Module 2: Standard Form Reading Notes:

Standard form of an argument - A way of presenting the argument which makes clear
which statements are Premises, how many there are, and which statement is the conclusion.

Example:

P1: Premise 1
P2: Premise 2
P3: Premise 3

Therefore,

C: Conclusion

P1: I’m having a bad day today.

P2: I only have bad days on Mondays

Therefore,

C: Today is Monday

Another Example:

P1: Animals from factory farming are treated cruelly.

P2: Eggs come from hens that are treated cruelly.
P3: Commercial fishing is destroying and emptying our oceans

Therefore,

C: You should go vegan.

Sub Argument - Reasons to believe each of the premises.

As we develop our understanding of arguments, we will add additional features. For

example, we are about to consider sub-arguments, and there some premises will also play
the role of conclusions for smaller arguments which are parts of the larger argument. Later
we will extend our standard form by labelling these sub-conclusions.

Standard Form - is a way of setting out the statements of an argument to readily identify its
structure.

The Main Argument and Sub-Argument:

My touch team only practises on Mondays, but today is not Monday. That means that my
team is not practising today. And if my team is not practising today, I can sleep in.
We start off by identifying the statements in the argument, and giving them statement
numbers. With any prose argument, this is an easy and helpful step, as we can then see (a)
what the building blocks of the argument are: the statements, (b) what parts of the text are
indicator terms, and (c) which parts of the text are non-statements, and so not part of the
argument.

(1) My touch team only practises on Mondays, (2) but today is not Monday. That means that
(3) my team is not practising today. And (4) if my team is not practising today, I can sleep in.

Statement (3) has a double purpose in the argument. In the main argument, the one whose
conclusion is "I can sleep in today", the statement serves as a premise. But it also serves as
a conclusion in the sub-argument. In standard form, we can illustrate this in the following
way:

P1: My touch team only practices on Mondays.

P2: Today is not Monday.
Therefore,
C: My touch team is not practicing today.

P3: My touch team is not practicing today.

P4: If my touch team is not practicing today, then I can sleep in today.
Therefore,
C: I can sleep in today.

In the standard form, we indicate that statement (3) is a conclusion in the first argument by
labelling it "C". Then we label it "P3" in the main argument. The conclusion which is not used
as a premise for a sub argument is the main conclusion. The main argument is the argument
with the main conclusion. Arguments that support premises in the main argument are
sub-arguments. We are keeping these sub-arguments separate at this stage. In a later
module, we will combine them into a single longer standard form.

A sub-argument is an argument whose conclusion serves as a premise in a larger

argument of which the sub-argument is a part.

A sub-conclusion is a statement that is the conclusion of a sub-argument.

In complex and long arguments, you will encounter sub-arguments frequently. The longer
the argument, the more sub-arguments you'll find. Isolating every single sub-argument can
be tedious and complex, and we will discuss this more fully in a later week, but in the
meantime here are some tricks to help you:

1. Identify the main conclusion and the premises that are supporting that
conclusion. This is the main argument.
2. Now figure out which premises are themselves sub-conclusions; that is, which
premises have been given reasons for you to believe them. For each of these
sub-conclusions, construct a sub-argument by identifying which premises are
offered in its support.
 3. If the premises in a sub-argument are supported by reasons, they are
sub-conclusions of sub-arguments and you will need to analyse those
sub-arguments in the same way.
4. Eventually, each of your sub-conclusions will be supported by other premises.
Note that if one of your premises is supported by a sub-conclusion that it also
supports, you probably have a circular argument. More on this Circular
Reasoning fallacy later.

Long Argument:
Auckland motorists are being warned not to follow too closely to other drivers as police
clamp down on tailgaters and inattentive drivers. Shannon Grey of Auckland Motorway
Police said officers attend almost 2,000 crashes each year, with 50% identified as
nose-to-tail incidents. Tail-gating makes it more likely that you will cause a nose-to-tail
accident. For example, if you are tail-gating and a driver in front of you has to stop in an
emergency, you run the risk of rear-ending them. Furthermore, in New Zealand, you will pay
a $150 fine for tail-gating. Surely you don't like paying a $150 fine. Therefore, you should not
tail-gate.

P1: Tailgating makes it more likely that you will cause a nose-to-tail accident.
P2: In New Zealand, you will pay a $150 fine for tail-gating.
P3: You don’t like paying a $150 fine.

C: Therefore, you should not tailgate.

Using Standard Form:

1. Identify the sentence that seems to contain the Conclusion.
We discuss how to do this in the What are Arguments page. However, with more
complicated arguments, you might have more that one viable candidate. In that
case, see which of those candidates seems to be best supported by the other
conclusion candidates. We'll provide detailed advice on how to handle large
arguments with many conclusions in the Complex Arguments module.
2. Identify the sentences that seem to be supporting the Conclusion.
This will usually not include any examples, explanations, introductory remarks,
asides. Also, sentences that support a conclusion will usually be statements, not
questions, commands, or non-statements.
3. Turn the sentences from steps #1 and #2 into simple statements.
Sometimes a sentence can contain more than one statement, or a mix of
statements and non-statements such as a command and a statement. Finally,
some sentences might appear to be a non-statement, but what they
communicate is clearly a statement, such as rhetorical questions. (Rhetorical
questions are bad for many reasons, please avoid them in all essays at
University, unless your lecturer specifically says they are valuable in their course,
in which case you might want to indulge their deluded fantasy.)
 4. Put the statements into standard form.
At this stage, that's listing all the supporting statements, each on their own line
labeled with a numbered "P", then the conclusion indicator "Therefore", then the
conclusion labeled with "C".
5. Remove the various indicator terms, that connect the statements.
Indicator terms are the words and phrases that tell you whether sentences should
be treated as a premise, conclusion, both, or neither. See the Introducing
Arguments page for more detail.
6. Replace the anaphoric and deictic reference terms.
Reference terms are the words and phrases that get information from other
sentences or from the context, like "it", "she", "the other one", "they", "over there",
"and then". When these terms are replaced, each of your statements should
make complete sense by themselves, without you needing to read any other
sentence. This is important because we will need to evaluate each statement for
truth, and possibly move or remove some statements.
7. Reword the statements for clarity and precision.
Vague and ambiguous terms are problematic. Re-write associated sentences use
exactly the same words and phrases where possible. The re-writing from this
step, plus step #6, should make your standard form argument clunky, repetitive,
and hard to read aloud. That's a good sign.
8. Review the standard form argument for missing information, and irrelevant
statements.
We have not covered these steps yet. See the Missing Statements, Linking
Principles, and Irrelevant Premises (module 4) pages for more detail.
9. Identify possibly Argument Forms.
We have not covered this step yet. See the Arguments Forms (module 3) page.
Argument forms are common patterns of reasoning. Rewording or re-writing
premises so that they follow common Argument forms will make it easier to
assess the quality of reasoning.
10. Re-order premises.
In larger arguments, you will find that premises might need to be moved around
so that reading them makes the easier to understand. Always makes sure that
premises that support a conclusion are before the conclusion in the standard
form, and try to ensure that premises which work together are adjacent. This
advice will make more sense as arguments get longer.

