Diagramming Arguments Asecond technique for the analysis of arguments is diagramming.

With a
diagram we can represent the structure of an argument graphically; the flow of premises and
conclusions is displayed in a two-dimensional chart, or picture, on the page. A diagram is not needed
for a simple argument, even though drawing one can enhance our understanding. When an
argument is complex, with many premises entwined in various ways, a diagram can be exceedingly
helpful. To construct the diagram of an argument we must 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. To convey the process of inference on the two-dimensional page,
we adopt this convention: A conclusion always appears in the space below the premises that give it
support; coordinate premises are put on the same horizontal level. In this way, an argument whose
wording may be confusing can be set forth vividly in iconic form. The structure of the argument is
displayed visually.2 Here follows a straightforward argument that may be readily diagrammed: There
is no consensus among biologists that a fertilized cell is alive in a sense that an unfertilized egg or
unused sperm is not. Nor is there a consensus about whether a group of cells without even a
rudimentary nervous system is in any sense human. Hence there are no compelling experimental
data to decide the nebulous issue of when “human” life begins.3 The circled numbers serve to
represent the propositions, so we can diagram the argument as follows: ~ 3 ~ 2 ~ 1

Analyzing Arguments

40

An alternative plausible interpretation of this argument can be represented by a different diagram:

24

Another strength of diagrams is their ability to exhibit relations between the premises—relations
that may be critical to the argument. Each premise of an argument may support its conclusion
separately, as in the arguments above. In some arguments, however, the premises support the
conclusion only when they are considered jointly—and this is a feature of the reasoning that a
diagram is well suited to display, by providing a visual representation of that connection. The
following argument illustrates this:

General Motors makes money (when it does) on new cars and on the financing of loans. Car dealers,
by contrast, make most of their money on servicing old cars and selling used ones. So car dealers can
thrive even when the automaker languishes.5 By bracketing the premises in the diagram of this
argument, we show that its premises give support only because they are joined, thus: ~ 3 ~ 2 ~ 1

Football analysis is trickier than the baseball kind because Football really is a team sport. Unlike in
baseball, all eleven guys on the field are involved in every play. Who deserves the credit or blame is
harder to know than it looks.4 The diagram looks like this: ~ 4 ~ 3 ~ 2~ 1

Analyzing Arguments

41

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),
but even then the added premise remains to be precisely formulated. Thus the argument

Since there are no certainties in the realm of politics, politics must be the arena for negotiation
between different perspectives, with cautious moderation likely to be the best policy.7

is best clarified by a paraphrase in which its tacit premise and internal complexity is made explicit,
thus:

12

24

In this argument, neither premise supports the conclusion independently. It is the combination of
the facts that General Motors makes most of its money in one way, while car dealers make most of
their money in another way, that supports the conclusion that the latter may thrive while the former
languishes. Often we can show what we cannot as conveniently say. Diagrams are particularly useful
when an argument’s structure is complicated. Consider the following argument:

Desert mountaintops make good sites for astronomy. Being high, they sit above a portion of the
atmosphere, enabling a star’s light to reach a telescope without having to swim through the entire
depths of the atmosphere. Being dry, the desert is also relatively cloud-free. The merest veil of haze
or cloud can render a sky useless for many astronomical measures.6

Proposition is plainly the conclusion of this argument, and the other three provide support for
it—but they function differently in giving that support. Statement supports, by itself, the claim that
mountaintops are good sites for telescopes. But statements and must work together to support the
claim that desert mountaintops are good sites for telescopes. A diagram shows this neatly: ~ 4~ 3 ~ 2
~ 1 ~ 4 ~ 3 ~ 2~ 1
Analyzing Arguments

42

Two conclusions (and hence two arguments) may have a single stated premise. For example, Older
women have less freedom to fight sexual harassment at their jobs or to leave a battering husband,
because age discrimination means they won’t easily find other ways of supporting themselves.9 The
single premise here is that older women cannot easily find alternative ways to support themselves.
The two conclusions supported by that premise are (a) that older women have less freedom to fight
sexual harassment at their jobs, and (b) that older married women have less freedom to leave a
battering husband. Asingle argument ordinarily means an argument with a single conclusion,
regardless of how many premises are adduced in its support. When there are two or more premises
in an argument, or two or more arguments in a passage, the order of appearance of premises and
conclusions may need to be clarified. The conclusion may be stated last, or first; it may sometimes
be sandwiched between the premises offered in its support, as in the following passage:

