Chapter 1 Page 1-23 Lesson

Identifying Arguments
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
Identifying Arguments
What Is an Argument?
When asked to think about an argument we often imagine a disagreement of some sort,
where two or more people are involved in a fight about some point or issue. This is the
colloquial or everyday understanding of the word argument. We will use the word to mean
something considerably broader than this. Arguments do not always involve disagreements.
Television ads are arguments, yet you are not involved in a disagreement with your television
(I hope). The broader definition of argument we will work with is similar to the one offered in
the following clip:
Argument Clinic
The character seeking an argument in the above sketch gives us a pretty good definition of an
argument. He describes an argument as a collective series of statements to establish a
definite proposition. Notice, however, that the man behind the desk assumes that in order to
have an argument he must take up a contrary position. This involves a different
understanding of the word argument that is more like the one mentioned above. In a
disagreement there are (at least) two contrary positions, and each side attempts to convince
the other of the merits of their views. For our purposes, we will understand the word
argument in the first sense rather than the second. I would like to augment the above
definition as follows:
Argument: an attempt to justify or prove a conclusion through rational means.
The reason this is a more suitable understanding of the an argument is that arguments do not
only occur when there are disagreements. Whenever someone tries to convince someone else
of the truth of a claim through rational persuasion, that person is making an argument. When
we do this, it is not necessarily the case that the person to whom the argument is directed
disagrees with us. The other person might have no opinions one way or the other.
The idea that an argument justifies a conclusion by means of rational persuasion is important.
There are other ways to make people accept a conclusion, but the use (or threat) of force or
intimidation to make people believe something is not an argument.
https://mylearningspace.wlu.ca/content/enforced/194127-692.20160lSessionVal=HHzqErP4Ms8PaWLo4vzMnns6O&ou=194127&d2l_body_type=3
Page 1 of 1
The Components of an Argument
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM

Every argument has the following components:
1. A Conclusion What the argument is trying to get you to accept. In any argument there
is a claim the truth or falsity of which the speaker wants you to accept.
2. Premises Reasons used to support the conclusion. These are the points used to
convince you of the truth of the conclusion of the argument. Sometimes there can be as
few as one premise in an argument, or as many as one can write out or state.
Indicator Words
As we will see, in order to evaluate an argument it is important to be able to identify which
part of the argument is the conclusion, which parts are the premises, and to be able to
distinguish one premise from another. Indicator words can assist you with this task. There are
certain words and phrases that tend to introduce conclusions and premises in arguments. We
will call these "indicator words."
Indicator Words for Conclusions thus, therefore, hence, so, it follows that, shows that,
indicates that, proves that, then
Indicator Words for Premises
for, since, because, for the reason that, on the grounds that, follows from
Example
Ted won the intercollegiate ten thousand meters last year and has been training
hard ever since, so he should win easily this year.
The word so indicates the presence of a conclusion. He should win easily this year is the
conclusion of the argument. The rest of the passage is used to justify the conclusion and
hence, make up the premises of the argument.
Example
Hockey is Canada's national sport. A country's national sport is likely to be very
popular in that country. Therefore, hockey is likely to be very popular in Canada.
Therefore is another indicator word that tends to introduce a conclusion. Hockey is likely to be
very popular in Canada is the conclusion of the argument, and the other claims are serving as
premises to support this conclusion.
Example
Since you have proven untrustworthy in the past, I shouldn't give you my credit
card number.
Since is also an indicator word, but tends to indicate the presence of a premise. The claim that
you have proven untrustworthy in the past is serving as a premise, or is being used to support
the claim that "I shouldn't give you my credit card number".
Page 1 of 2
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
Be Careful When Relying on Indicator Words