Example Argument Conversion to Standard Form:

1. Identify the sentence that seems to contain the Conclusion.

We discuss how to do this in the What are Arguments page. However, with
more complicated arguments, you might have more
2. that one viable candidate. In that case, see which of those candidates
seems to be best supported by the other conclusion candidates. We'll
provide detailed advice on how to handle large arguments with many
conclusions in the Complex Arguments module.
3. Identify the sentences that seem to be supporting the Conclusion.
This will usually not include any examples, explanations, introductory
remarks, asides. Also, sentences that support a conclusion will usually be
statements, not questions, commands, or non-statements.
4. Turn the sentences from steps #1 and #2 into simple statements.
Sometimes a sentence can contain more than one statement, or a mix of
statements and non-statements such as a command and a statement.
Finally, some sentences might appear to be a non-statement, but what
they communicate is clearly a statement, such as rhetorical questions.
(Rhetorical questions are bad for many reasons, please avoid them in all
essays at University, unless your lecturer specifically says they are
valuable in their course, in which case you might want to indulge their
deluded fantasy.)
5. Put the statements into standard form.
At this stage, that's listing all the supporting statements, each on their own
line labeled with a numbered "P", then the conclusion indicator
"Therefore", then the conclusion labeled with "C".
6. Remove the various indicator terms, that connect the statements.
Indicator terms are the words and phrases that tell you whether sentences
should be treated as a premise, conclusion, both, or neither. See the
Introducing Arguments page for more detail.
7. Replace the anaphoric and deictic reference terms.
Reference terms are the words and phrases that get information from
other sentences or from the context, like "it", "she", "the other one", "they",
"over there", "and then". When these terms are replaced, each of your
statements should make complete sense by themselves, without you
needing to read any other sentence. This is important because we will
need to evaluate each statement for truth, and possibly move or remove
some statements.
8. Reword the statements for clarity and precision.
Vague and ambiguous terms are problematic. Re-write associated
sentences use exactly the same words and phrases where possible. The
re-writing from this step, plus step #6, should make your standard form
argument clunky, repetitive, and hard to read aloud. That's a good sign.
9. Review the standard form argument for missing information, and
irrelevant statements.
We have not covered these steps yet. See the Missing Statements,
Linking Principles, and Irrelevant Premises (module 4) pages for more
detail.
10. Identify possibly Argument Forms.
We have not covered this step yet. See the Arguments Forms (module 3)
page. Argument forms are common patterns of reasoning. Rewording or
re-writing premises so that they follow common Argument forms will make
it easier to assess the quality of reasoning.
 11. Re-order premises.
In larger arguments, you will find that premises might need to be moved
around so that reading them makes the easier to understand. Always
makes sure that premises that support a conclusion are before the
conclusion in the standard form, and try to ensure that premises which
work together are adjacent. This advice will make more sense as
arguments get longer.

Example Argument Conversion to Standard Form

Let's analyse this (fake) argument:

The University of Auckland has announced a new policy for lecture recordings. The
university’s policy going forward will either be to record all lectures, or else record none of
them. Now, what they decide will have real-world consequences. If they record all lectures,
then students will primarily learn from home. And who doesn't want to be able to stay home,
saving both time and travel costs? On the other hand, if they record no lectures, then
students will view the lectures less often, and will learn less. But if the university has learned
anything from the pandemic (and it's unclear that it has!), it’s that learning from home results
in less effective education. And the University, while it is primarily about building monuments
to its Vice-chancellors, still claims to value effective education. When it doesn't
inconvenience senior management, it likes to act on its stated values. So that means that we
will no longer record any lectures, regardless of student protests. We should hold a big
protest rally during the first week of semester, to let the Vice-Chancellor know we won't stand
for it. I'll send a Zoom link for the protest rally shortly.

