1. State the Premises (Argument) of SINGER in about a page long. The conclusion has been stated below and that is where you can find the premises of SINGER'S argument. Conclusion: Anything with the po
Arguments
A. Arguments are found in many texts and media and it is important to be able to recognize, formulate, and evaluate arguments. Doing well in this class will depend upon whether you can acquire and improve these three skills. We will be concentrating on the arguments found in the philosophy texts we are reading this semester, but this skill is something you should carry with you through the rest of your college career and beyond.
Recognizing an argument is the first step in the process. An argument is where a claim is stated and it is supported by evidence. The claim is the conclusion of the argument and the evidence is known as the premises. In an argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, or, more specifically, the premises connect together in such a way that one can draw an inference from them, i.e., the conclusion.
But recognition of argument is not sufficient. One must also be able to formulate the argument. This involves listing the premises as well as unstated assumptions so one can see more clearly how the conclusion follows from the premises. This task will at first seem tedious and frustrating, but like anything else, the more you practice, the better you will get. Hopefully, you find this exercise beneficial and enlightening.
Here are some sample arguments:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
If there is snow on the ground, it must be cold.
There is snow on the ground.
It must be cold.
Animals are either vertebrates or invertebrates.
Walruses, an animal, are not invertebrates.
Walruses are vertebrates.
4) It rained almost every day in April for the last three years.
April is a rainy month.
B. Not all texts will contain arguments. Some passages will just contain a description, explanation, or dialogue. Here are some examples.
Tuesday is the second day of the week.
If you do not exercise, you will not be healthy.
There are many students who attend state universities. Some explanation for this is that state universities are affordable and offer a variety of disciplines to study.
Parent: “You have not cleaned up your room this week.”
Child: “Yes I have.”
Parent: “No, I am afraid your room is still messy.”
Child: “But I have.”
Parent: “No you haven’t, at least not according to me.”
Child: “Well, according to me, I have.”
This last example may seem like an argument because we call it an argument. But this is using the word equivocally, that is using the same word to signify two different things. Example 4 is a disagreement, which does not always constitute an argument. There are no premises to support any claims being made in this example. Further, one should recognize that Example 2 is only a conditional claim and not an argument. A conditional claim is composed of an antecedent and a consequence. One must also affirm the antecedent for the consequence to follow from this claim. Finally, Example 3 is an explanation and is not presented as an argument. The author could have presented this as an argument, but it is more likely just conveying information. It is essential to distinguish between information, which is both the premises and the conclusion by themselves, and an argument, which entails a relation between both the premises and a conclusion.
C. To locate an argument, it is beneficial to know several key words that indicate whether something is a premise or a conclusion. These are often called “hint words.” The following list will help pick up arguments in texts:
1) (conclusion) …, for (premise)
2) (conclusion) …, because (premise)
3) (conclusion) …, since (premise)
4) (conclusion) …, as (premise)
5) (conclusion) …, assuming that (premise)
6) (premise) …, hence (conclusion)
7) (premise) …, therefore (conclusion)
8) (premise) …, so (conclusion)
9) (premise) …, thus (conclusion)
10) (premise) …, consequently (conclusion)
11) (premise) …, for this reason (conclusion)
These hint words also serve as the connection between the premises and the conclusion. One should note that some of these words do not always signify an argument. An example of this is “for”, which is also used as a preposition – “He used the shovel ‘for moving dirt’.” One should also note that not all arguments do contain hint words. Be careful. Finally, both the premises and the conclusion of an argument must form complete sentences.
D. Here are some pointers for picking out arguments.
1) Look for key words first. If none are found, then look for anything that sounds like a claim. One important skill you should acquire is recognizing claims and that claims need support.
2) Begin with the conclusion, the claim, and then find the premises, the support for the claim. This is because the premises will be easier to recognize once you know what you are trying to prove.
3) Not all premises are explicitly stated. Authors do this because some things seem obvious, and they are concerned with the aesthetic quality of their writing or speech. But in the presentation of an argument, one must always list implicit or implied premises.