Sometimes, claims or statements use indicator words, but aren't arguments.
Example
Since John's wife left him, he's been depressed.
Although the word "since" appears here, it is not being used to introduce a premise. The
above passage is not an argument at all since it is not trying to convince us of anything.
Example
John's wife filed for divorce on the grounds that he had an affair with the dry
cleaner.
"On the grounds that" tends to introduce a premise (and thus indicate a conclusion is nearby),
but does not serve that function here.
Because indicator words are not a foolproof way of identifying premises and conclusions, you
should not rely on them entirely. They will be most reliable as guides to identifying premises
and conclusions when you are already sure that the passage you are dealing with is an
argument. The above two passages are not arguments, which is why the indicator words they
contain do not indicate the presence of conclusions or premises.
The best way to identify an argument is to learn how to distinguish one from other kinds of
written or spoken passages that sometimes look like arguments. There are two kinds of
passages that can frequently be confused with arguments. These are explanations and
descriptions.
Page 2 of 2
Explanations
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
Explanations
Arguments try to convince you of a conclusion or give you reasons to believe something is
true. Explanations tell you why something is true or is the way it is but give you no reasons
to believe it is true.
If you read a passage and suspect that it might be an explanation rather than an argument,
but are still unsure even after thinking about the general difference between arguments and
explanations, then you can make use of the following methods for distinguishing between
arguments and explanations.
There are several questions you can ask about a passage that will help you determine whether
it is an argument or an explanation.
1. Does the passage in question give us evidence or causes?
Explanations usually answer why-questions. When someone offers an explanation it is in
response to a question about why something is the way it is, why someone did such and
such, or why something happened. Usually, when we answer such questions we do so by
talking about what caused them to happen. Thus, if a passage identifies a cause for the
main claim being discussed, then it is probably an explanation. On the other hand, if a
passage gives us evidence, then we probably have an argument. Think of the purpose of
evidence in a trial. Evidence is presented as part of an argument used to convince the
jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Although motive is important, the crucial
thing in a trial is whether or not the person accused did in fact commit the crime, not
why they did it. Evidence aims at establishing what is true. Arguments try to convince
you that a particular claim is true, so arguments invoke evidence in the form of
premises
Example
John went to lunch because he was hungry.
The main point of this passage is that John went to lunch. The rest of the passage
identifies the cause of his going to lunch. Because it identifies the cause of John's going
to lunch, this is an explanation. It answers a why-question: Why did John go to lunch? If
this were intended to be an argument it would not explain John's going to lunch, but
would instead try to convince us that it is true that John went to lunch. Saying that John
was hungry does not give us any reason to believe that he in fact went to lunch. The
following does give us reasons, or evidence, to believe that John went to lunch, and is
therefore an argument: John went to lunch. It's twelve o'clock, and he always eats lunch
at twelve o'clock.
Example
The last person he asked out on a date laughed at him, hence John is afraid to ask
anyone out.
This explains John's fear of asking people out on dates. It is therefore an explanation
and not an argument.
Example
Since John was in a terrible accident, he has no nose. This is an explanation because it
identifies the cause of John's lack of a nose.Notice that all of these explanations contain
Page 1 of 5
Explanations
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
indicator words. This shows why one cannot rely only on indicator words to identify
conclusions and premises. Explanations do not contain premises or conclusions, even
though they can contain indicator words.
Arguments About Explanations
You need to be careful not to jump to the conclusion that a passage is an explanation
just because it mentions causes. One often sees arguments about which one out of a
number of competing causes is the correct one for some event or phenomenon.
Example Everyone thinks that Dewy broke the Ming Vase, but I know it was the dog. I
saw the dog skulking away with his tail between his legs right after I heard the vase
break. In this case we are presented with two explanations for the vase breaking: Dewy
broke it or the dog broke it. The passage tries to convince us that one of these
explanations is correct and that the other is mistaken. The claim about the dog's
behaviour is used as evidence to support the veracity of the speaker's explanation.
Although this passage mentions causes, its aim is not simply to explain why the vase
broke, but to prove what the correct explanation is. Hence, this is an argument.
2. What am I most willing to believe?
Identify the main point of the passage. What is it about? If it assumes you already know
or accept the main point and then offers reasons why it is true, it is an explanation. This
is a reliable guide for the following reason. Think about the purpose of an argument.
When you argue with someone you try to get him or her to accept something they didn't
accept before. If the other person accepts everything you say, then no argument is
needed, for you don't need to convince them of anything. A rule of argumentation is that
premises must always be more certain than conclusions. If they weren't, then they
couldn't be used to support or justify conclusions. In an argument, then, the main point
(the conclusion) is usually something that is not obviously true, and the purpose of the
argument is to provide evidence that it is true. In the case of an explanation, the main
point is usually obviously true, and what isn't so clear is why it is true.
The following chart helps to illustrate the differences between arguments and
explanations in terms of which claims are certain and which are uncertain.
More Certain Less Certain
Arguments
The Other
Points
Explanations The Main
Point
The Main
Point
The Other
Points
Example
There are several reasons why a child's school performance can deteriorate suddenly.
Often it is because of a problem at home, such as the parents going through a divorce.
Such transitions can be extremely difficult for children. They become preoccupied,
withdrawn, and easily distracted, all of which has an adverse effect on their ability to
concentrate.
This is an explanation of why many children suddenly do worse at school. We are
probably willing to accept the claim that problems at home are a major contribution to
poor performance at school. Since that is the main point, and we are willing to accept it
without any convincing, and since the rest of the passage explains why the main point is
true, we have an explanation.
Page 2 of 5
Explanations
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
Example
Although there are several reasons why a child's school performance can deteriorate
suddenly, the most common of these is because of a problem at home, such as the
parents going through a divorce. Statistics show that 76% of children who suddenly do
poorly at school come from families with unstable relationships.
This is an argument. In this case, we are more willing to believe the statistic about
children (that's the power of statistics) than we are to accept the more general claim
about why children suddenly do poorly at school. The statistic serves as evidence for the
main point, which we might be unsure of before we learn that statistic. Notice that that
this argument also talks about causes, but the purpose of the passage is to convince us
that a particular explanation is the correct one and not merely to provide an
explanation.
3. What makes more sense?
This involves three things.
Use The Principle of Charity
We should interpret the speaker or author in as charitable a fashion as we
can.
That is, given the choice between a weak argument and a reasonable
explanation, treat the speaker's words as an explanation if the
circumstances support this interpretation. Being charitable to the speaker
means attributing the more plausible claim to the speaker.
Example
Mark is a miser. His family had very little money when he was growing up
and his father made him work in the salt mines to supplement the family
income. He was taught to save every penny and not to waste anything.
While the speaker might intend this to be an argument to prove that Mark is
a miser, it would be a poor one. It is much more plausibly interpreted as an
explanation for Mark's behaviour. To prove that Mark is a miser it would be
much more effective to point out that he's never paid for a round of drinks
at the pub, that he only goes to the movies on Tuesdays, and so on.
Example
Sparkly Toothpaste contains tiny gnomes who work for hours after
you have stopped brushing to clean your teeth continuously.
While this could be an argument for you to buy Sparkly Toothpaste, it is
more plausibly an explanation for why it gets your teeth so clean. It would
be easier to argue that you should buy it if it were less expensive than other
kinds toothpaste and if it gets your teeth cleaner than other brands of
toothpaste.
Focus on the context of the remark or passage.
Context here refers to the circumstances in which the passage appears. This
can be a matter of who makes up the intended audience (i.e., what kind of
people are they and what are they likely to know or believe?) and what else
is happening when the claim is made. In general, determine what the
audience is expected to know.
Page 3 of 5
Explanations
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
Will they already be aware of or accept the main point?