1. Identify conclusion.
The sentence that seems to capture the key point of the argument is "So that
means that we will no longer record any lectures, regardless of student protests."
2. Identify Premises.
There's actually arguments for and against lecture recordings in this paragraph.
At this stage, we don't know how to handle premises that are against our
conclusion (you'll need to wait until module 7 - Undermining premises), so we'll
only look at the reasons that support the conclusion. The reasons are
somewhere in this part: "But if the university has learned anything from the
pandemic (and it's unclear that it has!), it’s that learning from home results in less
effective education. And the University, while it is primarily about building
monuments to its Vice-chancellors, still claims to value effective education. When
it doesn't inconvenience senior management, it likes to act on its stated values."
3. Simplify Statements.
We can strip out the extra fluff, the asides, and the commentary. The simplest
form of the conclusion is "So we will no longer record lectures". The simple
premises are: "But learning from home results in less effective education."; "And
the University values effective education."; "It acts on its values.".
4. Standard form.
P1: But learning from home results in less effective education.
 P2: And the University values effective education.
P3: It acts on its values.
Therefore,
C: So we will no longer record lectures.
5. Remove Indicators.
P1: Learning from home results in less effective education.
P2: The University values effective education.
P3: It acts on its values.
Therefore,
C: We will no longer record lectures.
6. Remove Reference terms.
P1: Learning from home results in less effective education.
P2: The University values effective education.
P3: The University acts on its values.
Therefore,
C: The University will no longer record lectures.
7. Reword for Clarity.
It's already pretty clear and clunky. We are reusing phrases a lot, there's little
ambiguity (I think!). I'm going to leave it as it is.
8. Missing & Irrelevant Statements.
We haven't covered this topic yet, but there's a reasoning gap between "learning
from home" in the premises and "recording lectures" in the conclusion. We
probably need to say something about how making lecture recordings available
online encourages students to learn from home instead of on campus.
9. Argument Forms.
Not yet covered.
10. Reorder premises.
I'm happy that the premises read naturally in the current order.

Anaphoric Reference: An anaphoric reference is a word in a text that refers back to other
ideas in the text for its meaning. eg: "I went out with Jo on Sunday. She looked awful."

Deictic Reference: A dietetic reference denotes a word or expression whose meaning is

dependent on the context in which it is used. eg: "The show will be next Tuesday."

Missing Statements:

Sometimes when people give you arguments, they will leave out parts of the argument. This
may be because those parts are things that we all know, or maybe they think they don't need
to state every single reason explicitly, or maybe they have rhetorical reasons for suppressing
some statements. Suppose I have an argument like:

Humans have gone to the Moon. But we haven't really travelled in space until we've visited
another planet. So humans aren't space travellers.

Logically speaking I should add the premise "The Moon is not a planet". But I don't really
need to say this, because I know that you know this. And it would be pedantic or perhaps
insulting to tell you. And sometimes, it's more effective to leave it out.
A suppressed premise is a premise of the argument that is not provided.

Notice how we put the second (suppressed) premise in brackets in the standard
form to indicate that the premise is suppressed. It should be noted that this 'fixed'
argument is still pretty bad. It may be true that everyone loves a winner, but we have
no idea how they feel about non-winners. Perhaps everybody loves everybody!

One word of advice about suppressed premises: be economical! Don't add suppressed
premises to someone else's argument unless they're really obvious. You only want to include
a suppressed premise in an argument when it is required for the argument, and it's obvious
that it has been left out on purpose. And this also means never add a suppressed premise to
your own argument. If you left it out on purpose, you don't include it. If you want to add a
premise to your own argument, you aren't suppressing it, so don't use the [suppressing]
brackets.

Sometimes, another part of an argument that may be missing is the conclusion. We then say
that the argument has a suppressed conclusion.

A suppressed conclusion is the conclusion of the argument, when it is not provided.

For example:

Recently, whilst I was on sabbatical in Scotland, I thought I saw the Loch Ness Monster. But
it turns out that all the sightings of the Loch Ness Monster are actually people mistaking logs
for non-logs.

In standard form, the argument looks like this:

P1: Whilst I was on sabbatical in Scotland, I thought I saw the Loch Ness Monster.
P2: All the sightings of the Loch Ness Monster are the result of people mistaking logs for
non-logs.

Therefore,

C: [I did not see the Loch Ness Monster.]

As above, we put the conclusion in brackets to indicate that it was suppressed.

You need to be careful when formulating the suppressed conclusion. You want to find a
conclusion that matches the reasons that are being left out. You don't want to put in a
conclusion that wouldn't be supported by the premises. This is not always easy, so you'll
need to practise on some examples with suppressed premises and conclusions.

Linking Principles:

The Conclusion Linking principle is that any important information, phrase, or term
in the Conclusion must be in a Premise.
All parts of the conclusion are linked in this argument. "Lars" appears in P1, and "fallible"
appears in P2.

P1: Lars is human.

P2: All humans are fallible.
Therefore,
C: Lars is fallible.

Some parts of the conclusion are not linked in this argument.

P1: If we go out on a clear night and look up, we see many stars.
Therefore,
C: There should be many stars in the Apollo moon landing pictures.

The Conclusion Linking principle seems simple, even trivial. However, it is effective at
detecting suppressed premises, and missing parts of existing premises. It forces you to
tighten your wording, and consider each part of the conclusion carefully. But there are three
common problems:

1. Applying Linking principles properly is quite hard. (This is good, as it is hard

primarily because it requires you to consider where each bit of the conclusion
comes from, and to identify some assumptions.)
2. Linking principles will sometimes generate many premises that should remain
suppressed. (At this stage, it's better to include all these premises; with more
practice we will see which can be left out.)
3. Some types of (Non-deductive) arguments have deliberate gaps, and you can't
apply the Linking principle completely. (As our arguments get more sophisticated,
the Linking principles will become less useful.)

In the most recent argument, there were two phrases in the conclusion that weren't in our
premises: "should"and "Apollo moon landing pictures". They both seem to be needed in our
conclusion, so we'll need premises that contain them. Fortunately, it's reasonably easy to
come up with a single premise that contains both of them:

P2: The Apollo moon landing pictures should show what we see when we go out on a clear
night and look up.

The Conclusion Linking principle does give you some solid clues about terms and phrases
for your suppressed premises. But it is not fool-proof or mechanical. You still need to
understand the context and think carefully to create premises that contain the missing
premises and support the conclusion. There are plenty of other considerations; for instance,
the use of "should" in a conclusion causes all sorts of complications that we'll revisit in the
Morality module. Another, more general consideration is that the new premises need to work
well with the existing premises. And this leads us to our second principle.

