy to evaluate; if the premises are true they
necessarily provide sufficient support for accepting the conclusion. We use some special terms
to describe deductive arguments:

Valid: having a structure such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion will be true
Sound: having a valid structure and true premises (We often talk about “sound” arguments in a
casual way, but here the term has this specific meaning.)
** Some valid deductive argument forms are provided in the next section.

Now consider this:

P1. January has always been cold here in Siberia.
P2. Today is January 12.
C3. Therefore, it’s going to be another cold day in Siberia.

In this case, true premises make the conclusion very likely, but do not guarantee the truth of the
conclusion. In other words, it is possible for these premises to be true and the conclusion to be
false. Rather than using validity and soundness to evaluate this argument, we can use the ideas
of strength and weakness. This is a strong inductive argument. If the premises are true, we have
very good reason to accept the conclusion.

While these two examples seem quite similar structurally, they are different in an important
way. We can imagine a freakishly warm day in Siberia, so both of the premises could be true and
the conclusion false. But we cannot imagine that if Smith owns only blue and brown pants, and
is wearing their own pants, then those pants are not blue or brown. One of the premises would
have to be false for the conclusion to be false.
Arguments by Analogy

Some arguments draw conclusions between different cases that are presented as relevantly
similar. If the cases are similar enough in the ways that we think are relevant, then our
conclusions about one case should apply in the other case as well.

For example, a doctor might argue in favor of regular checkups by saying something like:
“People take their car for servicing regularly without complaint. They know that otherwise
problems may develop. Why shouldn’t they take similar care of their bodies?” The doctor is
making a comparison between two cases that they suggest are relevantly similar, the primary
subject (people’s bodies) and the analogue (cars). Then they are concluding that what we
accept in one case we ought to accept in the other.
P1. People take their cars for regular service (to prevent problems from developing)
P2. People’s bodies are like cars (human bodies, too, are complex systems that can
develop problems over time)
C3. Therefore, people should take themselves in for regular service, or checkups, too.

Analogical arguments of this sort are like a special kind of inductive reasoning. A good analogical
argument does not make its conclusion certain, but it can make it probable. In evaluating
analogical arguments, we should focus on whether the primary subject and the analogue are
relevantly similar. Good analogical reasoning doesn’t require that that the two cases being
compared are exactly alike. Our bodies are made of flesh and bone, not metal; we don’t have
the same parts that cars have, etc. But these differences are irrelevant to the doctor’s point,
which is about the maintenance of complex systems. When engaging analogical arguments it is
important to ask whether there are additional features of the cases that the argument
overlooks and are those features relevant?

The following terms are useful in analyzing arguments by analogy:

Strong: will have relevant similarities but no relevant differences
Weak: may have relevant similarities but also has significant relevant differences
Faulty: does not have relevant similarities

** Deductive Argument Forms

If the argument you are evaluating or creating takes one of these valid forms, and it’s premises
are true, then the argument will be sound. Try to come up with examples of simple arguments
that take these special forms.

Modus ponens
P1. If a then b.
P2. a.
C3. Therefore, b.
Modus tollens
P1. If a then b.
P2. Not b.
C3. Therefore, not a.

Hypothetical syllogism
P1. If a then b.
P2. If b then c.
C3. Therefore, if a then c.

Disjunctive syllogism
P1. a or b.
P2. Not a.
C3. Therefore, b.

Dilemma
P1. a or b.
P2. If a then c.
P3. If b then d.
C4. Therefore, c or d.

Note: the following arguments that look like they have a valid structure but DO NOT.

Affirming the consequent – fallacy

P1. If a then b.
P2. b.
C3. Therefore, a.

Why doesn’t this work? Let’s use an example.

P1. If my brother eats shellfish then he breaks out in hives
P2. My brother has hives.
C3. Therefore, my brother are shellfish
Unfortunately, my brother is allergic to a lot of things, any number of which cause him to break
out in hives. The fact that the consequent obtained, i.e. that he broke out in hives, cannot prove
the truth of the cause (the antecedent) being shellfish. It could have been a lot of things. So the
truth of this conclusion does not necessarily follow from the truth of the premises. This is not a
valid argument.

Denying the antecedent – fallacy

P1. If a then b.
P2. Not a.
C3. Therefore, not b.
Like the previous example, this argument is not valid because the truth of the conclusion does
not necessarily follow from true premises. We can see that clearly using the same example.
P1. If my brother eats shellfish then he breaks out in hives
P2. My brother did not eat shellfish.
C3. Therefore, my brother does not have hives.
As before, this argument makes the same mistake of overlooking alternatives. Although my
brother would get hives if he ate shellfish, that is not the only thing that can give him hives. So
from the fact that he did not eat shellfish I cannot conclude with certainty that he does not still
have hives caused by something else.

What are some common fallacies to look for when evaluating arguments?

Fallacies are just mistakes in reasoning, whether intentional or unintentional. Some errors in
reasoning are so common that they are worth highlighting. Critical thinkers should be able to
easily identify these mistakes and understand why they are mistaken. I’ve grouped the fallacies
below in terms of the kind of mistake that they make, and provided some quick examples.

Overlooking alternatives
We’ve already seen how the two common mistakes in deductive reasoning, affirming the
consequent and denying the antecedent, overlook alternatives. Here’s another one.

False dilemma: “In the war on fanaticism, there are no sidelines; you are either with us or with
the fanatics.”
A false dilemma sets up two and only two mutually exclusive categories. If one of those
categories is rejected, then one has to accept the other. This is rarely a good way to think about
the world. With regard to the example, in reality, there is a third option, one could very well be
neutral; and a fourth option, one may be against both; and even a fifth option, one may
empathize with elements of both.

Bad assumptions

Circularity (begging the question):

A. “Women have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. So abortion
should be allowed.”
B. “The unborn being has a right to life. So abortion is wrong because it violates the right to
life.”
In circular reasoning the truth of the conclusion is already assumed by one or more of the
premises. So, with regard to the examples, having the right to X is typically understood as having
an obligation to all you to have X. Both of the arguments, although they have different
conclusions, make the same mistake in begging the question. They assume the existence of a
right in order to show that an action that violates the right.

Composition and Division fallacies

 A. “The students in that group are all A students. So if they get assigned to work on a
project together, they are sure to get an A.”
B. “The group earned an A on their project, so she must be an A student.”
That all parts of a whole have the same properties as each other, or as the whole itself, are
hasty generalizations.

Slippery Slope: "Advanced AI benefits our company’s productivity. But if we start using
advanced AI for data analysis in our company, it will soon replace all our jobs. When all the
other companies do the same, it will lead to mass unemployment. Eventually, it will result in a
societal breakdown.”

In this kind of argument, a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences are said to follow
from an original position that appears to be acceptable. Thus, the original position itself is
deemed unacceptable. This kind of reasoning is not necessarily fallacious, but the strength of
the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between original position and
unacceptable consequence, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections
between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the connections between
them are weak, then the argument will be weak. The problem with this reasoning is that you
can often find a point on the slope where a reasonable and relevant distinction can be drawn,
such that it is no longer obvious that the supposed consequences will follow.

Equivocation

“As an atheist you claim to be against faith, or at least you think faith is unnecessary in life. But
you take leaps of faith all of the time; with friends, potential partners, investments. So really you
do believe in faith.”

Equivocation exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during the
course of an argument and using the different meanings to support some conclusion. Here the
term “faith” changes from implying a spiritual belief to the gumption underlying risk-taking
behavior.