Chapter 3
Making Sense of Arguments
Argument
Definition : Argument is a group of statements
in which some of them (the premises) are
intended to support another of them (the
conclusion).
An essential skill
◦ Ability to identify arguments in real life contexts
◦ Distinguish them from non arguments
Identify premises and conclusion
Indicator words signal presence of premises,
e.g. “because”, “since” etc. and conclusion e.g.
there fore and thus
Argument basics
The point for devising an argument is to show
an argument is to show a statement , claim and
argument is worthy of acceptance
The point of evaluating an argument is to see
whether the argument shows that the statement
(the conclusion) really is worthy of acceptance
and when it does it is a considered as a good
argument else a bad argument.
Different ways an argument can be good or bad
as there are different types of an argument
Types of Argument
A deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive
support for its conclusion.
A deductively valid argument simply has the kind of logical structure
that guarantees’ the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
◦ Provides decisive logical support to be valid
◦ A deductive valid argument such that if premises is true then conclusion must
also be true
◦ "Logical structure“ here refers to the construction of arguments (the way
premises and conclusion fit together ) and not to the content of the argument
The kind of support that a deductive argument can give a conclusion is
absolute. Either the conclusion is shown to be true, or it is not
Example (Deductively valid argument)
All dogs have fleas, Bowser is a dog, So Bowser has fleas.
Example (Deductively invalid argument)
All dogs are mammals, All cows are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are
cows.
Types of Argument
An inductive argument is intended to provide probable-not conclusive
support for its conclusion.
Strong inductive argument that provides probable but not conclusive
logical support for the conclusion/An inductively strong argument is such
that if its premises are true, its conclusion is probably or likely to be true.
Weak inductive argument fails to provide probable logical support for
conclusion
Inductive arguments are not truth-preserving/ truth of premises does not
guarantee truth of conclusion.
The support that an inductive argument can provide a conclusion,
however, can vary from weak to extremely strong.
Both deductive and inductive arguments can be manipulated in various
ways to yield new insights
Examples of deductively strong arguments. Most dogs have fleas.
Therefore, Bowser, my dog, probably has fleas.
Ninety-eight percent of humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore,
Socrates is likely to be mortal.
Types of Argument
A deductively valid argument that has true
premises is said to be sound. A sound
argument is a good argument, which gives
you good reasons for accepting its
conclusion.
When inductively strong arguments have true
premises, they are said to be cogent. Good
inductive arguments are cogent. Bad
inductive arguments are not cogent.
Types of Argument
A good argument has
◦ proper structure
◦ true premises
◦ Example :All dogs can fly. Snoopy is a dog.
Therefore, dogs can fly.
deductively valid arguments can have false
premises and a false conclusion, false
premises and a true conclusion, and true
premises and a true conclusion. A valid
argument, though, cannot have true premises
and a false conclusion-that's impossible.
Judging an Argument
Most important skills you can acquire are being able to identify them(deductive or
inductive) and determining whether they are good or bad.
Step 1. Find the argument's conclusion and then its premises.
Step 2.The case that if the premises are true the conclusion must be true? If the
answer is yes, treat the argument as deductive, for it is very likely meant to offer
conclusive support for its conclusion. The argument, then, is deductively valid,
and you should check to see if it's sound. If the answer is no, proceed to the next
step.
Step 3. Ask: Is it the case that if the premises are true, its conclusion is probably
true? If the answer is yes, treat the argument as inductive, for it is very likely
meant to offer probable support for its conclusion. The argument, then, is
inductively strong, and you should check to see if it's cogent. If the answer is no,
proceed to the next step.
Step 4. Ask: Is the argument intended to offer conclusive or probable support for
its conclusion but fails to do so? If you reach this step, you will have already
eliminated two possibilities: a valid argument and a strong one. The remaining
options are an invalid argument or a weak one. So here you must discover what
type of (failed) argument is intended. These two guidelines can help you do that:
Guidelines
GUIDELINE 1: Generally if an argument looks
deductive or inductive because of its form,
assume that it is intended to be so.
GUIDELINE 2: Generally if an argument looks
deductive or inductive because of indicator
words (and its form yields no clues), assume
that it is intended to be so.
Examples
Unless we do something about the massive
AIDS epidemic in Africa, the whole continent
will be decimated within six months.
Unfortunately we won't do anything about the
AIDS epidemic in Africa. It necessarily follows
that the whole of Africa will be decimated
within six months.
Finding Missing Parts
arguments not only are faulty but also have a few pieces missing.
Premises {and sometimes even conclusions)-material needed to
make the argument work-are often left unstated.
These implicit premises, or assumptions, are essential to the
argument.
certain assumptions are frequently left unsaid for good reason:
They are obvious and understood by all parties to the argument
and boredom would set in fast if you actually tried to mention them
all.
Such implicit premises should never be taken for granted because,
among other things, they are often deliberately hidden or
downplayed to make the argument seem stronger.
Example: Anyone who craves political power cannot be trusted to
serve the public interest. Senator Blowhard can't be trusted to serve
the public interest.
Argument patterns
Since argument forms are structures distinct from
argument content, we can easily signify different
forms by using letters to represent statements in the
arguments.
If the job /:s worth doing, then it's worth doing
well(compound statement). The job is worth doing.
Therefore, it's worth doing well.
If p, t/len q.
p.
Therefore, q.
The premises may be true or false, but the form will be
valid.
Argument patterns
deductive and conditional
◦ Conditional , contain at least one conditional, or if-
then, premise.
◦ The first statement in a conditional premise (the if
part) is known as the antecedent.
◦ The second statement (the then part) is known as
the consequent.
◦ The conditional pattern shown here is called
affirming the antecedent or, to use the Latin term,
modus ponens.
Argument patterns
denying the consequent, or modus tollens:
◦ If Austin is happy, then Barb is happy.Barb is not
happy. Therefore, Austill is not happy.
if p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p.
Like modus ponens, modus tollens is always
valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true. So any argument that's in the
modus tollens pattern is valid.
Argument patterns
hypothetical syllogism.
◦ Hypothetical" is just another term for conditional.
◦ A syllogism is a deductive argument made up of
three statements-two premises and a conclusion
◦ In a hypothetical syllogism, all three statements are
conditional, and the argument is always valid
◦ If the ball drops, the lever turns to the right. If the
lever turns to the right, the engine will stop.
Therefore, !f the ball drops, the engine will stop.
If p, then q. If q, then r.Therefore, if p,
then r.
Argument patterns
There are two common conditional argument
forms that are not valid, though they strongly
resemble valid forms.
denying the antecedent
Example If Einstein invented the steam engine,
then he's a great scientist. Einstein did not invent
the steam engine. Therefore, he is not a great
scientist.
If p, then q.
Not p.
Therefore, not q.
Argument patterns
affirming the consequent
◦ If buffalo is the capital of New York, then Buffalo is
in New York. Buffalo is in New York. Therefore,
Buffalo is the capital of New York.
◦ If p, then q.
q.
Therefore, p.
Obviously, in this form it's possible for the
premises to be true while the conclusion is
false, as this example shows. This pattern,
therefore, is invalid.
Argument patterns
Finally, common non-conditional argument form
called disjunctive syllogism. It's valid and
extremely simple:
Either Ralph walked the dog, or he stayed home.
He didn't walk the dog. Therefore he stayed
home.
Either p or q.
Not p.
Therefore, q.
Disjunctive syllogism, either disjunct can be
denied, not just the first one