The Premise Linking Principle:

The Premise linking principle is that any important information, phrase, or term in a
Premise (but not in the conclusion) must also be in another Premise.
Our original argument also conforms to the Premise linking principle:

P1: Lars is human.

P2: All humans are fallible.
Therefore,
C: Lars is fallible.

The Premise linking principle is a useful way to check that the premises fit together properly
in the argument. It works with the Conclusion linking principle, as every part of every premise
either ties that premise to another premise, or is in the conclusion, so (hopefully) the
premises collectively support every part of the conclusion. The Premise linking principle thus
gives you further clues about suppressed premises or missing parts of premises.

Once you become familiar with both types of Linking, you can think of these as a single
Linking principle: every part of every statement of an argument should also be in another
statement. But it's easier to consider them separately when you are first learning to apply
them.

Applying the linking principles:

When you have a larger argument that contains several smaller sub-arguments, the Linking
principles apply within each sub-argument. This allows you to build tight self-contained
pieces of reasoning that easily fit within a larger argument.

We can see how the Linking principles worked together to improve our argument about the
Apollo moon landings.

P1: If we go out on a clear night and look up, we see many stars.

P2: The Apollo moon landing pictures should show what we see when we go out on a clear
night and look up.

Therefore,

C: There should be many stars in the Apollo moon landing pictures

Here, every phrase in every statement appears in another statement. This doesn't guarantee
the argument is good; the premise support may not be strong enough, and the premises
might be false; but it's an excellent start.

Let's look at another argument that the Apollo astronauts could not have landed on the
moon.

P1: The Apollo astronauts could not have survived the journey through the Van Allen Belt.
Therefore,
C: The Apollo astronauts cannot have been to the Moon.

We have several phrases that only appear in one statement. We need to add some further
premises, or perhaps amend our existing statements. For a start, why is the Van Allen Belt
relevant?

P1: The Apollo astronauts could not have survived the journey through the Van Allen
radiation belt.
P2: The Van Allen radiation belt is between the Earth and the Moon.
Therefore,
C: The Apollo astronauts cannot have been to the Moon.

That's better; not only is the Van Allen radiation belt linked to another premise, but that
premise is linked to the conclusion. Now we only have to link the journey survival, and the
new mention of the Earth:

P1: The Apollo astronauts could not have survived the journey through the Van Allen
radiation belt.
P2: The Van Allen radiation belt is between the Earth and the Moon.
P3: To go to the Moon, astronauts must survive the journey from the Earth through
everything between.
Therefore,
C: The Apollo astronauts cannot have been to the Moon.

This argument now has every element of every statement linked to another statement. Some
phrases might occur in several statements; this is usually fine, although it's worth checking if
they are all needed. And sometimes we'll use different wording (e.g., "everything" in P3
clearly includes the Van Allen Belt from P2).

We don't yet know this is a good argument, but at least it has a tightly woven structure,
where nothing is likely to be missing.

Create your own Arguments:

Hearing a story can move us emotionally, but also inspire us to form new opinions, or
provide additional support for views we already have. These views and opinions generally
are based on complex reasons. These short stories both informed, and emotionally affected,
your lecturers.

Watch and listen to one of these videos, and think about an opinion or view that you formed
while watching the video. Then post about it in the Academic Skills Discussion

Motivated Reasoning:

There are two common reasons for creating arguments. One is to justify a conclusion you've
already come to. The other is to reason to something new that follows from what we already
know. Unsurprisingly, most of our arguments or reasons are motivated by trying to justify the
conclusions we prefer, rather than trying to follow the evidence as objectively as possible.

Often we have an intuition, or a half-remembered 'fact', or a preference for a certain result.

Then we see what we want to see, so we usually believe the statement describing our
preference, at least to a large degree. But we are motivated by our desire to seem rational.
So we set out to convince ourselves that we have good reasons for our belief. We
pre-determine the conclusion of our argument, and now we just need to rummage up
premises that appear to support it.
 Similarly, when we are arguing with
someone else (in that other sense of the word 'argument'), we often stick to a position, while
casting around desperately for reasons that we can throw at the other person to make them
believe us, or at least to think we have good reasons to believe, and so are being
reasonable.

In both cases, we have motivated reasoning – that is, our reasons are motivated by reasons
other than seeking truth. Often when we believe that a claim is true, we appeal to almost any
related premises to justify it – after all, it's already true! This makes creating a good
argument much harder, as we often struggle to spot whether our premises are true and
relevant.

Objective Reasoning:

Reasoning from premises to conclusion is a much rarer and less natural process. We start
with a set of information, and follow where the evidence leads us, to a new conclusion, one
that we may not have believed before. This is slow and painstaking. It requires us to search
around for what might actually follow from some premises. Try it. You will probably find you
are rather slower at reasoning forwards than justifying backwards from a conclusion. This is
at least partially because you don't reason this way very often, and also because humans
are basically self-justifying creatures. This is also pretty much how memory works: we recall
some fragments, and then reconstruct a scenario that vaguely fits our fragments, and
believe we've remembered the full picture. We might even change the remembered
fragments to better fit the parts we've confabulated.

Sadly, we tend to be most objective in fields where we have least at stake, and thus least
interest in careful reasoning; motivated reasoning comes from our motivation to seek an
answer. Also, we are always shaped by our worldviews, so strictly objective reasoning is
close to impossible, even in fields like mathematics. So the best we can be is truth-seeking
but not overly motivated, to try to be more objective. And we can't look to technology for a
solution: sadly, even Artificial Intelligences are usually coded with assumptions based on
worldviews, or trained on biased data.

