Recognizing an Argument

• Before we can evaluate an argument, we must recognize it.

• We must be able to distinguish argumentative passages in writing or speech.
• Doing this assumes, of course, an understanding of the language of the passage.
• However, even with a thorough comprehension of the language, the identification
of an argument can be problematic because of the peculiarities of its formulation.
• Even when we are confident that an argument is intended in some context, we
may be unsure about which propositions are serving as its premises and which as
its conclusion.
• As we have seen, that judgment cannot be made on the basis of the order in
which the propositions appear.
• How then shall we proceed?
• One useful method depends on the appearance of certain common
indicators, certain words or phrases that typically serve to signal the
appearance of an argument’s conclusion or of its premises.
• Here is a partial list of conclusion indicators:
• Therefore; for these reasons; hence; it follows that; so I conclude
that; accordingly; which shows that; in consequence; which means
that; consequently; which entails that; proves that; which implies
that; as a result; which allows us to infer that; for this reason; which
points to the conclusion that; thus we may infer.
• Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an
argument and hence are called premise indicators.
• Usually, but not always, what follows any one of these will be the
premise of some argument.
• Here is a partial list of premise indicators:
• Since; as indicated by; because; the reason is that; for; for the reason
that; as may be inferred from; follows from; may be derived from; as
shown by; may be deduced from; in as much as; in view of the fact
that;
• Passages that appear to be arguments are sometimes not arguments
but explanations.
• The appearance of words that are common indicators—such as
“because,” “for,” “since,” and “therefore”—cannot settle the matter,
because those words are used both in explanations and in arguments
(although “since” can sometimes refer to temporal succession).
• We need to know the intention of the author.
• Compare the following two passages:
• 1. Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For
where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. —Matt. 7:19 2.
• 2. Therefore is the name of it [the tower] called Babel; because the
Lord did there confound the language of all the earth. – Gen. 11.19.
• 1 an argument. Justifying why one should lay down one’s life.
• 2 this is an explanation for why the towel is called Babel
 Deductive vs Inductive arguments
• Every argument makes the claim that its premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion; that claim is the mark of an argument.
• However, there are two very different ways in which a conclusion may be supported by its
premises, and thus there are two great classes of arguments: the deductive and the
inductive.
• Understanding this distinction is essential in the study of logic.
• A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by its premises
conclusively.
• An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make such a claim.
• Therefore, if we judge that in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is being made, we
treat the argument as deductive; if we judge that such a claim is not being made, we treat
it as inductive.
• Because every argument either makes this claim of conclusiveness (explicitly or implicitly)
or does not make it, every argument is either deductive or inductive
• When the claim is made that the premises of an argument (if true) provide
incontrovertible grounds for the truth of its conclusion, that claim will be either
correct or not correct.
• If it is correct, that argument is valid.
• If it is not correct (that is, if the premises when true fail to establish the conclusion
irrefutably although claiming to do so), that argument is invalid.
• For logicians the term validity is applicable only to deductive arguments.
• To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that it is not possible for its
conclusion to be false if its premises are true.
• Thus we define validity as follows:
• A deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are true, its conclusion must
be true.
• In everyday speech, of course, the term valid is used much more loosely.
• Although every deductive argument makes the claim that its premises guarantee the truth
of its conclusion, not all deductive arguments live up to that claim.
• Deductive arguments that fail to do so are invalid.
• Because every deductive argument either succeeds or does not succeed in achieving its
objective, every deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
• This point is important:
• If a deductive argument is not valid, it must be invalid; if it is not invalid, it must be valid.
• The central task of deductive logic is to discriminate valid arguments from invalid ones.
• Over centuries, logicians have devised powerful techniques to do this—but the traditional
techniques for determining validity differ from those used by most modern logicians.
• The former, collectively known as classical logic, is rooted in the analytical works of
Aristotle.
• Logicians of the two schools differ in their methods and in their interpretations of
some arguments, but ancients and moderns agree that the fundamental task of
deductive logic is to develop the tools that enable us to distinguish arguments
that are valid from those that are not.
• In contrast, the central task of inductive arguments is to ascertain the facts by
which conduct may be guided directly, or on which other arguments may be
built.
• Empirical investigations are undertaken—as in medicine, or social science, or
astronomy—leading, when inductive techniques are applied appropriately, to
factual conclusions, most often concerning cause-and-effect relationships of
some importance.
• An illustration of the inductive process will be helpful at this point to
contrast induction with deduction.
• Medical investigators, using inductive methods, are eager to learn the
causes of disease, or the causes of the transmission of infectious
diseases.
• Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), such as acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS), are of special concern because of their
great seriousness and worldwide spread.
• Can we learn inductively how to reduce the spread of STDs?
• Yes, we can.
• In 2006 the National Institutes of Health announced that large-scale studies
of the spread of STDs in Kenya and Uganda (African countries in which the
risk of HIV infection, commonly resulting in AIDS, is very high) was sharply
lower among circumcised men than among those who were not
circumcised.
• Circumcision is not a “magic bullet” for the treatment of disease, of course.
• However, we did learn, by examining the experience of very many
voluntary subjects (3,000 in Uganda, 5,000 in Kenya, divided into
circumcised and uncircumcised groups) that a man’s risk of contracting HIV
from heterosexual sex is reduced by half as a result of circumcision.
