Lessons in Argument

Philosophy: Thinking in Slow Motion

What is an argument? What has to present in order for something to be an argument?

(1) OPEN QUESTION (or the ability to be wrong) (2)PREMISES THAT SUPPORT A (3)CONCLUSION

Two definitions offered (by in class clip) for an argument:

1. “… a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.”
2. “… an intellectual process.”

Evaluating an argument begins with Paraphrasing: Paraphrasing is restating and possibly reorganize the argument in prose form, using simpler language, true to your own voice, NO QUOTES, that is consistent with the author’s intent, but is shorter than the original argument.

You will need to paraphrase for your Case Studies as the first step. Start by identifying the conclusion and major premises. Keep it clear and keep it simple. What’s really important is not leaving anything important out. 

PARAPHRASING IS NOT SUMMARIZING

Schematizing an argument is to lay out the premises and conclusion in a standardized form. In schematizations, one presents the logical flow of ideas leading to a conclusion. Each premise must contain a complete thought: each must assert something to be evaluated for acceptability or relevance.

Schematizing helps with paraphrasing, which will be some of the easiest points on the Case Study.

 

Criteria of a Good Schematization:

1. all major premises are identified
2. conclusion is identified
3. missing premises and/or conclusion are provided where logically justified & consistent with author’s intent
4. all premises and conclusion contain a complete thought (subject – object –verb)
5. premises are arranged in logical order with sub-arguments identified
6. language in argument is simplified & shortened – eliminating purely rhetorical passages & non-arguments 1 7. Principle of Charity in evidence.

See handout for how to do this. (link at bottom)

Fallacies: The more thoroughly you understand fallacies, the better you will be at creating arguments or better yet, poking holes in someone else’s.

• False Dilemma – Not all the logical possibilities are considered
• Mere Assertion/ Simple contradiction– Fails to offer evidence/support
• Argumentum ad Hominem/Against the Person – Fallacy of irrelevance – one must separate the arguer from the argument. Not the same as appeal to authority when one’s expertise is relevant to the consideration of evidence.
• Argumentum ad Populum/Appeal to Popularity – Just because “everyone” or, even the majority of people agrees with a certain proposition it does not necessarily make the proposition acceptable.
• Appeal to force – Fallacy of irrelevance – just because someone is stronger or threatening, it does not follow that they are correct.
• Begging the Question – Not the same as “Raising the Question” – this form of fallacy fails to address the question at hand and assumes that which is to be proven as true, usually by asserting the conclusion into the premises –it is a form of circular reasoning. (OFTEN MISUSED BY POP CULTURE AND LANGUAGE, BEWARE.)
• Slippery Slope – Appears like a hypothetical syllogism but in this case the antecedents “if x” do not always lead inevitably to the consequents, “then y.” A classic case of this is holding marijuana as a “gateway drug” which leads always to usage of hard drugs such as cocaine.
• Straw Man – This fallacy occurs at the early stages of paraphrasing or schematizing. In this case one mischaracterizes one’s opponent’s argument in a way that makes it easy to dismiss.

 

The ARG Method: Evaluating Arguments

A: Is each individual premise acceptable? The term “acceptable” functions like the term “true” in ordinary discourse. This means generally, that you have good reason to think that the premise is true and no good reason to doubt it, not that is in fact true.

R: Each premise must be relevant to the overall argument and support the conclusion. Relevance is not always obvious. Subpremises may include no reference to the conclusion but support the main premise which does directly relate to the conclusion.

G: Once you have tested for acceptability and relevance, now you need to consider whether enough evidence has been provided to support the conclusion. This is called “Grounds.” Are there any missing pieces of information that you can imagine would sway your judgment? Is there a critical fallacy in the argument structure?

 

 

Click to access Intro_-Schematizing_Arg.%5B1%5D.pdf