Here are some examples:
#1) John cannot be eligible; he is over twenty.
Argument: Premise 1) John is over twenty
Premise 2) (No one over twenty is eligible.)
Conclusion: John is not eligible.
#2) You should not vote for Jones for he is a child molester.
Argument: Premise 1) Jones is a child molester.
Premise 2) (One should not vote for child molesters.)
Conclusion: One should not vote for Jones.
4) Just as premises are not always stated, so the same applies for the conclusion.
Here are some examples:
#1) Smith is a liberal, and no good Americans are liberals.
Argument: Premise 1) Smith is a liberal.
Premise 2) No good Americans are liberals.
Conclusion (Smith is not a good American.)
#2) That man has a deadly weapon, and deadly weapons are dangerous.
Argument: Premise 1) That man has a deadly weapon.
Premise 2) Deadly weapons are dangerous.
Conclusion: (That man is dangerous.)
E. There are several kinds of arguments that you need to be familiar with and be able to distinguish. The main two kinds of arguments are deductive and inductive. The difference between these two is found in the way the premises relate to the conclusion. In inductive arguments, the conclusion is only probable. They are further classified as strong or weak depending upon how the evidence supports the conclusion. In section A, example 4 is an inductive argument. It is only likely that April is a rainy month. The evidence presented for the conclusion does not necessitate it.
Deductive arguments are when the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. This means that you cannot doubt the conclusion if you accept all the premises. In section A, examples 1, 2, and 3 are deductive arguments. As you will see, most of the arguments presented in this class will be deductive. Philosophers are interested in you accepting their arguments. Deductive arguments are the most powerful and more persuasive of the two – it is important that you recognize this feature of deductive arguments.
Finally, there are several other forms of arguments, e.g., abductive and dialectical, but these are more controversial and open for debate. These are better introduced after some exposure to inductive and deductive arguments.
F. Now that you have some grasp of recognizing and formulating arguments, it is appropriate to discuss evaluating arguments. There are two properties of arguments to determine whether the argument is good or bad: validity and soundness. One should note that arguments are never true or false, only valid or invalid, sound or unsound.
Validity deals with the form or structure of the argument. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. (This applies to both inductive and deductive arguments.) Since validity is concerned with the form of the argument, it does not matter whether the premises are actually true or not. What matters is that if the premises were all true (and this implies the possibility of their truth), then the conclusion must be true. Or in other words, if the premises are all true then it is inconceivable that the conclusion be false. (This formulation only applies to deductive arguments. Remember, deductive arguments claim that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.) Here are some examples of valid forms of deductive arguments.
#1) Modus ponens: If A, then B. #2) Modus tollens: If A, then B.
A. not B.
B. not A.
#3) Exhaustive Disjunction: Either A or B. #4) Basic Syllogism: All As are Bs.
not A. All Bs are Cs.
B. All As are Cs.
#5) Reductio Ad Absurdum: Assume P.
In this form, one assumes the opposite
Q. of what you want to prove. Then you
Not Q. derive a contradiction and what follows
Not P. is the opposite of what you assumed
There are also several invalid structures with which you should be familiar.
#1) Affirming the Consequent: If A, then B. #2) Denying the Antecedent: If A, then B.
B. not A.
A not B.
(note: Since these are invalid forms, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. So, although the author asserts [or implies] the conclusion, one should not accept it.)
There are also several common fallacies you should know as well.
#1) Fallacy of equivocation: This is where a word appears in two or more premises and yet does not contain the same sense in each use. Example:
Chickens have feathers.
Your friend is a chicken.
Your friend has feathers.
#2) Fallacy of ambiguity: This involves a premise that can be interpreted in several different ways.
#3) Fallacy of vagueness: This involves a premise that has no clear interpretation.
The difference between the two terms is important, although note that it is only technical language. Technical language is used within a certain context to keep track of certain distinctions, e.g., validity and soundness used above are both technical terms. The best way to distinguish between ambiguity and vagueness is to ask whether any interpretation can be derived from the premises. If more than one can be derived, meaning one can find two or three or four (some limited, definite amount), then it is ambiguous. If no definite number of interpretations can be found, then it is vague.
