Arguments - Part 2

2. What is an Argument?

1. Distinguishing
Fact & Opinion
3. Identifying Premises
& Conclusions

4. What Is Not
an Argument?
8. Writing
Arguments

5. Deduction &
Induction

7. Evaluating
Arguments 6. Analyzing
Arguments
“Formal education will make you a living;
self-education will make you a fortune.”
- Jim Rohn
3.6 Analyzing Arguments

To analyze an argument means to break it up into

various parts to see clearly what conclusion is
being defended and on what grounds.

Identifying Premises & Conclusions

(Refer to 3.3)
Diagramming Short Arguments
Summarizing Longer Arguments
3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments
Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short
arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).

Six (6) basic steps:

1. Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and

conclusion indicators you see.
2. Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument
(Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.)
3. Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed
above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support.
4. Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of flowchart that
shows which premises are intended to support which conclusions.
5. Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the
premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support. Indicate linked
premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked premises,
underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support
6. Put the argument’s main conclusion at the bottom of the diagram.
3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments

TIPS
1. Find the main conclusion first.
2. Pay close attention to premise and conclusion
indicators.
3. Remember that sentences containing the word and often
contain two or more separate statements.
4. Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and
disjunctive statements (either-or statements) as single
statements.
5. Don’t number or diagram any sentence that is not a
statement.
6. Don’t diagram irrelevant statements.
7. Don’t diagram redundant statements.
3.6.2 Summarizing Longer Arguments

The goal of summarizing longer arguments is to

provide a brief synopsis of the argument
that accurately and clearly restates the
main points in the summarizer’s own
words.

Summarizing involves two skills:

Paraphrasing
Finding missing premises and conclusions
3.6.2 Paraphrasing
A paraphrase is a detailed restatement of a passage using
different words and phrases. A good paraphrase is:
It reproduces the author’s meaning fairly and without bias and
Accurate distortion.

Clarifies what an argument is saying. It often translates complex and

Clear confusing language into language that’s easier to understand.

It captures the essence of an argument, and strips away all the

Concise irrelevant or unimportant details and puts the key points of the
argument in a nutshell.

It is often possible to interpret a passage in more than one way. In

Charitable such cases, the principle of charity requires that we interpret the
passage as charitable as the evidence reasonably permits (e.g.
clarifying the arguer’s intent in ways that make the arguments
stronger and less easy to attack).
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Accurate
Example:

Original Passage:
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very
remote relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent
controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our
concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or
the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
(George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796)

Paraphrase:
Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For
this reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts
for reasons that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial
ties that would get us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of
European politics.
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Clear

Example:
Original:
The patient exhibited symptoms of an edema in the
occipital-parietal region and an abrasion on the left
patella.

Paraphrase:
The patient had a bump on the back of his head and
a scrape on his left knee.
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Concise

Example:
Original:
The shop wasn’t open at that point of time, owing to
the fact that there was no electrical power in the
building. (23 word)

Paraphrase:
The shop was closed then because there was no
electricity in the building. (13 words)
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Charitable
Example:
Original:
Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if
you continue to smoke, you are endangering your
health.

Paraphrase:
Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that
greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer.
Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are
endangering your health.
3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions

“The bigger the burger, the better the burger.

Burgers are bigger at Burger King (BK).”
(Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK)

In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated

for different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing
something, etc).
3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions

An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an

Enthymeme.

Two (2) basic rules:

Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions.
Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say –
to reach his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument
must be consistent with everything the arguer says.
Be charitable.
Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a
plausible way of interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2)
makes the argument as good an argument as it can be.

Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated

arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
3.6.2 Standardizing
To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called
Standardizing.

Standardizing consists of restating an argument in

standard logical form when each step in the argument
is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above
the conclusions they are claimed to support, and
justifications are provided for each conclusion
in the argument.
3.6.2 Standardizing
Standardizing involves five (5) basic steps:
1. Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main
conclusion (it may be only implied) and any major premises
and sub-conclusions. Paraphrase as needed to clarify
meaning
2. Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.
3. Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct
logical order (i.e., with the premises placed above the
conclusions they are intended to support).
4. Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).
5. Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In
other words, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion,
indicate in parentheses from which previous lines in the
argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed to
directly follow.
3.6.2 Standardizing - Example
We can see something only after it has happened. Future events,
however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems
to imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s
logically impossible.
The argument is lacking
a main conclusion.

