PHI1101 (Reasoning and Critical Thinking)

Vincent Bergeron

CHAPTER 1 (ARGUMENTS)

Structure of arguments

1. A set of claims (at least one) called premises

2. A further claim called the conclusion
3. An inference which connects the premises and the conclusion, the conclusion is
inferred from the premises

Mark likes Kate

Only Oliver likes Kate
----------------------------
Therefore the sky is blue

I think
--------
Therefore, I exist

Not everything is an argument, e.g. description of facts like reading the weather report.

Look for premise and conclusion indicators (p.4)

Premise indicators: as, as shown by, as we can see from, because, for, insofar as, since

Conclusion indicators: as a result, for these reasons, hence, it follows that, so, therefore,
thus

1
The tricky case of explanations

- Similar structure with a set of claims serving as reasons in support of another claim
- Similar indicator words are used

Main difference between arguments and explanations

Arguments: the aim is to convince someone that something is true

Explanations: that something is true is taken for granted, and reasons are given to show
why it is true.

e.g., The floor is wet because it was raining and the window was left open
(explanation)

e.g., It’s raining and the window was left open, so the floor will get wet
(argument)

Sometimes, a set of sentences can be both an argument and an explanation: e.g.

scientific explanations and math proofs, show that something is true and why it is true.

Simple and complex arguments

Simple arguments: one inference and one conclusion

Complex arguments: more than one inference and conclusion

“Either the chauffeur or the butler killed Thickson. But the butler
was in London on the day of the murder. So he didn’t do it. It must
have been the chauffeur.”

The butler was in London the day of the murder

----------------------------------------------------------------
So, the butler didn’t do it (intermediate conclusion)

Either the chauffeur or the butler killed Thickson

The butler didn’t do it
----------------------------------------------------------------
So, it must have been the chauffeur (final conclusion)

2
Arguments in standard form: helps identify arguments

“You shouldn’t drink and drive because the penalties are stiff if you
are caught. Besides, you might cause an accident. And you do have
to drive tonight. So, you shouldn’t have anything to drink tonight.”

1. The penalties are stiff if you are caught drinking and driving. (P)
2. You might cause an accident if you drink and drive. (P)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. You shouldn’t drink and drive. (IC: from 1, 2)
4. You have to drive tonight (P).
-------------------------------------------------------------
5. You shouldn’t have anything to drink tonight. (FC: from 3, 4)

The principle of charity

The expression of an argument is sometimes messy, not clear, or ambiguous

In general, it is better to choose an interpretation of the argument that makes for the
strongest possible argument compatible with what is said. This way you make the best
use of the argument.

Inferences

-Often invisible or unstated

-Often a general principle, or the logical form of the argument

e.g., The hamster just had babies. So, it must be a female.

Principle: only females have babies

e.g., Flipper is a dolphin. So, Flipper is a mammal.

Principle: all dolphins are mammals

1. If it had rained, the street would be wet

2. The street isn’t wet
---------------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, it didn’t rain

3
Unstated premises and conclusions

If John has studied well, he would have passed the course.

1. If John had studied well, he would have passed the course

2. John didn’t pass the course (missing premise)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, John didn’t study well (missing conclusion)

1. If John had studied well, he would have passed the course

2. John didn’t study well (missing premise)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, John didn’t pass the course (missing conclusion)

Exercises (p. 16)

I. Do the following passages contain arguments? If so, identify the premises,

final conclusions, and any intermediate conclusions, along with any indicator
words. If not, briefly explain why not.

1. Over the past five centuries, the number of independent political entities
in Europe has decreased steadily. During this period, wars became less
frequent, but the wars that did occur were more intense and caused far
more damage.

2. Sam didn’t steal the necklace, so Joe must have done it, because only
those two had the opportunity.

3. If Joe had gone shopping, there would be some food in the fridge, but
there isn’t. So he must not have.

7. One of those three guys must have cleaned up the mess. But it wasn’t
Harry, because he never helps out. And it wasn’t Dick, because he was
busy with other things. So it must have been Tom.

4
 Diagramming arguments

- Premises directly supporting a conclusion are right above it.

- Final conclusion is at the bottom.

- Arrows indicate which premises support which conclusions.

Smith has a violent temper (P1)

Smith is frequently intoxicated (P2)
----------------------------------------------
You should not hire Smith as a babysitter (FC)

All cats are reptiles (P1)

All reptiles are mammals (P2)
--------------------------------------
All cats are mammals (FC)

“The Honda is cheap, has low mileage, and is in good repair. So

you should buy it. But you can’t afford two cars, so that means the
Chevy is out.”

P1: The Honda is cheap (P1)

The Honda has low mileage (P2)
The Honda is in good repair (P3)
------------------------------------------
You should buy the Honda (IC4, from 1, 2, 3).
You can only afford one car (P5)
------------------------------------------
You shouldn’t buy the Chevy (FC, from 4, 5)

5
Exercises (P19)

II. Supply unstated premises and/or conclusions as appropriate.

1. Fred must have made this mess. I know George didn’t.

Either Fred or George made this mess (missing premise)

3. If we were meant to fly, we’d be born with wings.

We’re not born with wings (missing premise)

We weren’t meant to fly (missing conclusion)

III. Rewrite the following arguments in standard form, supplying unstated

premises and/or conclusions as necessary, clearly identifying intermediate and
final conclusions and showing which premises support them. Then draw a diagram
which displays the argument’s structure.

2. The television is on fire, so I’m sure it’s broken. That means you’ll
have to buy a new one.

The television is on fire (P1)

------------------------------------
So, it’s broken (IC2)
You can’t live without a television (MP3)
-----------------------------------------------------
You’ll have to buy a new one (FC4)

9. Sam is a great baseball player, so he can play in the major leagues. But
major league players make lots of money, so it’s pretty clear that Sam can
be rich if he wants to.

Sam is a great baseball player (p1)

---------------------------------------------
Sam can play in the major leagues (IC2)
Major league players make a lot of money (P3)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam can be rich if he wants to (FC)

6
17. Archy didn’t leave the house that day. If he had, the police would have
found his footprints in the snow. But they didn’t find any. And if he
never left home, there’s no way he could have been in town to rob the
convenience store. So he didn’t do it.

If Archy would have left the house the day of the robbery, his the police would
have found his footprints in the snow (P1)
The police didn’t find his footprints in the snow (P2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Archy didn’t leave the house that day (IC3)
If he never left home, there’s no way he could have been in town to rob the
convenience store (P4)
------------------------------
So, he didn’t do it (FC)

16. Mehitabel committed the murder. We know she was at the scene of the
crime, because her fingerprints were found there. Also, she surely had a
motive, as she was having an affair with the victim’s husband.

Mehitabel’s fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime (P1)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, we know that she was at the scene of the crime (IC2)
She was having an affair with the victim’s husband (P3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, she surely had a motive (IC4)
------------------------------------------
Mehitabel committed the murder (FC5)