Informal Logic

3.Week

• We can now give a working definition of argument: «An argument is a set of

propositions of which one is a conclusion and the remainder are premises, intended as
support for the conclusion.»
• And what exactly do we mean by a proposition? «A proposition is the factual content
expressed by a declarative sentence on a particular occasion.» The same proposition
may be expressed by different sentences. For example, ‘Her name is Ayşe’ expresses
the same proposition as ‘She is called Ayşe’. Conversely, the same sentence can
express different propositions depending on who utters it. For instance, if a tennis
player and a footballer were to each to utter the sentence, ‘I am the greatest sportsman
of all time’, they would each express a different proposition. While the tennis player’s
sentence expresses a proposition about the tennis player, the footballer’s sentence
expresses a proposition about the footballer.

• An argument may be about any subject and have any number of premises, but it will
always have only one final conclusion. The following argument has just one premise:
Ali has two sisters. Therefore, Ali is not an only child.
• This argument has two premises: Helping someone to commit suicide is the same as
murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore, helping someone to commit suicide is wrong.
• And this argument has three premises: Car use is seriously damaging the environment.
Reducing car journeys would reduce damage to the environment. We should do what
we can to protect the environment. Therefore, we should make fewer journeys by car.

Standard Form

As you can see, when we analyse arguments we set them out in a particular style, with the
premises listed in the order that they occur in the reasoning process and the conclusion
appearing at the bottom. We can refine this style and further clarify the argument by
numbering the premises P1, P2 and so on, and drawing a line between the last premise and the
conclusion, which we mark with a ‘C’. The line between premises and conclusion is called an
inference bar, and its purpose is to distinguish steps in reasoning. The bar can be read as
standing for ‘therefore’ and for other words with the same meaning, such as ‘thus’. This way
of setting out arguments is called standard form. The purpose of setting out arguments in this
manner is to maximize clarity.

• Writing the argument in standard form provides us with the most comprehensive and
clearest possible view of it, ensuring that while discussing the argument and
attempting to evaluate it we do not lose track of exactly what the argument is. It is
important to understand that when reconstructing arguments you should take the
following five steps:
• Identify the conclusion.
• Identify the premises.
• Number the premises and write them out in order.
• Draw in the inference bar.
 • Write out the conclusion, placing ‘C’ in front of it.

Thus the last example looks like this in standard form:

P1) Car use is seriously damaging the environment.
P2) Reducing car journeys would reduce damage to the environment.
P3) We should do what we can to protect the environment.

C) We should make fewer journeys by car.

• Identifying arguments is largely a matter of determining what the author or speaker

intends by interpreting their words, and this comes with practice. As we said before,
often writers and speakers leave some of their premises unstated because they assume
that readers or listeners will know what they have in mind. So in reconstructing
arguments we often have to add premises to make their structure and content
complete.
• Once you have determined that a text or speech contains an attempt to persuade by
argument, it is easy to proceed by identifying its conclusion. The conclusion of the
following example is very clear: Trophy hunting should be illegal. Because it’s wrong
to kill simply for pleasure and trophy hunting involves the killing of animals for
pleasure.

P1) To kill simply for pleasure is wrong.

P2) Trophy hunting involves the killing of animals for pleasure
P3) What is wrong must be illegal

C)Trophy hunting should be illegal.

• To engage in argument analysis requires a willingness to say of others at times that

they have made a mistake, that an argument they have given is defective. Yet many of
us think it is a good thing to tolerate the views of others, and we value our freedom of
opinion. There appears to be a conflict here, since a tolerant person who respects
another’s right to his or her opinions will not be judgmental about those opinions. The
value we place on tolerance and freedom might seem to discourage careful argument
analysis. However, it is a mistake to think that there really is a conflict between
engaging argument analysis on the one hand and being tolerant and respectful on the
other. Tolerance and respect largely have to do with the manner in which you treat
others. There is nothing intolerant or disrespectful about carefully explaining to others
the errors you see in their arguments. To do this is not not to deny them their right to
their opinions. Rather, it shows you are giving their ideas careful thought and
attention, which is a sign of respect.