• The risk to women is also reduced by about 30 percent.
• These are discoveries (using the inductive method called concomitant
variation) of very great importance.
• The causal connection between the absence of circumcision and the
spread of HIV is not known with certainty, the way the conclusion of a
deductive argument is known, but it is now known with a very high
degree of probability.
• Inductive arguments make weaker claims than those made by
deductive arguments.
• Because their conclusions are never certain, the terms validity and
invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments.
• We can evaluate inductive arguments, of course; appraising such
arguments is a central task of scientists in every sphere.
• The higher the level of probability conferred on its conclusion by the
premises of an inductive argument, the greater is the merit of that
argument.
• We can say that inductive arguments may be “better” or “worse,”
“weaker” or “stronger,” and so on.
• The argument constituted by the circumcision study is very strong, the
probability of its conclusion very high.
• Even when the premises are all true, however, and provide strong support
for the conclusion, that conclusion is not established with certainty.
• Because an inductive argument can yield no more than some degree
of probability for its conclusion, it is always possible that additional
information will strengthen or weaken it.
• Newly discovered facts may cause us to change our estimate of the
probabilities, and thus may lead us to judge the argument to be
better (or worse) than we had previously thought.
• In the world of inductive argument—even when the conclusion is
judged to be very highly probable—all the evidence is never in.
• New discoveries may eventually disconfirm what was earlier believed,
and therefore we never assert that the conclusion of an inductive
argument is absolutely certain.
 Validity and Truth
• A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in linking, with logical necessity, the
conclusion to its premises.
• Its validity refers to the relation between its propositions—between the set of
propositions that serve as the premises and the one proposition that serves as the
conclusion of that argument.
• If the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises, we say that the
argument is valid.
• Therefore, validity can never apply to any single proposition by itself, because the needed
relation cannot possibly be found within any one proposition.
• Truth and falsehood, on the other hand, are attributes of individual propositions.
• A single statement that serves as a premise in an argument may be true; the statement
that serves as its conclusion may be false.
• This conclusion might have been validly inferred, but to say that any conclusion (or any
single premise) is itself valid or invalid makes no sense.
• Truth is the attribute of those propositions that assert what really is
the case.
• When I assert that Mount Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain in
Africa, I assert what really is the case, what is true.
• If I had claimed that Mount Inyangani is the highest mountain in
Africa my assertion would not be in accord with the real world;
therefore, it would be false.
• This contrast between validity and truth is important:
• Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or statements;
• validity and invalidity are attributes of arguments.
• Just as the concept of validity cannot apply to single propositions, the
concept of truth cannot apply to arguments.
• Of the several propositions in an argument, some (or all) may be true and
some (or all) may be false.
• However, the argument is neither true nor false.
• Propositions, which are statements about the world, may be true or false;
deductive arguments, which consist of inferences from one set of
propositions to other propositions, may be valid or invalid.
• The relations between true (or false) propositions and valid (or
invalid) arguments are critical and complicated.
• Those relations lie at the heart of deductive logic.
• It devoted largely to the examination of those complex relations, but
a preliminary discussion of the relation between validity and truth is
in order here.
• There are many possible combinations of true and false premises and conclusions in both
valid and invalid arguments.
• Here follow seven illustrative arguments, each prefaced by the statement of the
combination (of truth and validity) that it represents.
• With these illustrations (whose content is deliberately trivial) before us, we will be in a
position to formulate some important principles concerning the relations between truth
and validity.
• I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true premises and a true
conclusion: All mammals have lungs. All whales are mammals. Therefore, all whales have
lungs.
• II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false premises and a false
conclusion: All four-legged creatures have wings. All spiders have exactly four legs.
Therefore, all spiders have wings. This argument is valid because, if its premises were
true, its conclusion would have to be true also—even though we know that in fact both
the premises and the conclusion of this argument are false.
• III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—all their premises are
true, and their conclusions are true as well: If I owned all the gold in Southern
Africa, then I would be wealthy. I do not own all the gold in Southern Africa.
Therefore, I am not wealthy. The true conclusion of this argument does not follow
from its true premises. This will be seen more clearly when the immediately
following illustration is considered.
• IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and have a false
conclusion. This is illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous one (III) in
form, changed only enough to make the conclusion false. If Bill Gates owned all
the gold in Southern Africa, then Bill Gates would be wealthy. Bill Gates does not
own all the gold in Southern Africa. Therefore, Bill Gates is not wealthy.
• The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false. Such an
argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the premises of a valid
argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.
• V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true conclusion: All
fishes are mammals. All whales are fishes. Therefore all whales are
mammals. The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover,
it may be validly inferred from these two premises, both of which are wildly
false.
• VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true conclusion:
All mammals have wings. All whales have wings. Therefore all whales are
mammals. From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we
cannot tell from the fact that an argument has false premises and a true
conclusion whether it is valid or invalid.
• VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false propositions—false
premises and a false conclusion: All mammals have wings. All whales have
wings. Therefore, all mammals are whales.
• These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments
with false conclusions (Example II), as well as invalid arguments with
true conclusions (Examples III and VI).
• Hence it is clear that the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion
does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of that
argument.
• Moreover, the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the
truth of its conclusion (Example II).