Scribd
Upload
188 views

Paraphrasing Arguments

The document discusses paraphrasing arguments. It states that paraphrasing involves setting out an argument's propositions in clear language and logical order to understand it fully. This requires reformulating the argument's sentences carefully while capturing the argument correctly. The document provides an example of a complex argument presented in ordinary language and its standard logical form after paraphrasing. It also discusses identifying an argument's premises and conclusion and removing any extraneous information.

Uploaded by

Krishna Dembla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
188 views

Paraphrasing Arguments

The document discusses paraphrasing arguments. It states that paraphrasing involves setting out an argument's propositions in clear language and logical order to understand it fully. This requires reformulating the argument's sentences carefully while capturing the argument correctly. The document provides an example of a complex argument presented in ordinary language and its standard logical form after paraphrasing. It also discusses identifying an argument's premises and conclusion and removing any extraneous information.

Uploaded by

Krishna Dembla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 14

PARAPHRASING

ARGUMENTS Prof. Peter Akbar


 Arguments in everyday life are often more complex—more tangled and less.

 Premises may be numerous and in topsy-turvy order; they may be formulated


awkwardly, and they may be repeated using different words; even the meaning
of premises may be unclear.
 To sort out the connections of premises and conclusions so as to evaluate an
argument fairly, we need some analytical techniques.
 The most common, and perhaps the most useful, technique for analysis is
paraphrase .
 We paraphrase an argument by setting forth its propositions in clear language
and in logical order.
 This may require the reformulation of sentences, and therefore great care must
be taken to ensure that the paraphrase put forward captures correctly and
completely the argument that was to be analyzed.
PARAPHRASING ARGUMENTS
Assuming an argument is being made Paraphrasing
an argument:
 what exactly is its author claiming – using what
identifying all its
reasoning? different parts, then
 Answering these questions is like getting to grips with spelling these out
a complicated piece of machinery. clearly in a standard
form that allows us
 We need to be able to take something apart and identify to see exactly how
its different components if we want to fully understand they work
it.
 This is known as paraphrasing an argument.
 The conclusion is set out clearly at the bottom.
 The reasoning leading to the conclusion is set out clearly above it in the form
of numbered premises.
Often, we encounter arguments in everyday life as a jumble of propositions, rather than a neatly
structured sequence of premises followed by a conclusion.
Below is an example of a more complex argument, set out in ordinary language first and then in
standard form:

If I don’t know how to tell apart different types of variables, I will definitely fail my statistics exam.
Unfortunately, I don’t even really know what a variable is, let alone how to tell different types apart. I
am doomed to fail my exam!

Premise 1: Knowing how to tell apart different variables is essential to passing my statistics exam.
Premise 2: I do not know how to tell apart different types of variables.

Conclusion: I will fail my statistics exam.


EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL
 Once we have accepted the premise that ‘knowing how to tell
apart different variables is essential to passing my exam’, the
only relevant information for the purposes of this argument
becomes whether or not I can tell variables apart. Extraneous material:
information that is not
 If I cannot tell them apart, I will fail – which is the conclusion relevant to the argument and
should be left out as we
that the argument is seeking to justify.
carefully clarify each premise
and conclusion by rewriting
 The information ‘unfortunately, I don’t even really know what
them.
a variable is…’ is extraneous to the argument, so I should
leave it out of my reconstruction.
The following passage, whose premises are confusingly intertwined, was part of the majority decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court when, in 2003, it struck down as unconstitutional a Texas statute that had made it a
crime for persons of the same sex to engage in certain forms of intimate sexual conduct. Justice Anthony
Kennedy, writing for the majority, said this:

The [present] case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each
other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual life style. The petitioners
are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or
control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to
liberty under the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution] gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of
the government. It is a premise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal
liberty which the government may not enter. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate
state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the
individual.
Although the general thrust of this decision is clear, the structure of the argument, which is really a complex
of distinct arguments, is not. We can clarify the whole by paraphrasing the decision of the Court as follows:

1. The Constitution of the United States guarantees a realm of personal liberty that
includes the private, consensual sexual activity of adults.
2. The conduct of these petitioners was within that realm of liberty and they therefore
had a full right, under the Constitution, to engage in the sexual conduct in question
without government intervention.
3. The Texas statute intrudes, without justifi cation, into the private lives of these
petitioners, and demeans them, by making their protected, private sexual conduct a
crime.
4. The Texas statute that criminalizes such conduct therefore wrongly denies the rights
of these petitioners and must be struck down as unconstitutional.
 In this case the paraphrase does no more than set forth clearly what the
premises indubitably assert.
 Sometimes, however, paraphrasing can bring to the surface what was assumed
in an argument but was not fully or clearly stated.
The great English mathematician, G. H. Hardy, in A Mathematician’s Apology
(Cambridge University Press, 1940), argued thus:
“Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten, because languages die and
mathematical ideas do not.”

paraphrase this argument by spelling out its claims:


1. Languages die.
2. The plays of Aeschylus are written in a language.
3. So the work of Aeschylus will eventually die.
4. Mathematical ideas never die.
5. The work of Archimedes was with mathematical ideas.
6. So the work of Archimedes will never die.
7. Therefore Archimedes will be remembered when Aeschylus is forgotten.
This paraphrase enables us to distinguish and examine the premises and inferences
compressed into Hardy’s single sentence.
WORK ON THIS
Hundreds of thousands of recent college graduates today cannot express themselves with the
written word. Why? Because universities have shortchanged them, offering strange literary
theories, Marxism, feminism, deconstruction, and other oddities in the guise of writing courses.
—Stanley Ridgeley, “College Students Can’t Write?”
National Review Online , 19 February 2003

 Premise: Universities have commonly been offering strange literary theories and assorted
oddities, in place of the writing courses that ought to have been offered. Students have been
shortchanged.
 Conclusion: Vast numbers of students cannot express themselves well in writing.
WORK ON THIS
Racially diverse nations tend to have lower levels of social support than homogenous ones.
People don’t feel as bound together when they are divided on ethnic lines and are less likely to
embrace mutual support programs. You can have diversity or a big welfare state. It’s hard to
have both.
—David Brooks (presenting the views of Seymour Lipset), “The American
Way of Equality,” The New York Times , 14 January 2007

 Premise: People divided on ethnic lines tend not to adopt programs that will give mutual
support.
 Conclusion (and premise of the following argument): Therefore nations that are racially
diverse tend to have lower levels of social support than nations that are racially homogenous.
 Conclusion: A welfare state with a racially diverse population is in tension, and the more
racially diverse a community is, the more difficult it is to maintain comprehensive welfare
programs.
 The New York Times reported, on 30 May 2000, that some scientists were seeking a way to
signal back in time. A critical reader responded thus:

It seems obvious to me that scientists in the future will never find a way to signal back in time. If they
were to do so, wouldn’t we have heard from them by now?
—Ken Grunstra, “Reaching Back in Time,”
The New York Times , 6 June 2000

 Premise: If future scientists find a way to signal back in time, their signals would already have
reached us.
 Premise: No such signals have ever reached us.
 Conclusion: Future scientists never will find a way to signal back in time.

You might also like