Standardizing:
1. We can see something only after it has happened.
2. Future events have not yet happened.
3. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not
happened (from 1-2)
4. It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to
have happened.
5. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]
(From 3-4)
Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 188-189.
(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)
3.6.2 Standardizing: Common Mistakes to Avoid

Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid):

1. Don’t write in incomplete sentences.

2. Don’t include more than one statement per
line.
3. Don’t include anything that is not a statement.
4. Don’t include anything that is not a premise or
a conclusion.

Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 192-193.

(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)
Assumptions
Assumption is a reason taken for granted but not stated in the
argument-something which is implicit rather than explicit.
It is considered as the belief of a person. It is either true or false.
Presupposition is another term for assumption.
Two Functions of Assumption
 Gives support to the basic reasons presented in the
argument.
 Fill the gap within the argument either as an additional
reason, a missing link between the reasons and conclusion.
 Additional reason which must be added to the stated reason
in order for the conclusion to be established or perhaps as an
intermediate conclusion to support the main conclusion.
Example 1

One third of the population still smokes. Everyone must

know that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease.
So, knowing the dangers of smoking is not sufficient to stop
people from smoking.
Assumption for reason 1 is either a generally accepted
fact, backed up by reliable statistics.
Assumption for reason 2 claimed that everyone must
know .. suggest that there is an underlying reason for
expecting people to be well-informed on this topic, and
the obvious candidate is that there has been widespread
publicity on the dangers of health of smoking-on the
television, in newspaper and posters.
Example 2
If cigarrete advertizing is banned, cigarrete manufacturers
will save the money they would otherwise have spent on
advertising. Thus, in order to compete with each other, they
will reduce the price of cigarrettes. So, banning the
cigarrette advertising will be likely to lead to an increase in
smoking.
If cigarette were cheaper, smokers would smoke more.
Or
If cigarettes were cheaper, more people would smoke.
Exercise
1 When people live in a house for a long period of time, they develop a strong commitment
to the local neighborhood. So the continued fall in house prices may have a beneficial
effect. The middle classes will become enthusiastic campaigner for better school, and
against vandalism, traffic congestion and noisy neighbors.
2 If money has been stolen, someone must have disabled the alarm system, because the
alarm easily wakes me f it goes off. So culprit must be a member of the security firm which
installed the alarm.
3 The campaign to eradicate measles has been so successful that many doctors have
never seen an actual case. Ironically, this puts those few people who do contract the
disease in greater danger than they would have been before. The disease can cause
serious complications, and it is difficult to diagnose without previous experience because
the symptoms are similar to those of several other diseases.
4 Human beings have the power either to preserve or to destroy wild plant species. Most
of the wonder rugs of the past fifty years have come wild plants. If those plants had not
existed, medicine could not have progressed as it has, and many human lives would have
been lost. It is therefore important for the future of medicine that we should preserve wild
species.
Answer
The continued fall in house prices is likely to lead to the
typical middle class home owner occupying a house for a
long period of time.
Assumption 1- The alarm did not wake me
Assumption 2 – The alarm did not go off
Assumption 3 – Only member of the security firm which
installed the alarm could have disabled it.
The complications caused by measles can be treted (with
some succes) if measles is diognosed.
The development of wonder drugs from wild plants is likely
to continue in the future.
 Summary
5. Deduction and Deductive arguments are arguments in which the
Induction conclusion is claimed or intended to follow
necessarily from the premises.
Inductive arguments are arguments in which the
conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably
from the premises.
2. Analyzing To analyze an argument means to break it up into
Arguments various parts to see clearly what conclusion is being
defended and on what grounds.
Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze
relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in
length or shorter).
Standardizing is a method used to analyze longer
arguments, which involves paraphrasing and finding
missing premises and conclusions.
References
Books
Chapter 3 (Deduction & Induction) & 7 (Analyzing Arguments): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace,
Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007

Online Resources
@ Zaid Ali Alsagoff, PPT What is argument?
Climate Crisis: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Global Warming: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

Graphics
George Bush (under water): http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg
Global Warming (sun and earth): http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-2.jpg
Global Warming (factories): http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/Desktop-6.jpg
The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-4.gif
P. Ramlee: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Ramlee.jpg
Big burger: http://grec-frites.typepad.com/stock/images/booker_eating_big_burger.jpg