• Another thing that gets in the way of effective argument analysis is the fact that many
people have ideas about truth about reasoning that discourage them from thinking
about arguments in a clear way. For example, people sometimes ssay that controversial
issues are «a matter of opinion». They are especially likely to say this about moral
issues. Those who hold this view imply that there are no truths about morality. If there
 are just opinions then it is hard to see how any opinion could possibly be better or
more reasonable than any other.
• There are a variety of quick responses to arguments that have the effect of cutting off
discussion and preventing careful analysis. We call these responses argument
stoppers. Some of them have been mention already, such as «Well, that’s a matter of
opinion» Another argument stopper is the following remark: «That’s a subjective
judgment»

• Although each person responds to arguments in different ways in different

circumstances, there are a few general tendencies that people seem to have. Some
people tend to believe whatever they are told. In contrast, other people tend to disagree
with whatever they are told. Some are dogmatic, insisting on their prior opinions no
matter what new information comes their way. And others are excessively sceptical,
refusing to believe anything for fear of making a mistake. A rational thinker, in
contrast to these other types, evaluates new information, revising beliefs when the
information calls for it and retaining beliefs when the information supports them.
Sometimes this analysis puts one in the position of conforming to popular attitudes
and sometimes it requires going against them.

Performatives

• The different types of sentences recognized by traditional grammarians show that we

use language to do more than convey information, but they still give only a small
sample of the wide variety of things that we can accomplish using language.
Sometimes, for example, we use language to perform an action. In one familiar
setting, if one person says, “I do,” and another person says, “I do,” and finally a third
person says, “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” the relationship between the
first two people changes in a fundamental way: They thereby become married. The
philosopher John Langshaw Austin labeled such utterances performatives in order to
contrast performing an action with simply stating or describing something.
Performatives come in a wide variety of forms. They are often in the first person (like
“I do”), but not always. For example, “You’re all invited to my house after the game”
is in the second person, but uttering it performs the act of inviting. Because of its
diversity of forms, it is not easy to formulate a definition that covers all performatives,
so we will not even try to define performatives here. Instead, we will concentrate on
one particularly clear subclass of performatives, which Austin called explicit
performatives. All explicit performatives are utterances in the first-person singular.

For example, “I congratulate you” expresses an explicit performative, because in

saying “I congratulate you,” I thereby congratulate you. Other examples are as
follows:
• I promise to meet you tomorrow.
• I resign from this club.
• I apologize for being late.
Several explicit performatives play important roles in constructing arguments. These
include sentences of the following king:
1- I conclude that this decision should be denied.
2- I assure you that this decision will hurt the poor people.
3- I admit that there is much to be done in this research field.
4- I give my support to this alternative option.
 5-I deny that the new law will harm economy.

• We call this kind of performative an argumentative performative. Studying such

argumentative performatives can help us to understand what is going on in arguments,
which is one main reason why we must study performatives.

• Recognizing explicit performatives introduces us to a kind of act distinct from

linguistic acts. We will call them speech acts. They include such acts as stating,
promising, swearing, and refusing. A speech act is the conventional move that a
remark makes in a language exchange. It is what is done in saying something. Speech
acts are distinct from linguistic acts, because the same linguistic act can play different
roles in different contexts. This is shown by the following brief conversations:
A: Is there any pizza left?
B: Yes.
A: Do you promise to pay me back by Friday?
B: Yes.
A: Do you swear to tell the truth?
B: Yes.
A: Do you refuse to leave?
B: Yes.
Here the same linguistic act, uttering the word “yes,” is used to do four different things:
to state something, to make a promise, to take an oath, and to refuse to do something.

