2.

5 The Analysis of Complex Arguments

Hello, again! In the last unit we talked about what is a complex argument. Ah, and we took a short
philosophical stroll understanding the basis and the limits of knowledge. This unit we will analyze
complex arguments. Two of them.

What do you think are the steps to analyze a complex argument? You guessed right!

Step 1. Put the argument in standard form.

Step 2. Check if the conclusions follow logically from the premises.

Step 3. Check if the premises are true.

Let’s do that!

I’ll start with a short, easy example, just in order to explain some simplifications.

Donizetti was a great composer. Not only had he written the music for one of the most played operas in
the world, L’elisir d’amore, in just six weeks, but two of his tenor arias, “Una furtiva lagrima” from
“L’elisir” and “Ah! mes amis” from “La fille du regiment” are perfect examples of ingenious, yet
accessible lyricism.

If we were to put it in standard form, it would be like this: two simple arguments, both of them
delivering the same conclusion: “Donizetti was a great composer”. The first argument has two premises:
“He wrote a great opera in just six weeks” and a hidden one, “A composer who writes a great opera in
just six weeks is a great composer”. The second also has two premises: “Two of his arias are perfect
examples of great lyricism” and a hidden one, “A composer who writes arias that are perfect examples
of lyricism is a great composer.”

But, see, in this case the hidden premises are pretty obvious and not so debatable, so, as I have
mentioned in a previous unit, we can even leave them out and picture the two simple arguments in
standard form with just one premise. Second simplification: when the same conclusion is supported by
several arguments that have just one premise, we can consider this complex argument as a simple
argument with one conclusion and several premises that support it independently. So, instead of a
complex argument, we can draw the Donizetti argument as a simple one, with just two premises that
support the conclusion independently. Note that, instead of a combined arrow we draw two separate
arrows. In complex argumentation we can encounter such arguments where the conclusion is supported
independently by tons of premises or intermediate conclusions. Independently! That’s a key word,
because it means that if one such premise is proven false or even questioned strongly, the validity of the
argument still stands, the conclusion being supported independently by the others. To see a good
example of a complex argument with a lot of independently supporting premises, watch a girl
addressing a parliament on the topic of gun control. Linked below.
It’s no use in finishing the analysis of the Donizetti argument, it’s pretty straight forward and I’ve made
my points.

Let’s tackle a different example of a complex argument, on a hotter topic:

Marijuana should be removed from the criminal justice system and regulated the way we do with
tobacco and alcohol. Problems created by cannabis, similar to those created by alcohol and tobacco, are
not likely to increase in number or importance after legalization. For instance, although the Netherlands
must have had good reasons recently to pass laws that restrict the tourists’ right to buy marijuana, no
country that adopted less punitive policies did experience an increase in consumption. On the other
hand, there will be a new taxable economy out in the open, and also law enforcement will obviously
need fewer resources. That way, all cannabis-related problems, and even other social issues for that
matter, will have a bigger budget to be dealt with.

What do you think about that? Is that a good argument for legalizing marijuana? Well, the best way to
answer is to analyze it!

Let’s first try to put it in standard form.

What is the main conclusion? That “Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol and
tobacco.” Let’s give it number 1. What other important statements can we isolate?

“After legalization, problems created by marijuana are not likely to increase.” 2

“The Netherlands must have had good reasons to pass more restrictive laws.” 3

“No country that adopted relaxed laws experienced increase in consumption.” 4

“There is a new tax source out in the open.” 5

“Law enforcement will need fewer resources.” 6

“That way, cannabis-related problems will be addressed with a bigger budget.” 7

Are there any notable hidden premises? None that I can think of.

I would see it in standard form like this:

Now, let’s analyze the inferences, the mechanisms, that is if the conclusions follow logically from the
premises. 4 supports two, 5 and 6 support 7, 2 and 7 support 1. There is 3, an objection to 2. I think the
overall mechanism works.

What about the truth of the premises?

Well, let’s take 2, “Problems will not increase”, for which we have an objection, namely “the
Netherlands must have had reasons to restrict.” I cannot fully believe 2 unless I search (maybe on the
internet) what reasons Holland had. Moreover, the only support for 2 comes from the premise 4, “No
country that adopted relaxed laws experienced increase in consumption.” Should we believe it? Well,
my source for this statement is a website called drugpolicy.org, which openly militates for legalization. I
would at least want to confirm that statement from an independent source.

I cannot find notable truth problems with 5, 6, and 7. Please note that the main conclusion is supported
independently by the two branches, so, even if we questioned the first, there is adequate support from
the second.

Please note something nice about complex arguments: there are levels in the argument. In our case,
three levels. But some complex arguments or debates can have more than ten levels. The more you get
closer to the main conclusion, the more general or abstract the statements are. And on the same level,
statements in different arguments tend to have the same level of generality. When you structure your
own arguments, if these things are respected, your arguments will have a beautiful symmetry.

So, is the marijuana paragraph a good argument? Should we embrace this opinion firmly? Well, to quote
Tim Minchin, the general answer is “Be hard on your opinions! A famous bon mot asserts that opinions
are like arse-holes, in that everyone has one. There is great wisdom in this, but I would add that opinions
differ significantly from arse-holes, in that yours should be constantly and thoroughly examined.” For
more wisdom and witty analogies, watch his lovely university speech, linked below.

In our marijuana case, of course there is at least an unquestionable supporting premise (7) for the
conclusion, but for such a sensitive matter, that’s just the first “pro” on the pros and cons list. Even if
you are already convinced about legalizing marijuana (in fact this is even more beneficial if you are
convinced), make a mental list of pros and cons, run your opinion through your critical thinking brain.
Don’t take anything for granted, especially your strong opinions.

As a takeaway point for this week, I encourage you to draw standard forms for complex arguments
when you hear them. Whether it’s a business strategy presentation or a TV show about shale gas and
fracking, make a mental graph (or even a pencil on paper drawing, if you have the time) of the argument
in standard form. It will point out what the weak points and the strong points are, whether there are
tricky hidden premises, whether the conclusion is supported by more than one reason, etcetera. But,
most importantly, before writing a presentation or an argumentative letter yourselves, put your own
argument in standard form. See if the premises are true. See if the mechanism works. See if the level of
generality increases towards the conclusion. It will only make your work much more persuasive!

The guys at ReasoningLab that came up with the cute rabbit rule and holding-hands rule offer an online
platform that helps you put your complex arguments in standard form and analyze them, the link is
below. Or you can use the traditional pen and paper version.

So, is my marijuana argument a good argument? It’s a decent one. Some of the supporting premises
need further investigation, but overall it offers some reasons for believing the conclusion. It can at least
provide a basis for a nice debate.