How to Reason more objectively:

The best way to reduce the role of our prior motivations in our reasoning, is to start with the
premises and data, and only see which conclusions they can support. Using standard form
to create, analyse, and evaluate arguments is a useful way to remove some of the emotion
and bias. We will also need to develop skills in deciding how much support premises provide
to the conclusion; how the argument can go wrong; and how relevant the premises are to the
conclusion. We'll develop these skills in the next few modules. But first, we need to learn
how to identify and fill holes in arguments.

Psych: Availability Heuristic:

The Availability Heuristic is a psychological bias that conflates how easy something is to
recall with its frequency of occurrence and relevance to the current argument.

Reasoning Heuristic - A mental shortcut we use to simplify decision making.

Availability Heuristic - Judging the probability of an event by how easily examples come to
mind.

The availability heuristic is also associated with stereotyping, and defaults. But it's not quite
the same. So don't blame the availability heuristic for all humanity's bigotry or hasty
generalisations.

Here are some things that you can do to reduce the deleterious effects of availability
heuristics: avoid snap judgements; question your default behaviour; get a wide range of
information; mix with different types of people; notice when other people have different
assumptions than you; learn to spot your own assumptions. Collectively, they will help to
reduce some of the problems of relying too much on the availability heuristic. However, it
seems fundamental to human psychology, and to our use of language.

Fallacies: of Appeal:

A Fallacy ( 谬论 ) is a flaw in an argument that is psychologically convincing, and follows a

well-known reasoning pattern. There are hundreds of named fallacies, and thousands of
unnamed ways that arguments go wrong. The fallacies that we include in this course are
quite common and easy to describe, but they are not particularly special. However, even just
reading a description of a fallacy is often enough to raise awareness of the reasoning error,
and help people to avoid it in the future.

A fallacy is a commonly used, psychologically convincing but unreliable, pattern of

reasoning.

One reason why fallacies can seem convincing is that they are often quite reliable ways of
reasoning. Most of the fallacies we will consider are sometimes appropriate ways of
reasoning; just not as often as we'd like.

The first class of fallacies we will look at are Fallacies of Appeal. Fallacies of Appeal offer
reasons to believe a claim or conclusion by appealing to external sources (rather than facts)
when they are irrelevant to the reasons for believing the conclusion.

A fallacy of appeal is an unreasonable appeal to an external factor, such as emotion or

popularity.
 1. Appeal to Authority

Description: Relying upon the view of apparent (as opposed to genuine) authorities to settle
the truth of a statement or argument.

Example: Richard Long, a respected retired New Zealand newsreader featured in

advertising campaigns for Hanover Finance. Long had no financial expertise.

Newsreaders look well informed, but they are essentially presenters. They are well known
because they're on the news: not because they know about investments. If we rely upon a
newsreader's endorsement to settle which investment fund we should trust, we would be
accepting a claim without adequate evidence. That would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

Appeals to authority also conflict with the basic tenet of good logical and critical thinking
which calls upon us to take responsibility for evaluating the grounds for our beliefs. Adopting
a belief merely because someone else told us it was true is a way of avoiding good logical
and critical thinking.

Sometimes, however, good logical and critical thinking will itself lead us to rely on genuine
authorities. If I can't assess the investment option for myself, I might reason that I should
trust the advice of a genuine investment advisor. That's not avoiding logical and critical
thinking: it's reasoning about a matter related indirectly to the question I'm trying to settle.
When I consider whether I should rely on an authority, I should consider the following
questions:

● Is the authority a genuine authority: are they an expert?

● Are they giving advice in the areas within which they are a genuine authority?
(We should listen to actors about acting; not so much about investing or
medicine).
● Is there a broad consensus among authorities in the area? If not, we should not
decide to believe X solely because an authority says X is true, since other
genuine authorities say that X isn't true.
● Is the authority speaking sincerely (they might be giving an endorsement
because they're paid to do so) and are they free of obvious bias?

Only if the answer to all four of these questions is "yes" might we accept a claim because an
authority endorses it, and even then, we should only do so if we are not in a position to
evaluate the evidence for the claim ourselves.

2. Appeal to Ignorance:

Description: The arguer asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it
false, or that a claim must be false because no one has proven it to be true.

Examples:

● There must be intelligent life on other planets, as no one has proven there isn't.
● There isn't any intelligent life on other planets, as no one has proven there is.

Both claims assume that the lack of evidence for (or against) a claim is good reason to
believe that the claim is false (or true). Ignorance – in the sense of a lack of knowledge –
features as part of the proof of the conclusion. But in general, the mere fact that a claim has
not yet been proven is not enough reason to think that claim is false.

However, there are some non-fallacious appeals to ignorance. If qualified researchers have
used well-designed methods to search for something for a long time, without success, and
it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven't found it is
evidence that it doesn't exist. For example, many decades of research into ESP,
mind-reading, spiritual healing, and other psychic powers, have found no convincing cases.
That's a strong, if not conclusive, case that these psychic powers are rare to non-existent.

3. Appeal to Consequences

Description: An argument is considered good if good consequences will follow from the
conclusion; similarly an argument is bad if undesirable consequences follow.

Example: If there was Anthropogenic Global Warming, then we'd have to change how we
drive our cars. But we like driving our cars fast, and have paid lots of hard-earned money for
them. So Global Warming is rubbish. Here, the conclusion being true would be inconvenient
for us, so we claim that it is false.

One place this argument form may not be fallacious is in certain types of moral argument,
where the moral consequences of a decision are part of the decision making process. For
instance, if you lie to an assassin, you might prevent her from killing her target; here you
might be able to justify the moral harm of lying because of the greater moral harm caused by
the consequences of not lying.

4. Appeal to popularity:

Description: Arguing that a claim must be true because lots of people believe it.