• We can make this idea of a speech act clearer by using the notion of an explicit
performative. The basic idea is that different speech acts are named by the different
verbs that occur in explicit performatives.
• If I say, “I promise,” I thereby promise. So “I promise” is a performative, and
promising is a kind of speech act.
• If I say, “I resign,” I thereby resign. So “I resign” is a performative, and resigning is a
kind of speech act.
• If I say, “I apologize,” I thereby apologize. So “I apologize” is a performative, and
apologizing is a kind of speech act.
• If I say, “I conclude that she is guilty,” I thereby conclude that she is guilty. So “I
conclude that she is guilty” is a performative, and concluding is a kind of speech act.

The main verbs that appear in such explicit performatives can be called performative
verbs. Performative verbs name kinds of speech acts.

• Language is normally a practical activity with certain goals. We use language in order
to inform people of things, get them to do things, amuse them, calm them down, and
so on. We can capture this practical aspect of language by introducing the notion of a
conversational exchange, that is, a situation where various speakers use speech acts in
order to bring about some effects in each other. We call this act of using a speech act to
cause a standard effect in another a conversational act.
• Suppose, for example, Ayşe says to Ahmet, “Someone is following us.” In this case,
Ayşe has performed a linguistic act; that is, she has uttered a meaningful sentence.
Ayşe has also performed a speech act—specifically, she has stated that they are being
followed. The point of performing this speech act is to produce in Ahmet a particular
belief— namely, that they are being followed. (Ayşe’s utterance might also have other
purposes, such as to alert Ahmet to some danger, but it accomplishes those other
 purposes by means of getting Ahmet to believe they are being followed.) If Ayşe is
successful in this, then Ayşe has successfully performed the conversational act of
producing this belief in Ahmet. Of course, Ayşe might fail in her attempt to do this.
Ayşe’s linguistic act could be successful and her speech act successful as well, yet, for
whatever reason, Ahmet might not accept as true what Ayşe is telling him.

How to make the identification of conclusions an easier task?

• 1- Once you have decided that a text or speech contains an attempt to persuade by
argument, try to see what the main point of the text or speech is. Ask what point the
speaker or author is trying to establish; that point will be the conclusion. Once you
come to reconstruct an argument for analysis, paraphrasing the main point as one
simple proposition will make the argument easier to handle. Bear in mind that a writer
or speaker may make the same point in a number of different ways, so you may have
to decide upon one particular way of expressing it.
• 2- Any proposition on any topic can be a conclusion. As our examples demonstrate, it
is possible to attempt to argue for any claim. So the type of subject matter of a
proposition is not in itself a guide to identifying whether or not that proposition is
intended as the conclusion of an argument. The premises and conclusions of
arguments should ideally be expressed in declarative sentences, but in real-life
arguments they may be expressed otherwise. When reconstructing arguments, we may
need to rewrite premises and conclusions as declarative sentences in order to clarify
the propositions expressed. For example, the apparent question ‘Aren’t all socialists
idealists?’ might be used to express a premise that all socialists are idealists.
• 3- A helpful guide to recognizing arguments is provided by those words that usually
indicate that a writer or speaker is putting forward an argument. For example, if
someone says, ‘Given the facts that A, B and C, it follows that D’, you can be sure
that D is the conclusion of the intended argument (and that A, B and C are the
premises). Other common conclusion indicators are:
• Therefore
• Hence
• Thus
• It can be concluded that
• So

Another way of expressing an argument is to include the premises and conclusion in a

single sentence with an indicator word separating them. For example, in the sentence ‘The
fact that Elon Musk is the CEO of a highly successful company proves that he must be
highly intelligent’, the conclusion that Elon Musk must be highly intelligent is separated
from the premise that states that he is the CEO of a highly successful company by the
indicator ‘proves’. Other words that serve the same function are:
• implies
• establishes
• shows

Identifying Premises
• The identification of an argument’s premises is a search for reasons given by the
writer or speaker to think that their conclusion is true. Like the identification of
conclusions, much of the process of identifying premises amounts to a close and
charitable reading of what a writer or speaker says, but again there are some helpful
guides:
1- Ask yourself what the writer or speaker’s reasons for believing their conclusion are.
What evidence does the writer or speaker give to think that the conclusion is true? The
propositions that you come up with in response to these questions are likely to be the
premises of the intended argument.
2- There are certain words that usually indicate the presence of premises – premise
indicators. They mark the speaker or writer’s move from premises to conclusion or from
conclusion to premises (for example ‘since’, ‘because’, ‘is implied by’ and so on). There
are other words and phrases that introduce sentences stating a premise or premises. A
speaker or writer might state their conclusion and then begin the next proposition with
such phrases as:
My reason is ...
My evidence for this is ...
This is so because ...