34

12

1. There are no certainties in the realm of politics. 2. Where there are no certainties, those with
different perspectives must negotiate their differences. 3. The best policy likely to emerge from such
negotiation is one of cautious moderation. 4. Therefore politics is the realm for negotiation between
different perspectives, with cautious moderation likely to be the best policy. The number of
arguments in a passage is determined, most logicians agree, by the number of conclusions it
contains. If a passage contains two or more arguments, and a number of propositions whose
relations are not obvious, a diagram may prove particularly useful in sorting things out. A passage in
a letter from Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels illustrates this nicely: To hasten the social revolution in
England is the most important object of the International Workingman’s Association. The sole means
of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence the task of the “International” is everywhere
to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly
with Ireland.8 There are two conclusions in this passage and hence two arguments. But both
conclusions are inferred from the same two premises. A diagram exhibits this structure: ~ 4 ~ 3 ~ 2 ~
1

Analyzing Arguments

43

The real and original source of inspiration for the Muslim thinkers was the Quran and the sayings of
the Holy Prophet. It is therefore clear that the Muslim philosophy was not a carbon copy of Greek
thought, as it concerned itself primarily and specifically with those problems which originated from
and had relevance to Muslims.10 Here the conclusion, that “Muslim philosophy was not a carbon
copy ofGreek thought,” appears after the first premise of the argument and before thesecond. The
same proposition that serves as a conclusion in one argument may serve as premise in a different
argument, just as the same person may be a commander in one context and a subordinate in
another. This is well illustrated by a passage from the work of Thomas Aquinas. He argues: Human
law is framed for the multitude of human beings. The majority of human beings are not perfect in
virtue. Therefore human laws do not forbid all vices.11 The conclusion of this argument is used
immediately thereafter as a premise in another, quite different argument: Vicious acts are contrary
to acts of virtue. But human law does not prohibit all vices. . . . Therefore neither does it prescribe all
acts of virtue.12 No special techniques are needed to grasp these arguments of St. Thomas.
However, when the cascade of arguments is compressed, a paraphrase is helpful in showing the flow
of reasoning. Consider the following passage: Because the greatest mitochondrial variations
occurred in African people, scientists concluded that they had the longest evolutionary history,
indicating a probable African origin for modern humans.13 We might diagram the passage thus: ~ 3~
2~1

Aparaphrase of this passage, although perhaps more clumsy, exhibits more fully the cascade of the
two arguments that are compressed in it: 1. The more mitochondrial variation in a people, the
longer its evolutionary history. 2. The greatest mitochondrial variations occur in African people.
Therefore African people have had the longest evolutionary history. 1. African people have had the
longest evolutionary history. 2. Modern humans probably originated where people have had the
longest evolutionary history. Therefore modern humans probably originated in Africa.

Analyzing Arguments

44

which shows that the conclusion of the second argument is stated between the conclusion and the
premise of the first argument, and that the premise of the first argument is stated between the
conclusion and the premise of the second argument. The diagram also shows that both conclusions
are stated before their premises. That very same diagram shows the logical structure of two related
arguments of the Roman philosopher Seneca, in support of the deterrence theory of punishment. He
wrote: No one punishes because a sin has been committed, but in order that a sin will not be
committed. [For] what has passed cannot be recalled, but what lies in the future may be prevented.
That “no one punishes because a sin has been committed” is the conclusion of one argument; its
premise is that “what has passed cannot be recalled.” That “[we do punish] in order that a sin will
not be committed” is the conclusion of a second argument, whose premise is that “what lies in the
future may be prevented.” Diagramming and paraphrasing are both very useful tools with which we
can analyze arguments so as to understand more fully the relations of premises to conclusions.

EXERCISES

A. Diagram each of the following passages, which may contain more than one argument.

~ 4~ 3 ~ 2~ 1

34

12
These examples make it evident that 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 may be interwoven in patterns more complicated than cascades, and these will
require careful analysis. The diagramming technique then becomes particularly useful. In John
Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, for example, two arguments are combined in the following
passage: It is not necessary—no, nor so much as convenient—that the legislative should be always in
being; but absolutely necessary that the executive power should, because there is not always need
of new laws to be made, but always need of execution of the laws that are made. The component
propositions here may be numbered thus: It is not necessary or convenient that the legislative
[branch of government] should be always in being; it is absolutely necessary that the executive
power should be always in being; there is not always need of new laws to be made; there is always
need of execution of the laws that are made. The diagram for this passage is