Finally, when constructing counter-arguments against an author or speaker, one should avoid these fallacies as well. 1) Ad hominem: This literally means against the man. One should not attack the character of the presenter of the argument. The argument is something distinct from the speaker, for anyone can make the same argument. 2) Straw man: This is where the counter-argument does not attack the original argument itself, but presents a weaker version or something that appears to be the argument but is not. 3) Tu Quoque: Known as the “You, too” fallacy, this is more to defend your own argument by claiming that the other argument makes the same mistake .
Soundness involves both the validity of the argument and the truth of the premises. For an argument to be sound, it must be valid and have all true premises. To check for soundness, one must question the truth of the premises. This involves constructing an argument that has for its conclusion the negation of one of the premises of the argument you are evaluating. You should be careful never to attack the conclusion of the argument. If you attack the conclusion, you have only created a dilemma. You now have two arguments with opposing conclusions, but you do not know which of the two is the sound argument. This skill is difficult to acquire and will take much practice to get good at it. One final note: we are studying good philosophers. If you find something obviously wrong with their arguments, think again. Remember, you are constructing an argument that itself could be unsound or miss the point. But do not discount your criticism so quickly either, instead you should build from that point and think more. The more you think about the argument, the more you will learn.
- Exercises
- I. Identify the premises and conclusions in the following passages, each of which only contains one argument. Do not forget the implicit premises and conclusions.
1. There must be simple substances because there are composites; for a composite is nothing else than a collection or aggregation of simple substances.
2. No man will take counsel, but every man will take money; therefore, money is better than counsel.
3. God created the universe from nothing; …time did not exist previously, but was created; for it depends on the motion of the sphere, and the sphere has been created.
4. …Since there are more people on the earth than hairs on any person’s head, I know that there must be at least two people with the same numbers of hairs…
5. It is our duty to do what is right. We have the right to disregard good advice. Hence, it is our duty to disregard good advice.
6. All goods are either outside or in the soul, and of these those in the soul are more desirable… For prudence, virtue, and pleasure are in the soul, and some or all of these seem to all to be the end.
7. Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And assuredly that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For, suppose it exists in the mind alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. If that which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone, then this same that which nothing greater can be conceived is that which something greater can be tconceived. But that is impossible.
II. Each of the following passages contains more than one argument. Distinguish them and identify their premises and conclusions.
1. …We are told that this God, who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every fault, exercises none himself, but does the exact opposite; for punishment which comes at the end of all things, when the world is over and done with, cannot have for its object either to improve or deter, and is therefore pure vengeance.
2. There is a perennial classical question that asks which part of the motorcycle, which grain of sand in which pile, is the Buddha. Obviously to ask that question is to look in the wrong direction, for the Buddha is everywhere. But just as obviously to ask that question is to look in the right direction, for the Buddha is everywhere.
3. …If Materialism is true, all our thoughts are produced by purely material antecedents. These are quite blind, and are just as likely to produce falsehood as truth. We have thus no reason for believing any of our conclusions – including the truth of Materialism, which is therefore a self-contradictory hypothesis.
4. Man is good, and better than the cattle because he is capable of receiving the precept; better still when he has received the precept; and still better when he has obeyed it; best of all when he is made happy by the eternal light of wisdom. Sin, or evil, consists in neglect to receive the precept or to obey it, or to hold fast the contemplation of wisdom. So we learn that, even although the first man had been created wise, it was nevertheless possible for him to be seduced. Because his sin was committed with his free will, a just penalty followed by divine law.
With regard to good and evil, these terms indicate nothing positive in things
considered in themselves, nor are they anything else than modes of thought, or notions which we form from the comparison of one thing with another. For one and the same thing may at the same time be both good and evil or indifferent. Music, for example, is good to a melancholy person, bad to one mourning, while to a deaf man it is neither good nor bad.