Argument Vs Explanation

• The distinction between arguments and explanations is important, but not always easy
to make because arguments and explanations often have a very similar structure. In
some cases we have to think hard about the context in order to determine which is
intended. We need to work out whether they are telling us that such-and-such an event
occurred as a result of some other event – that is, whether they intend to assert a
relation of cause and effect. In that case, ‘because’ is being used to introduce an
explanation, not an argument.
• The distinction between arguments and explanations is best understood by way of
examples. Consider this proposition:

The roof is leaking.

• Someone might put forward an explanation for the roof’s leak by saying something
like: «The roof is leaking because the storm damaged the roof.»
• On the other hand, we can imagine someone putting forward an argument for that
very same proposition, reasoning as follows: «There is water dripping through the
bedroom ceiling. Therefore, the roof is leaking.»
• What exactly is the difference? The difference is that, when giving the explanation, the
speaker assumes that his or her audience already accepts the proposition that the roof
is leaking, or at least that the speaker has no need to persuade the audience of this fact.
Given this fact, the speaker is asserting that the cause of that fact is a damage made by
the storm. By contrast, when giving an argument for the conclusion that the roof is
leaking, the speaker does not assume that the audience accepts or will accept that the
roof is leaking; the arguer intends to persuade the audience that this is so by giving
them a good reason to believe it.

Intermediate Conslusions
• The conclusion of one argument may serve as a premise of a subsequent argument.
The conclusion of that argument may itself serve as a premise for another argument,
and so on. For example: «Bobby is a dog. All dogs are mammals, so Bobby is a
mammal. And since all mammals are warm-blooded, it follows that Bobby is warm-
blooded.»
• In this argument, an intermediate conclusion – that Bobby is a mammal – is used as a
premise for a further argument, whose conclusion is that Bobby is warm-blooded. We
represent extended arguments of this kind like this:

P1) Bobby is a dog.

P2) All dogs are mammals.

C1) Bobby is a mammal

P3) All mammals are warm-blooded

C2) Bobby is warm-blooded

• We give the two conclusions numbers: C1 is the conclusion of an argument whose

premises are P1 and P2; C2 is the conclusion of an argument whose premises are C1
and P3. So C1 is both the conclusion of one argument and the premise of another.
• Normally, in such cases, the last conclusion reached is the proposition that the arguer
is most concerned to establish. It is the ultimate target. So we call this simply the
conclusion of the argument, whereas any other conclusions, reached as steps along the
way, are called intermediate conclusions.

Uses of Language

• We use language for a wide variety of purposes. Sometimes we ask questions,

sometimes we give commands, and sometimes we describe things. We use different
kind of sentences for these purposes. To ask questions we use interrogative
sentences, such as: 1- «What time is it?»; 2- «Did you feed the dog?».
• To give commands we use imperative sentences, such as: 3- «Tell me the time!»; 4-
«Feed the dog!»
• To describe things we use declarative sentences, such as: 5- « Some gardeners do not
use pesticides.»: 6- «I fed the dog.»