Examples: Essential Bible Blog's "Top 10 Reason the Bible is True":

● Reason 8. Leader Acceptance. A majority of the greatest leaders and thinkers in

history have affirmed the truth and impact of the Bible.
● Reason 9. Global Influence. The Bible has had a greater influence on the laws,
art, ethics, music and literature of world civilization than any other book in history.

Perhaps the Bible is true, but the fact lots of people believe it to be so is irrelevant to whether
it is or not. We should investigate and evaluate their reasons for believing it, rather than
taking the mere fact that they believe it as a reason to do so.

But … sometimes a consensus among properly informed people may be a fairly good guide
to the truth of a claim: see the circumstances in which an appeal to authority might not be
fallacious.

Appeals to Tradition:

Description: Like appeals to popularity, except the appeal is to how long something has been
believed, rather than to the number of people who have believed it.

Examples:
 ● People have believed in astrology for a very long time, therefore it must be true.
● We've always eaten large hot roast meals for Christmas, so we will keep doing
this even though we live in the southern hemisphere now.

But all of the objections to arguments from majority belief apply here, too.

Appeals to Emotion (e.g., pity, love, anger):

Description: An attempt to evoke feelings or emotions, when such feelings are not logically
relevant to their conclusion.

Examples:

Student to Lecturer: I know I missed most of the lectures and all of my tutorials. But my
family will be really upset if I fail this course. Can't you find a few more marks?

That is an appeal to pity, but even though what the student says is true, it is irrelevant to the
marks they should be given. The University has strict rules designed to guarantee fair
treatment for all students which do not allow exceptions to be made in cases like this.

Daughter: Can we get a puppy?

Father: No.
Daughter: If you loved me, we'd get a puppy.

That would be an appeal to emotion, in this case love. Note that the persistent child might
continue by appealing to other emotions:

Daughter: A puppy would grow up and protect us. Can't we get a puppy?
Father: No.
Daughter: If you wanted to keep us safe you'd get a puppy! You don't care about us!

Being able to spot common fallacies can be very useful in the home. But pointing them out in
the heat of argument is less useful.

Appeals to Aspiration:

Description: Evidence, information, or advice is presented by someone the audience

aspires to be like, or admires.
Examples: All influencer posts. All advertisements with celebrities. Many political speeches.

We choose to follow their advice, and often believe it, because we want to be like the
celebrity, be seen to be like them, or even liked by them. It's a variation on the appeal to
popularity – it's not that we want to be popular/desirable - it's that we are following someone
because they are popular/desirable.

All celebrity endorsements, and the entire career of influencing, prey on people through this
fallacy. It's ubiquitous, and evil.

Dispositions: Constructive

Although critical thinking is often studied as an individualistic academic discipline, one of the
most important dispositions for a good critical thinker to develop is to be able to discuss
ideas and think as part of a greater whole, even if you disagree with some or all of the ideas.
This is something that employers, committees, group projects, relationships, etc., all require:

Constructive contributions make everyone better thinkers

Being Constructive is the disposition to engage with people and build on their ideas,
rather than treat them as obstacles or targets.

Constructive criticism is perfectly coherent. You can disagree with someone, and even point
out their mistakes, as long as you are doing it at their side, in a way that helps them. There is
also the chance that you are wrong, and being constructively helped is better than being
simply corrected. The markers in this course try to be constructive in our feedback, even if
we don't always succeed (let us know if we are cruel or unhelpful!).

Being constructive – that is, making our critical thinking interactions useful or beneficial –
takes practice. You'll get a chance every week in this course, as you can comment on each
others' discussion posts. It's harder to do when you feel strongly about a topic, or have a
complicated relationship with the other people. Family members are great for practicing this
disposition; many siblings seem to exist simply for the purpose of getting under our skin.

People are not objects to score points off so you can look good or to make them look bad.
Finding a mutually agreeable resolution is more important than winning or displaying power.
It's easier to explain why being constructive is important by considering the alternative:

Don't be an arsehole

Arseholery is the disposition to be an 'arsehole' – to score points off people to look good
or make them look bad. For 'arseholes', winning, dominating, or displaying power is more
important than truth or finding a resolution.

But why should we care how critical thinkers behave?

1. Critical thinking is partially a community endeavour, and certainly this critical

thinking course involves a community of inquirers. Alienating parts of a
community reduces their chance to learn, and your chance to learn from them. It
 raises emotions and reduces rationality. It increases the chance that neither you
nor they are engaging in good arguments. It makes people defensive, others
triumphant, and both will fail to consider the quality of arguments on offer.
2. No one should lose when everyone uses Critical Thinking. This isn't because it's
soft and fluffy and non-judgmental, and everyone gets a prize. It's because we
judge arguments and reasons, but we don't judge the arguers. As critical
thinkers, we should believe the conclusions of the best arguments. So if your
argument 'loses', then it's not your argument any more, and you've improved your
thinking – you win! Critical Thinking is not about your ego, or being right, or
making someone else look bad. It's about everyone working together to improve
everyone's beliefs and their reasons for those beliefs. The only real way to lose
when you are thinking critically is if (a) someone deceives you, convincing you
that a bad argument is good, or that a good argument is bad, or (b) someone
engages in belittling or abusive behaviour, rather than critical thinking. The former
problem can be reduced by becoming more skilled. This disposition addresses

the latter problem.

3. Arseholes try to win, and if they can't win, they make other people lose. They
keep score, make personal attacks, gloat, preen, and lie to look good. Truth and
facts are often not their friends. Even people with excellent critical thinking skills
but a disposition towards arseholery tend to cause bad critical thinking in a group
or team environment. So really, you are doing them a favour as well as everyone
else when you ask them politely to curb their behaviour. Just don't expect them to
thank you.
4. The term's very crudity serves as a reminder that we can be blunt and truthful,
but not offensive. We don't need to sugar-coat or use euphemisms. We try to be
clear, concise, simple, and direct when we try to construct arguments together.
We avoid both loaded (thick) terms and vacuous niceties – but we don't attack or
belittle people, because we are focused on argument quality, not ownership or
victory.

