CCC8011

Critical Thinking: Analysis and Argumentation

8. Good Arguments

Lingnan University, Hong Kong

peterhawke@ln.edu.hk

Term 2, 2020-2021
 Admin

Readings and further exercises for this topic:

https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/
Lau A09
 Introduction

Intuitively, a good argument is an argument where the premises

together provide a reason to believe the conclusion.
But this is vague – let’s try to be more precise.

Today:
• We propose jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for
being a good argument.
• This shows us different strategies for criticizing an argument.
 Good arguments

A good argument must meet the following necessary conditions:

1 Its premises are known to be true or are highly plausible

2 It is valid or inductively strong
3 Its premises are not question begging
4 Its premises are all relevant to the conclusion

Like Joe Lau, we also take these as jointly sufficient for being a
good argument.
 Good arguments

The premises must be known to be true or at least plausible:

There is exactly one star in the universe.

The number of stars in the universe is greater than zero.

Bad argument. Why? Because the premise is known to be false.

 Good arguments

The premises must be known to be true or at least plausible:

There are exactly 100252 hairs on Joe Biden’s head.

There are less than 200000 hairs on Joe Biden’s head.

Bad argument. Why? Because while the premise might be true,

but we don’t have enough evidence to decide if it’s true or false.
 Good arguments

Premises must all be relevant to the conclusion:

Albert Einstein was a physicist

All physicists studied mathematics
Albert Einstein played the violin

Albert Einstein studied mathematics

Bad argument. Why? Because the 3rd premise plays no role in the
reasoning – which is distracting, confusing.
There isn’t a problem with the reasoning, however: premises are
true and support conclusion.
 Good arguments

Def. An argument begs the question iff the truth of the

conclusion is presupposed by one or more premises in such a way
that anyone who understands the argument cannot accept the
premises without already accepting the conclusion.

If an argument begs the question, we also say:

• the argument is circular;
• the premises are question begging.
 Good arguments

The argument must not beg the question:

Oatmeal is good for your health.

Oatmeal is good for your health.

Bad argument. A reasonable person that is uncertain about the

conclusion should not be convinced by this argument to believe it!
Begging the question can never be persuasive, as to persuade
someone is to show that premises they already accept give a reason
to accept a conclusion they don’t already accept.
NB. The above argument is sound. This shows that not every
sound argument is a good argument.
 Good arguments

The argument must not beg the question:

Anyone who cannot see that Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’

is better literature than a Spiderman comic book simply
doesn’t know what good literature is.

Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is better literature than a

Spiderman comic book.

Bad argument. This is a subtler example of begging the question –

impossible to believe premise without already believing conclusion.
 Good arguments

The argument must not beg the question:

One cannot know anything unless it is beyond all possible

doubt.

Knowledge without absolute certainty is impossible.

Bad argument. The premise and conclusion say the same thing in
different words!
 Criticizing arguments

Strategies for raising an objection towards an argument:

• Direct method 1: Attack the premises
• Direct method 2: Attack the reasoning
• Recall previous techniques for showing invalidity.
• Or argue for inductive weakness.
• Look for standard fallacies or biased reasoning.
• Indirect method 1: Attack the argument indirectly by
attacking the conclusion
• Indirect method 2: Give an analogous argument (i.e. an
argument of roughly the same form) that is obviously bad
 Criticizing arguments

It is always possible to punish an innocent person by mistake.

Capital punishment (i.e. killing as punishment) is always

morally wrong.

Argument map:
 Criticizing arguments

It is always possible to punish an innocent person by mistake.

Capital punishment is always morally wrong.

Objection: The evidence that someone is guilty can be irrefutable

(e.g. 100 witnesses and security camera footage.)
Attacks the plausibility of the premise.
 Criticizing arguments

Argument map:
 Criticizing arguments

It is always possible to punish an innocent person by mistake.

Capital punishment is always morally wrong.

Objection: It is indeed always possible to punish an innocent

person by mistake. But it doesn’t follow that any particular
punishment is always wrong. After all, this isn’t a good reason to
conclude that imprisonment is always wrong.
Attacks the reasoning, by using an analogous argument that
is supposed to be obviously bad.
NB. doesn’t try to say where exactly the argument goes wrong.
(This might be the best we can do – not obvious how to test this
argument for validity or inductive strength!)
 Criticizing arguments

Argument map:
 Criticizing arguments

It is always possible to punish an innocent person by mistake.

Capital punishment is always morally wrong.

Objection: Punishment must be proportional to the crime. For

especially hideous crimes, the most severe punishment is
proportional. So, capital punishment is sometimes morally correct.
Attacks the conclusion by giving a separate argument for its
denial.
NB. doesn’t try to say where exactly the argument goes wrong.
 Criticizing arguments

Argument map:
 Criticizing arguments

Were the objections on the previous slides effective?

This is debatable. You might have objections to the objections!
Debates often proceed with many objections and
counter-objections.
 Summary: Steps for analyzing an argument

Identify and clarify the argument:

• Identify premises and conclusion
• Clarify the keywords
• Simplify the argument using your own words
• Draw an argument map
 Summary: Steps for analyzing an argument

Evaluate the argument: is it a good one?

• Are the premises plausible?
• Is the argument valid or inductively strong?
• Do any of the steps of reasoning fail? (i.e. is there a fallacy in
the argument?)
• Is there any reason to think the conclusion is false?
• Any obvious counterexamples?
 Summary: Steps for analyzing an argument

Further issues:
• How good is the argument overall? (Taking all criticisms into
consideration.)
• How important is the argument?
• Is the conclusion surprising?
• Can the argument be repaired or improved?
• Are there other arguments with similar conclusions?
• What about arguments with opposite conclusions?
• Can the argument be applied elsewhere?
• Is there any further information that might be relevant?