• Declarative sentences can be about all sorts of things. They can be about things that
are easy to observe and check, and they can be about things that are difficult to know.
All the following are declarative sentences: 7- «Former President of USA Barack
Obama likes to sing in the shower.»; 8- «In 1937 Prime Minister Ismet İnönü resigned
in Turkey.»; 9- «There are more than 100 billion insects in the world.»
• Among interrogative, imperative and declarative sentences, only the declarative
sentences can be true or false. When we give arguments, we almost always use
declarative sentences. You can’t argue for a question or a command, but you can argue
for the truth of any declarative sentence. You can’t prove that something is true by
asking a question of giving a command, but you can describe some facts in an effort to
argue for a conclusion. Thus, declarative sentences are used to express the conclusions
and premises of arguments.
• To say that a sentence is true is to say that things really are the way the sentence says
they are. Declarative sentences are used to describe the world or some part of it. If a
sentence describes the world correctly, that is, if things are the way it says they are,
then it is true. If, on the other hand, things are not the way a sentence says they are,
then it is false. In other words, a sentence is true when, and only when, it
«corresponds» to the facts. This idea is expressed in the following «correspondence
principle»:
• CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE: A declarative sentence is true just in case it
corresponds to the facts as they actually are. A declarative sententence is false just in
case it fails to correspond to the facts as they actually are.

A Mistaken Objection to the Correspondence Principle

• Sometimes thinking about actual and possible examples leads people to say or think
things that are incompatible with the correspondence principle. We consider here one
such example:
• Example: In ancient times it was widely thought that the earth was flat. Children were
told by their teachers that the earth was flat. The experts agreed. Furthermore, the
earth did look flat. Suppose some child in those days expressed the following
sentence: «The earth is flat.» Was that sentence true? Did it correspond to the facts?
Some people, when thinking about this sort of example, feel uneasy about saying that
the ancient schoolchildren were false. So they say things like «Well it was true for
them that the the earth is flat.»
• Some people think that the different points of view about an issue are «true for» the
various participants in a controversy. Perhaps the idea behind this opinion is that a
sentence is true for a person if the person believes it with conviction. Or maybe the
idea is that truth refers to what is generally accepted in one’s society. Thus, the
sentence «The earth is flat» was true for the ancients but false for us.
• But while it may seem hard to say simply that ancient schoolchildren were wrong
about the earth and their statement is false, the fact is that they were actually wrong
about the shape of the earth. They thought it was flat, and it wasn’t. So when they said
«The earth is flat», they were saying something false. If you say otherwise, you would
have to say that at some time the earth changed shape; it went form flat to round. And
that’s obviously wrong.

• We should resist the temptation to say that something is «true for» someone or some
group just because they believe it, or they believe it with conviction and sincerity, or
even because nearly everyone around them believes it.
• Arguments only make sense under the assumption that there is some truth –some fact
– that the argument is about. We often argue because we disagree about what the
actual truth is. We make use of arguments in an effort to figüre out or establish what
truth is. Slipping into «true for» talk obscures this point. When we talk of truth as if it
is always and only for someone who believes it to be true, this kind of relativity leads
us to think that people who really do disagree can somehow both be right.

• Even if we agree that truth consists in correspondence with the actual facts, there is an
important detail that the correspondence principle overlooks. Let’s look at the
following example:
• Example: Feeder and Walker have an agreement that if one of them feeds the dog in
the morning, the other one will walk the dog. It is a rainy day and neither of them
 wants to walk the dog. Feeder says «I fed the dog, so you should walk the dog.»
Walker replies, «No, you are wrong. I fed the dog.» ( Assume that there was only one
portion of food available, so it couldn’t be that both of them fed the dog.)

Notice that both the Feeder and Walker use the same sentence: « I fed the dog.»

• This example raises a question about exactly how to interpret the correspondence
principle. According to this principle, a declarative sentence is true provided that it
correctly describes the World. Does the sentence «I fed the dog» correctly describe the
world or not? If we say yes, we seem to be commiting ourselves to the conclusion that
both Feeder and Walker spoke the truth when they expressed the sentence «I fed the
dog». But that can’t be right. If we say no, then we seem to be commiting ourselves to
the conclusion that neither Feeder nor Walker spoke the truth when they expressed the
sentence « I fed the dog». But that can’t be right either.
• In this example the sentence «I fed the dog» describes things differently depending
upon who says it. Feeder uses it to talk about himself and Walker uses it to talk about
herself.