In this course, I expect us all to be constructive when engaging with each other, even though
we may not agree with many of each other's ideas. Any instance of belittling or abusive
behaviour is unacceptable, because it reduces the critical thinking capabilities of the abuser,
the target, and me. And frankly, we all need all the help we can get. If you feel that a student
or staff member has been an arsehole, let the lecturer know. Even if it's the lecturer.

Speak Gently
Speak gently! — It is better far
To rule by love, than fear —
Speak gently — let not harsh words mar
The good we might do here!

Speak gently to the erring — know,

They may have toiled in vain;
Perchance unkindness made them so;
Oh, win them back again!

Speak gently! — 't is a little thing

Dropped in the heart's deep well;
The good, the joy, which it may bring,
Eternity shall tell.

Exercise: Argument Basics:

● (1) Most students at the University of Auckland intend to vote for the Labour party
in the next national elections. (2) Students at the University of Auckland come
from everywhere. (3) There's also a big variety in the population of students. (4)
You can see just how varied the population of students is just by walking around
campus. Therefore, it's quite probable that (5) the Labour party will be elected in
the next elections.

P1: Students at the University of Auckland intend to vote for the Labour Party.

P2: There is a big variety in the population of students.

C: Therefore, It’s quite probable that the Labour party will be elected in the next elections.

Suppressed Premises

2. Do you think the following argument has a suppressed premise? If so, state what you
think it is, and why. If not, say why not. You might need to break the argument up into its
sub-arguments to see if anything is missing.

(1) New Zealand attitudes tend to be rather insular, but (2) there is much we can learn from
other countries. (3) In Japan, for example, workers set aside some time each day to
exercise, and (4) many corporations provide elaborate exercise facilities for their employees.
(5) Few Kiwi corporations have such exercise programs. (6) Studies have shown that the
Japanese worker is more productive than the Kiwi worker. So (7) the productivity of Kiwi
workers will lag behind their Japanese counterparts, until mandatory exercise programs are
introduced.

Non arguments

3. Select one of the following prose passages, then say whether it's an argument or not, and
why.

● There's a writing portfolio in this class. It's very important to keep up with the
various steps throughout the semester. It is worth 30% of your final mark! The
goal is to get you to transform your initial opinion into a good argument.
 ● This dialogue between Paul Henry and Henry Paul:

Henry: God does not exist!

Paul: I believe that God exists and that's all that matters.
Henry: You're stupid.
Paul: You're a moron.
Henry: No you are!
Paul: No, I'm not; you are!

● The face on the Sphinx at the Giza Plateau does not resemble any portraits of
the Egyptian Pharaohs. Because of this and the lack of any true inscriptions in
the Great Pyramid we can safely say that, in fact, aliens built the pyramids.
● It's important to differentiate between "providing arguments" and "having
arguments". At university, you're not going to do well if you keep having
arguments. But you will do well if you can provide good arguments. PHIL105 will
teach you all about arguments, and that's why you should work hard in this
course!
●

Exercise: Standard Form:

Here are some arguments in prose form (normal paragraphs). Re-write each in standard
form, rephrasing the statements and adding in missing statements, where necessary, to
satisfy the Linking principles. We've provided a sample answer for #1 at the end.

1. Here's the thing: People are far too nasty to one another. Everyone who says the
wrong thing in a brief moment gets jumped on or written off. But a lot of the time,
these people just don't know that the terms they're using could hurt anyone.
Others are telling edgy jokes just to make people laugh. If people end up hurt
because of them, that was an accident. Surely, where people's intentions are
pure, it's pretty nasty to jump on them.

Once you've written your standard form, use this check list:

● Did I format the argument using standard form correctly?

(e.g., did I use "P1:", "P2:", "Therefore", etc.,)
● Did I properly break complex sentences into simple statements?
● Did I re-write each statement so that it made sense in isolation?
● Did I identify and add plausible suppressed statements (with square brackets)?
● Did I make sure the Linking principles were satisfied?
● Did I disambiguate key terms (e.g., "people", "them")?
● Did I include all premises and preserve the original argument?
● Did I identity the correct conclusion?

Sample Answer #1
P1: Everyone who says the wrong thing in a brief moment gets jumped on or written off.
P2: Many people who say the wrong thing in a brief moment don't know that the words
they're using could hurt anyone.
P3: [If someone doesn't know that the words they're using could hurt anyone, then the
hurt is accidental.]
P4: Many people who say the wrong thing in a brief moment are telling edgy jokes to
make people laugh.
P5: If people end up hurt because of edgy jokes that are told to make people laugh, then
the hurt was accidental.
P6: If people have pure intentions, it's nasty to jump on them or write them off.
P7: [People who hurt people accidentally have pure intentions.]
P8: [Any nastiness is too nasty.]
Therefore,
C: People are too nasty to each other.

Some alternatives:

● P3 and P6 could be replaced with the complex statement

P9: [People who don't know the words they're using could hurt anyone, or
who hurt people accidentally, have pure intentions.]
This complex statement could also be split differently into:
P10: [People who don't know the words they're using could hurt anyone
have pure intentions.]
P11: [People who hurt others accidentally have pure intentions.]
● P2 could be replaced with the (less-good)
P12: Many people who say the wrong thing in a brief moment do so
accidentally.