If so, then it is an explanation.
If not, then it is an argument.
Example
(Said as you approach the DVD player) Don't waste your time. It's broken.
You can't play any movies on that player.
This is an argument intended to provide you with evidence that
trying to use the DVD player will just waste your time. You don't
accept the main point yet (that you can't play any DVDs on that
player) because you intend to do just that since you don't know that it
is broken.
Example
(Said as you try to play a DVD) Don't worry. You didn't break it. It's
unplugged.
This is an explanation. You already know the DVD player doesn't
work and I'm explaining why.
Example
(You meet someone who never practices safe sex and say) Sex
without a condom is very dangerous. Sexual contact can transmit
AIDS.
This is an argument. You are trying to convince the other person that
unprotected sex is dangerous.
Example
(Said to a room full of professional philosophers) God plays a central
role in Leibniz' metaphysical system to account for the apparent
relations between human minds since, in his view, human beings are
windowless monads.
This is more plausibly interpreted as an explanation of why Leibniz
requires God in his metaphysics than an argument that he does
require God. This is because a room full of professional philosophers
will already know that God plays an important role in Leibniz'
metaphysics. Since they are likely already to accept the main point,
this is better regarded as an explanation.
Are there better arguments? That is, is there another, more direct and
obvious way to argue for what seems to be the main point?
Part of what it means to use the principle of charity is that you treat
the speaker as though he or she is intelligent. Intelligent people use
good arguments based on premises that are obviously related to the
conclusion and are not contentious.
Example
Abortion is immoral because it is illegal.
This could be intended as an argument, but is more charitably
interpreted as an explanation. The fact that something is illegal does
not necessarily mean it is immoral. Law and morality do not always
Page 4 of 5
Explanations
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
coincide. One could more effectively argue that abortion is immoral by

talking about the immorality of killing, etc.
Example
In France, the films of Pauley Shore are considered a superior art
form. His work is similar to the early films of Jerry Lewis, which were
extremely popular among the French.
Again, this could be intended as an argument that tries to show that
Pauley Shore's films are worthy of artistic merit, but is more plausibly
interpreted as an explanation for his popularity in France.
To argue that Pauley Shore's films are worthy of artistic merit, one
would instead list off all of the awards his films have one at film
festivals, cite positive reviews by reputable film critics, etc.
Page 5 of 5
Descriptions
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
Descriptions
Descriptions are neither arguments nor explanations. They are lists of facts. They usually
offer you new information, but provide no reasons for their truth and provide no reasons to
believe that they are true. All they do is provide information.
A description differs from an argument since an argument tries to convince you of something
and a description does not.
A description differs from an explanation since an explanation tells you why something is the
way it is and a description simply tells you that things are a certain way.
Example
Iggy Pop was one of the first popular Punk musicians in North America. When I saw him on my
20th birthday, the people in the front row continuously spat on him.
This is a straightforward description. The speaker is not trying to convince us of anything,
nor is he trying to explain anything about Iggy Pop.
Example
Sartre and Kierkegaard believed that we define ourselves through our actions. In their view,
beyond being metaphysically free or self-determining beings, there is no such thing as a
common human nature.
This is a Description. It simply describes what Sartre and Kierkegaard believed.
Example
I tell you that God is in his heaven and all is well. I can only say that the life of faith is a
joyous one.
This is not likely an explanation, since the other plausibly explains neither claim. However, the
context might make a difference as to whether it is an argument or a description.
If the speaker has been trying to convince us that the life of faith is happier than a life without
faith, then knowing that God is in heaven and that all is well (if one could know that) might
justify this claim. In this case, we would have an argument.
Alternatively, the speaker could be trying to describe what a life of faith is like, in which case,
knowledge (or belief) about heaven is just another fact in the list and plays no justificatory
role.
What would the Principle of Charity suggest about how we ought to interpret this passage?
This is better characterized as a description, since there are much more effective ways to
justify the claim that the life of faith is a joyous one.
For instance, one could speak of one's sense of moral accomplishment and satisfaction, one's
sense of personal security, etc
Example
The odds against two snowflakes being identical are so great as to approach certainty. A
snowflake consists of about 1018 water molecules. As the snowflake gets larger, molecules
Page 1 of 2
Descriptions
2016-09-29, 3*15 PM
attach themselves to it essentially at random. The number of ways that 1018 molecules can be
arranged into six-sided crystals is astronomical a great deal larger than the number of
snowflakes that have ever fallen on earth.
This seems like an explanation. Why? Because most people already accept the claim that no
two snowflakes are identical. Given that, it seems as though the rest of the passage explains
why this is so. But is the main point of the passage that no two snowflakes are identical, or is
it something slightly different?
The main point of the passage is that we can be certain that no two snowflakes are identical.
The rest of the passage provides support for this claim. Hence, we have an argument.
Page 2 of 2
Propositions
2016-09-29, 3*16 PM
Propositions
When we begin to analyse and standardize arguments, it will be important to be able to
identify premises and conclusions, and to break arguments down into their simplest
components. Sometimes one premise of an argument supports one part of an argument and
another premise a different part. To reveal the logical structure of an argument we first need
to be able to identify all the parts that make up the argument. These parts are called
propositions.
A proposition is a statement or assertion. One of the defining features of a proposition is that
any proposition must be either true or false.
It is raining outside is a proposition. It assets something about the world (a fact or state of
affairs), and it is either true that it is raining outside or it is false.
I hate jazz is also a proposition and, depending on the actual preferences of the speaker, is
also true or false.
Shut the door is not a proposition. This claim is an imperative or a command. It does not
assert or describe a state of affairs, but tries to make someone else do something or change
the world in some way. While it can be true or false, for instance, that Geoff shut the door,
the imperative Shut the door itself is neither true nor false.
Ouch! is not a proposition either. This is simply an expression of someone's feelings. While I
hate jazz also expresses someone's feelings toward jazz, I hate jazz can be true or false.
Ouch is neither true nor false. In fact, we can't even imagine how we would test whether or
not ouch were true.
Simple and Compound Propositions
There are two kinds of propositions: Simple and compound.
A simple proposition expresses a single, complete thought.
A compound proposition expresses more than one complete thought.
Simple Propositions
A simple proposition contains 1 subject and 1 predicate.
John is tall is an example of a simple proposition. Its components are as follows:
Subject: John
Predicate: is tall
Notice that in order to have a complete thought we require a subject and a predicate. If I say,
Is tall, I don't make any sense. You will want to ask me, Who is tall? This is because I have
not expressed a complete thought. Similarly, if I say, John, I don't appear to be making
sense either (unless I'm trying to get John's attention, in which case I'm not uttering a
proposition). You would likely ask me, What about John?
Compound Propositions
Page 1 of 2
Propositions
2016-09-29, 3*16 PM
A compound proposition expresses more than one complete thought because it contains more
than one subject or predicate, or both.
I love you and you love me, is an example of a compound proposition.
This can be broken down or analyzed into 2 simple propositions:
I love you AND You love me
It is also important to note that the same proposition can be expressed in a variety of ways.
Each alternative way of expressing the same proposition is said to be equivalent, or to have
the same meaning. For example, We are in love, is the same proposition as I love you and
you love me. I love you, is equivalent to Je t'aime.
Why break down compound propositions?
When we standardize arguments we need to break the supporting premises into their simplest
components so we can see if each part of the claim is supported or plausible. Any compound
proposition must therefore be analyzed into simple propositions.
Page 2 of 2

Chapter 1 Page 1-23 Lesson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1 Page 1-23 Lesson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identifying Arguments

The Components of an Argument

The Components of an Argument

The Components of an Argument

Be Careful When Relying on Indicator Words

Will they already be aware of or accept the main point?

coincide. One could more effectively argue that abortion is immoral by

You might also like