• For example, if only the Feeder fed the dog, then the sentence «I fed the dog»
correctly describes the World when Feeder says it, but it misdescribes the World when
Walker says it. This leads to the result that this sentence sometimes describes the
World correctly and sometimes doesn’t. It is not clear what the correspondence
principle tells us about sentences like this.
• When Feeder and Walker each say the sentence «I fed the dog», they utter different
particular sentences, which are of the same type. These two particular sentences of the
same type are used to express different propositions. A proposition (also called
statement) is the specific thought or idea that a particular declarative sentence
expresses.

• In many cases, people who make use of the same particular sentence express the same
proposition, For example suppose you and I each say: « World War I began in 1914.»
We thereby express the same proposition. In fact, we can improve on our
correspondence principle about truth by making it about propositions rather than
sentences. The revised principle is as follows:
A proposion is true just in case it describes things as they actually are. A true proposition
corresponds to the facts. If a proposition says that a certain object has a particular
characteristic, then it is true just in case that object actually does have that characteristic.
A proposition is false just in case in fails to describe things as they actually are. A false
proposition does not correspond to the facts. If a proposition says that a certain object
has a particular characteristic, then it is false if that object actually does not have that
characteristic.

• Sentences are linguistic representations of propositions. And we can say that a

particular sentence is true when the proposition it expresses is true.
• Many sentences are like the sentence « I fed the dog» in that they can be used to
express different propositions in different situations.
• A sentence is always used in a particular context, or situation. Typically, the context
makes it clear which proposition a speaker intends.
• The distinction between sentences and propositions is an extremely important one. To
understand and evaluate arguments we read and hear, we have to be careful ro
properly identify the propositions the authors are expressing in their sentences.

• As we have seen, every proposition describes some aspect of the world. Either it
correctly describes the world, in which case it is true, or it incorrectly describes the
world, in which case it is false. A proposition can’t describe the world correctly and
also describe it incorrectly. It must be either true or false. It can’t ve both and it can’t
be neither. In other words, a proposition must have exactly one truth value.
• We can summarize this idea in the following principle: Every proposition has exactly
one truth value. It is either true or false, but not both.

Truth and Falsity

• Some characteristics of things depend in part on what people think about things or
how they feel about them. For example, whether a movie is frightening depends on
whether people are frightened by it, and whether a person is well-liked depends upon
whether others like the person.
• Other characteristics of things do not depend at all on people’s attitudes and feelings.
For example, the length of time it takes the earth to rotate around the sun and height of
Mount Everest are not in any way dependent on what people think or feel.
• Truth and falsity are properties of the latter sort. A proposition is true provided that it
really does correspond to the facts. It is false if it doesn’t. The truth and falsity of a
proposition does not depend on how you, or people generally feel about that
proposition.

Belief, Disbelief, and Suspension of Judgment

• As we have seen, a good argument is one that provides us with a good reason to think
that its conclusion is really true. But what counts as a good reason for thinking that a
proposition is true? Suppose you are thinking about a proposition with an eye toward
determining whether or not it is true. What are the possible outcomes of this process?
You might come to the conclusion that the proposition is true, you might decide that it
is false, and you might find that you are unable to to decide. These three results
correspond to the three main cognitive attitudes you can take toward a proposition: 1-
Belief; 2- Disbelief; and 3- Suspension of judgment.
• If you conclude that a proposition is true, then you believe the proposition; if you
conclude that it is false, then you disbelieve the proposition; and if you can’t decide,
then you suspend judgment about the proposition.

• If you believe a proposition, you can’t at the same time also disbelieve it or suspend
judgment about it. You can, of course, keep changing your mind. One minute you
might believe it and the next minute disbelieve it. After changing back and forth like
this for a while, you might give up and suspend judgment. But any one time, you must
have exactly one of these three attitudes. We can sum up this situation in the following
«belief principle»:
Whenever a person considers any proposition, that person must believe the
proposition, or disbelieve the proposition, or suspend judgement about the
proposition. A person cannot at any time have more than one of these attitudes toward
one proposition.