Summary Standard Form:

L.O:

You need to be able to:

● Read and write arguments in standard form

● Identify sub-arguments
● Identify suppressed premises and suppressed conclusions
● Use the Linking principles to identify missing statements and elements of
statements
● Identify unused parts of statements
● Identify availability heuristic
● Identify fallacies of appeal

Conceptual Competency:

You need to be able to answer:

 ● What is the generic standard form of an argument?
● Explanations, advice and instructions are not arguments. Why?
● What is a sub-argument?
● How can you reliably spot and re-create suppressed or missing premises?
● Why might people choose to leave out their conclusion?
● What is the availability heuristic effect? And why can it influence critical thinking?
● What is a fallacy? Why are they so common, even among those trained to spot
them?
● When are Appeals fallacious, and when are they good arguments?
● Why is trying to 'win' arguments at any cost missing the main point of critical
thinking?

Terminology:

You need to be able to define and identify:

● Standard Form
● Sub-argument
● Sub-conclusion
● Suppressed Conclusion
● Suppressed Premise
● Linking principle
● Availability Heuristic
● Fallacy
● Fallacy of Appeal

Module 2: Standard Form Lecture Notes:

Standard Form: Labelling and ordering premises.

A standard form:

P1: using a standard form encourages short crisp statements.

P2: Short crisp statements are easy to evaluate.

Therefore,

C: Using a standard form makes statements easier to evaluate.

Just the facts.

P1: A standard form helps identify irrelevant statements.

P2: Removing irrelevant statements makes an argument easier to evaluate.

Therefore,

C: Using a standard form makes arguments easier to evaluate.

Whats missing?

P1: a standard form helps identify irrelevant statements.

P2: [to remove undesirable statements, you must first be able to identify them.]
P3: Removing irrelevant statements makes an argument easier to evaluate.
P4:

Therefore,

C: A standard for makes arguments easier to evaluate

(use square brackets to add to someone elses work)

Sub-arguments:

P1: Using a standard form makes statements easier to evaluate.

P2: Using a standard form makes argument structure easier to evaluate.
P3: Using a standard form takes time and effort.
P4: The benefit of easy evaluation of statements and argument structure is more important
than the harm of spending a little extra time.
Therefore,

C: Using a standard form for arguments is beneficial.

JFK - Going to the Moon:

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade (conclusion) , not because it is easy, but
because it is hard (statement); because that goal will serve to organize and measure
the best of our energies and skills (statement) , because that challenge is one that we
are willing to accept (statement), one we are unwilling to postpone (statement), and
one we intend to win (statement) .

•Identify the statements and indicators, so

we can write this argument in standard form.

P1: Going to the Moon is hard.

P2: A hard task serves to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.
P3: We are willing to accept the challenge of going to the Moon.
P4: We are unwilling to postpone the race to the Moon.
P5: We intend to win the race to the moon.

P6: [Going to the Moon this decade will win the race to the Moon]

P7: [We believe going to the Moon this decade is possible]

Therefore,

C: We choose to go to the Moon in this decade.

JFK - Going to the Moon 2:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights
to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space
science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it
will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a
position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace
or a new terrifying theatre of war.

•Identify the statements and indicators in this argument.

P1: There is new knowledge to be gained by going to the moon.

P2: There are new rights to be won by going to the moon.

P3: The new rights and knowledge must be won and used for the progress of all people.

P4: [The US will help the progress of all people more than the USSR]

P5: [The progress of all people is desirable]*

Therefore,

C: The US should go to the moon.

Split statements into the base arguments ⇒ condense the arguments (premises) and
the conclusion.
P1: Space science has no conscience of its own.
P2: [The morality of things with no conscience depends on how they are used, and by
whom]*

Therefore,

C: Whether space science will become a force for good or ill depends on mankind.

P1: Only if the USA occupies a position of pre-eminence can it help decide whether the
moon will be a place of peace or war.

P2: [It is better for the US if the US decides whether there is war, than if the USSR does]
P3: [What is good for the US is what should be]*

Therefore,

C: The US should occupies a position of pre-eminence in space.

P1: The US should go to the moon.

P2: Whether space science will become a force for good or ill depends on mankind.

P3: The US should occupies a position of pre-eminence in space.

Therefore,

C: The US will go to the moon.

Linking Principles:

The premise has to be linked to each premise and the conclusion

The Conclusion-Premise Linking Principle:

Everything in the conclusion should be in a premise.

When a phrase or concept is in the conclusion, we should see if it’s needed, and if so,
make sure it’s in a premise.

Example:

By adding another premises, we can now see where all the conclusion bits came
from. The CP-Principle is satisfied.
P1: Apollo astronauts could not have survived the journey through the Van Allen Belt.

P2: The Van Allen Belt is between the Earth and the Moon.

Therefore,

C: Apollo astronauts could not have been to the Moon.

The Premise-Premise Linking Principle:

Everything in a premise (but not the conclusion)

should be in another premise.

When a phrase or concept is in a premise and not a conclusion, it should connect to a

phrase or concept in another premise to combine their support.

The missing P3 joins all the remaining parts of P1 and P2. It also contains parts of the
conclusion.

P1: Apollo astronauts could not have survived the journey through the Van Allen Belt.
P2: The Van Allen Belt is between the Earth and the Moon.
P3: To go to the Moon, astronauts must survive the journey from the Earth through
everything between.
Therefore,

C: Apollo astronauts could not have been to the Moon.

Missing Parts:

In practice, the Linking principles are too strong to be enforced for every statement part.
But try to apply them as much as you can. They will make your arguments better, and help
you identify missing parts.
They will also help you identify and remove
parts of premises that are doing no work.
This will be important when we evaluate
whether arguments are good or bad.

Standard Forms:

We have seen that Standard forms:

•Help unpack an argument

•Help identify & fill gaps

•Help to see which statements support what

•Help remove emotion, rhetoric, narrative

•Help distance us from the subject

It will also show the different types of premise required

Availability Heuristic:

We tend to believe what is easier to recall, not what is true.

We recall memories based on shock, emotional impact, surprise, amusement, interest,

familiarity, bias., etc

So we believe the surprising, shocking, and funny.

Tutorial Week 3: